5 ms·

I repeatedly see a cynicism around art on HN and other tech blogs, does no-one here see the inherent value in art or culture? Jackson Pollock's art pieces get

I repeatedly see a cynicism around art on HN and other tech blogs, does no-one here see the inherent value in art or culture? Jackson Pollock's art pieces get a lot of flack for basically having no publicly presented interpretive structure, the artist came up with a technique for doing 'plastic depth' that was a novel innovation. Irvine Kershner who directed Empire Strikes Back and met Pollock made fun of him at the time for his work appearing to be off the rails, and later came to appreciate it. Taking out the market manipulation of fine art still leaves it with an intrinsic value whether it is technique or the meaning imbued in having a piece of work produced by an artist. Is that worth millions? Who knows, if I give you any old guitar, and a guitar that Elvis played on I know the second will be valued higher.

avs733 7y ago
My read on this has always been that most of the negative commentary around 'art' falls into one of two categories. Neither of which is utterly dismissive of the value of art and/or culture. However, I'm not sure they are made all that explicitly. 1) Criticism of the art industry and it's role in the commoditization and market making you mention around art. That isn't criticism of art or it's value...it's criticism that such value is often interfered with for, among other things, money laundering. 2) Criticism of specific pieces of art that an individual doesn't 'get' (and by golly I fall into this trap). By get, it really is about they don't see the artistic or cultural value of that piece but typically is done in reference, which implies that they do see some art as having value.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  I empathize with the 2nd category in particular, there are many attempts at creating an interpretive structure for art that doesn't hit the mark so someone not getting it is half or more caused by the presenting artist. Criticism of the industry is self evidently fair.
- rjzzleep 7y ago
  Here's a 20 minute art discussion about the intricacies of the Banana taped on the wall. So yeah count me in on the second group. https://news.artnet.com/the-art-angle/art-angle-podcast-banana-1742772 https://news.artnet.com/the-art-angle/art-angle-podcast-bana...
  - labster 7y ago
    Not gonna bother with yet another unedited podcast. But I get the banana. The title of the piece is "Comedian", and I'm an amateur comedian. Part of it is that when you make a joke, you have to throw it at the wall to see what sticks. And as for art, sometimes the joke's on you.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    Without listening to this podcast, I must say I loved everything about the banana: the piece, the context, the actual banana and tape (which somehow managed be even worse than expected), but most of all the slew of criticism, which, if you ask me, is what really makes this piece. It's been a while since I've heard this many people everywhere discuss art, its boundaries, and try to define it. For that alone, I would say it's the most successful work of art in a long time.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      I think most people don’t like “statement” art because they inherently understand that it’s much easier to be outrageous than it is to create something of enduring beauty.
      - vasco 7y ago
        What the chain of comments you're replying to is arguing is that art is more than just something that follows some (your) definition of beauty.
masonic 7y ago
I appreciated Pollock more after I saw a film of his process in action.
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
I'm interested in art and culture. Here's my favourite piece of art of all time, the Artemission bronze: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemision_Bronze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemision_Bronze I guess, if you look at it from the wrong angle it looks just like a dude with his feet planted apart, like he's about to take a shit. But, look closely and you see that he's in full motion. His right leg is twisting behind his body. The heel is raised and the toes are pushing down hard to put the full strength of his body behind the throw. His left leg is pivoting on its heel. The toes are pulled back as he turns his torso. He is leaning back, slightly to add his weight to the power of his muscles. His left hand is extended in front of him, so that he can swing it around like a pendulum, and add momentum to the throw. He is throwing a weapon- and dancing at the same time. This is a bronze statue so it was made to stand on its own two legs, without any props to keep it upright. That is the biggest shock of all. A living, breathing man would keep himself upright in the middle of this whirling move by pulling on his mucles to maintain balance. And yet, here's a lifeless chunk of bronze that has caught this man in the middle of all this pulling and twisting and pushing, and dancing- and it's standing upright, balanced an unfalling. The artists who created this piece must have spent hours upon hours, days upon days, studying the human form. They must have sat at the palaistra (the public gym) observing the young men of Athens competing in javelin-throwing for ages. Until they learned how the human body comes together, how it moves, how it balances itself; how it _works_. Then they went off and transferred this knowledge into bronze. And now, thousands of years later, any human can look at the bronze and see what they learned. This is what makes humans, human. To be able to look at the world and know, and learn, and then put this knowledge into a form that can reach through time and speak to other humans, and communicate this knowledge. To touch another human's heart and mind through time and space, even after you're long gone. To leave something behind that says "I lived, I learned, I created". So, yeah, I see the value in art. But modern art, like Jackson Pollock, that's a steaming hot pile of shit that means nothing. There is no skill in it. There is no knowledge. No study. No insight. There is no thought or emotion. There is just the cold hard glint of gold in the eye of the so-called artist and those who sell his garbage on as art to people who only understand the value of money, and have no other value in life than money.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
What? I love art and it's priceless to society. With that said high art selling for exorbitant prices can still be a swindle.
meowface 7y ago
I saw Pollock's drip work in a gallery for the first time a few days ago, and it's the first and only art that really resonated with me. It looks like how a lot of music I enjoy sounds, if that makes sense. It's baffling to me that someone could think his work is just random noise. (A lot of other abstract art in the same gallery, some clearly inspired by his, seemed much closer to that.) Forgeries can be programmatically identified because authentic Pollock drip paintings contain ratios and fractal patterns often found in nature: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/pollocks-fractals https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/pollocks-fract.... (It's likely he wasn't trying to do anything like that intentionally; he just intuitively made what he felt would look good.)
haecceity 7y ago
I see the inherent value. But its market value not so much.

