3 ms·

Modern art rejects the notion that technical difficulty can be used to judge a work (one of the few things I agree with it about) - so why should we care?

by deogeo 7y ago

lonelappde 7y ago
No one said you should care. But you shouldn't dismiss it based on the invalid argument that it is easy to create. There are people (including a Prager propaganda video featuring a jealous painting peofessor) who claim that art like Pollack's isn't art or isn't good because it looks like paint thoughtlessly splattered on a floor or a smock. The point is, it doesn't, and the way it doesn't (chaotic yet balanced multiscale patterns of colors) is interesting.
- dangus 7y ago
  I guess I wonder why people shouldn’t dismiss whatever they don’t find pleasing. The most important part of a painting to the audience is how it looks and how it makes them feel. And to a lot of people Pollock works look lazy, and it makes people feel kind of ripped off, like they paid $25 to get into this museum and they are looking at what looks like pure randomness (even if it’s truly not, even if it truly took massive amounts of talent to create). And inevitably defenders come out and insist that it’s actually groundbreaking and the first of its kind. And inevitably they look like snobs. Pollock paintings are like that rare movie on Rotten Tomatoes that has a 100% critic score and a 10% viewer score. It’s really hard not to side with the viewers. Or maybe Pollock paintings are like a Mitsubishi Mirage. Sure, it took hundreds of engineers great skill and hours to make one, certainly I could never make one, but that doesn’t change the fact that most people consider it a hella shitty car. And I’m sure someone’s out there praising its low price and great fuel economy.
  - beat 7y ago
    People shouldn't dismiss whatever they don't find pleasing. Whether or not you like something is a separate question from whether it's actually good. I mean, I hate eggs, I think they're disgusting. But I don't think they're bad. I don't think people who claim to like them are lying in order to look cool, or that people who offer me eggs are scamming me. In the case of art, I think art has value that is at least somewhat objective. Liking art, on the other hand, is almost purely subjective. But since recognizing the objective value of art requires some study and effort, people generally aren't in a position to judge. So instead, we get this weird leap where "Pollock paintings are simple and stupid"... but that collides with virtually everyone with some education in art saying "No, he was a genius". So do people think "Huh, maybe there's something here I don't understand"? No. Instead, we get "Pollock is bad art, and anyone who thinks it's good is either pretending to be cool or trying to scam us". This is why "dismiss whatever they don't find pleasing" is a bad policy.

Modern art rejects the notion that technical difficulty can be used to judge a work (one of the few things I agree with it about) - so why should we care?

by deogeo 7y ago

Modern art rejects the notion that technical difficulty can be used to judge a work (one of the few things I agree with it about) - so why should we care?

lonelappde 7y ago

No one said you should care. But you shouldn't dismiss it based on the invalid argument that it is easy to create. There are people (including a Prager propaganda video featuring a jealous painting peofessor) who claim that art like Pollack's isn't art or isn't good because it looks like paint thoughtlessly splattered on a floor or a smock. The point is, it doesn't, and the way it doesn't (chaotic yet balanced multiscale patterns of colors) is interesting.

dangus 7y ago
I guess I wonder why people shouldn’t dismiss whatever they don’t find pleasing. The most important part of a painting to the audience is how it looks and how it makes them feel. And to a lot of people Pollock works look lazy, and it makes people feel kind of ripped off, like they paid $25 to get into this museum and they are looking at what looks like pure randomness (even if it’s truly not, even if it truly took massive amounts of talent to create). And inevitably defenders come out and insist that it’s actually groundbreaking and the first of its kind. And inevitably they look like snobs. Pollock paintings are like that rare movie on Rotten Tomatoes that has a 100% critic score and a 10% viewer score. It’s really hard not to side with the viewers. Or maybe Pollock paintings are like a Mitsubishi Mirage. Sure, it took hundreds of engineers great skill and hours to make one, certainly I could never make one, but that doesn’t change the fact that most people consider it a hella shitty car. And I’m sure someone’s out there praising its low price and great fuel economy.
- beat 7y ago
  People shouldn't dismiss whatever they don't find pleasing. Whether or not you like something is a separate question from whether it's actually good. I mean, I hate eggs, I think they're disgusting. But I don't think they're bad. I don't think people who claim to like them are lying in order to look cool, or that people who offer me eggs are scamming me. In the case of art, I think art has value that is at least somewhat objective. Liking art, on the other hand, is almost purely subjective. But since recognizing the objective value of art requires some study and effort, people generally aren't in a position to judge. So instead, we get this weird leap where "Pollock paintings are simple and stupid"... but that collides with virtually everyone with some education in art saying "No, he was a genius". So do people think "Huh, maybe there's something here I don't understand"? No. Instead, we get "Pollock is bad art, and anyone who thinks it's good is either pretending to be cool or trying to scam us". This is why "dismiss whatever they don't find pleasing" is a bad policy.