avs733 7y ago

My read on this has always been that most of the negative commentary around 'art' falls into one of two categories. Neither of which is utterly dismissive of the value of art and/or culture. However, I'm not sure they are made all that explicitly. 1) Criticism of the art industry and it's role in the commoditization and market making you mention around art. That isn't criticism of art or it's value...it's criticism that such value is often interfered with for, among other things, money laundering. 2) Criticism of specific pieces of art that an individual doesn't 'get' (and by golly I fall into this trap). By get, it really is about they don't see the artistic or cultural value of that piece but typically is done in reference, which implies that they do see some art as having value.

friendlybus 7y ago
I empathize with the 2nd category in particular, there are many attempts at creating an interpretive structure for art that doesn't hit the mark so someone not getting it is half or more caused by the presenting artist. Criticism of the industry is self evidently fair.
rjzzleep 7y ago
Here's a 20 minute art discussion about the intricacies of the Banana taped on the wall. So yeah count me in on the second group. https://news.artnet.com/the-art-angle/art-angle-podcast-banana-1742772 https://news.artnet.com/the-art-angle/art-angle-podcast-bana...
- labster 7y ago
  Not gonna bother with yet another unedited podcast. But I get the banana. The title of the piece is "Comedian", and I'm an amateur comedian. Part of it is that when you make a joke, you have to throw it at the wall to see what sticks. And as for art, sometimes the joke's on you.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  Without listening to this podcast, I must say I loved everything about the banana: the piece, the context, the actual banana and tape (which somehow managed be even worse than expected), but most of all the slew of criticism, which, if you ask me, is what really makes this piece. It's been a while since I've heard this many people everywhere discuss art, its boundaries, and try to define it. For that alone, I would say it's the most successful work of art in a long time.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    I think most people don’t like “statement” art because they inherently understand that it’s much easier to be outrageous than it is to create something of enduring beauty.
    - vasco 7y ago
      What the chain of comments you're replying to is arguing is that art is more than just something that follows some (your) definition of beauty.

masonic 7y ago

I appreciated Pollock more after I saw a film of his process in action.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

I'm interested in art and culture. Here's my favourite piece of art of all time, the Artemission bronze: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemision_Bronze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemision_Bronze I guess, if you look at it from the wrong angle it looks just like a dude with his feet planted apart, like he's about to take a shit. But, look closely and you see that he's in full motion. His right leg is twisting behind his body. The heel is raised and the toes are pushing down hard to put the full strength of his body behind the throw. His left leg is pivoting on its heel. The toes are pulled back as he turns his torso. He is leaning back, slightly to add his weight to the power of his muscles. His left hand is extended in front of him, so that he can swing it around like a pendulum, and add momentum to the throw. He is throwing a weapon- and dancing at the same time. This is a bronze statue so it was made to stand on its own two legs, without any props to keep it upright. That is the biggest shock of all. A living, breathing man would keep himself upright in the middle of this whirling move by pulling on his mucles to maintain balance. And yet, here's a lifeless chunk of bronze that has caught this man in the middle of all this pulling and twisting and pushing, and dancing- and it's standing upright, balanced an unfalling. The artists who created this piece must have spent hours upon hours, days upon days, studying the human form. They must have sat at the palaistra (the public gym) observing the young men of Athens competing in javelin-throwing for ages. Until they learned how the human body comes together, how it moves, how it balances itself; how it _works_. Then they went off and transferred this knowledge into bronze. And now, thousands of years later, any human can look at the bronze and see what they learned. This is what makes humans, human. To be able to look at the world and know, and learn, and then put this knowledge into a form that can reach through time and speak to other humans, and communicate this knowledge. To touch another human's heart and mind through time and space, even after you're long gone. To leave something behind that says "I lived, I learned, I created". So, yeah, I see the value in art. But modern art, like Jackson Pollock, that's a steaming hot pile of shit that means nothing. There is no skill in it. There is no knowledge. No study. No insight. There is no thought or emotion. There is just the cold hard glint of gold in the eye of the so-called artist and those who sell his garbage on as art to people who only understand the value of money, and have no other value in life than money.

heavenlyblue 7y ago

clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago

What? I love art and it's priceless to society. With that said high art selling for exorbitant prices can still be a swindle.

meowface 7y ago

I saw Pollock's drip work in a gallery for the first time a few days ago, and it's the first and only art that really resonated with me. It looks like how a lot of music I enjoy sounds, if that makes sense. It's baffling to me that someone could think his work is just random noise. (A lot of other abstract art in the same gallery, some clearly inspired by his, seemed much closer to that.) Forgeries can be programmatically identified because authentic Pollock drip paintings contain ratios and fractal patterns often found in nature: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/pollocks-fractals https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/pollocks-fract.... (It's likely he wasn't trying to do anything like that intentionally; he just intuitively made what he felt would look good.)

haecceity 7y ago

I see the inherent value. But its market value not so much.