8 ms·

Oh boy do I resonate with this. Thank you for sharing this! I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on

Oh boy do I resonate with this. Thank you for sharing this! I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist. For years, decades, I cast it aside in my mind as something silly, something artsy, something that wasn't for me. It was ugly, vulgar, and above all, obvious. For years, seeing replica after replica in modern and contemporary art museums, I continued to breeze past the installation, laughing quietly to myself like I knew something these art people didn't. Then I had a similar situation happen. While continually saying "anyone could have done that" and "this isn't art" someone finally said to me "yes it is art, you didn't think of this, and without this, you lack the basis for many other contemporary forms of art." It then started to occur to me that this art was anything but obvious; if I so easily cast this aside as "not art," the simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement, one worth considering within its context. Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression that it was just too much to swallow for years.

martythemaniak 6y ago
The trick is to transport yourself mentally to the time and place where that art was created. This is actually a very hard mental exercise, as art is a sort of "fingerprint" or "hash" of the world it was created in - it includes contemporary thought, politics, science, technology, social attitudes etc. Looking at art from the perspective of a century after it was introduced and its effects have become incorporated into mainstream culture just not that useful.
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  This is a great tip, thank you! I find the best museums and exhibits help you get into this mindset; I'm reminded of an exhibit I saw at the Tate Modern about Picasso in 1932. It provided not only the context to his art, but to him as a person. I was able to better understand how his art was shifting at the time due to the nature of the world around him and his personal relationships. It really allowed me to see the artist through the art and the art in its context. https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/ey-exhibition-picasso-1932-love-fame-tragedy https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/ey-e... I hope that I can take this idea to domains outside of art as well; considering the context of everything we encounter is important for a better understanding of our shared world.
- the_af 6y ago
  What if, after transporting yourself mentally to the time and place, you still consider it artless or worthless? Is this an opinion that one is still allowed to hold, or would it be a faux pas? I mean, I can look at art created thousands of years before "Fountain" and appreciate it, but still consider Fountain snobbery, can't I?
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Art is just human expression or communication. A lot of the "lazy" art is seeing with how much you can get away and how little meat there is to the word "art". For centuries artists have tried their best to create the most beautiful artworks possible. This lead to an association of beauty with art. Art must be beautiful. You challenge this idea by making something that is not beautiful but people will still consider as art.
    - the_af 6y ago
      I realize this is spread across multiple comments of mine now, but I specifically said I acknowledge art and beauty are not required to go hand in hand. I acknowledge some pieces of art challenge established boundaries, and some are grotesque or purposefully repulsive. I just dislike Fountain and similar "found objects" and consider them artless. Otherwise, if everything is art as long as someone tells me it must be so, the concept of "art" becomes meaningless to me.
ssully 6y ago
I feel like it occupying space in your mind for years, even if only for a few minutes at a time, gives credence to it's value as art.
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
All you’re saying is that you eventually love anything that’s forced in front of your face enough times no matter how objectively bad it is. In other words, you’re a moron.
the_af 6y ago
> I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist I totally, completely agree with your point and with the parent post ("I could have created this", "but you didn't"), but... ...you can still, after all of this, conclude that the piece of art is snobbish, artless garbage. In fact I reserve the right to do so. I agree with your premise and still think "Fountain" is worthless as art. I could indeed have done this -- and yes, I see the irony, "but you didn't" -- and didn't because I didn't think it's the kind of art I want to make or celebrate. It's Duchamp's right to create it but I'm not a mean or ignorant person if I dislike it or consider it snobbish and not worth my time (or even "not art"). I don't know if Fountain is or isn't art. I "know" it's worthless to me. This is a discussion we must still be able to have, otherwise we can't say anything about artistic endeavors unless it's positive...
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  I agree, and did not mean to imply judgement against anyone who dislikes "Fountain" and other, similar pieces of art. I don't even know how I truly feel about "Fountain" either; all I know is that it is quite thought provoking for me and has taught me a lot about how I think about and digest the world. To me, even if the art is ugly and snobbish, it still has merit if it helps us better explore our world. The art piece's mere existence allows us to have this conversation about the relative merits of different forms of art, which I believe to be meritorious in and of itself. I think this has led us to an interesting, if for now rhetorical question: what is art for? Well, at least I'll have something to think about for the rest of the day :)
  - the_af 6y ago
    Thanks for taking this the right way :) It's definitely a conversation worth having. There are plenty of things I consider art that other people despise.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- 6y ago
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> the simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement, one worth considering within its context. Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression Well done. You finally swallowed the bullshit.
mc32 6y ago
I believe the original was disposed of and only a photograph of it remains. All the physical versions would be replicas.
ajzinsbwbs 6y ago
For some of these pieces, I feel like the hard part is going to art school, obtaining notoriety, etc. The art is part of a larger endeavor in which I haven’t invested the necessary work, or experienced the luck to have it pay off. When I see a piece where “I could do that”, part of what I’m feeling is that nobody would care if I did it. From my perspective, it seems like the artist is cashing in on some status they obtained. It makes me think the artist must be really charming at cocktail parties. I’m more interested in art that pushes the boundaries of what a mind can conceive, rather than pushing the boundaries of how little an artist can expend and still have their output celebrated.
- itronitron 6y ago
  Some writers become comedians and are famous for their one-liners.
  - justincredible 6y ago
    How much effort goes into creating a one-liner?
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
So my post was downvoted and flagged. And without any reply, ok, here's why I said you'd swallowed the bullshit. > the simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement, A statement of what? Why is it profound? > one worth considering within its context. Why is it worth considering? Why is it worth doing so within its context? Its context is its siting within an art gallery, so does the re-siting it into an art gallery de-facto make it art? If so that's a pathetically shallow achievement. > Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression What effing perspective? What context particularly? What expression - what does 'expression' even mean here? This trademark nebulousity characterises self indulgent bullshit that props up 'art' and the people who 'consume'[0] art. (not knocking art, far from it, but lack of rigorous thinking is dangerous. Think for yourself, don't let others do it for you). [0] Damn, I hate that word.
- bondarchuk 6y ago
  I would like to know why some people get so extremely angry about something being in a museum that they don't think should be in a museum.
  - odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
    Maybe because in many cases (not saying this one as I don't know the details) it is because it costs people in taxes to keep these museums/pay the artists and also it is also very much linked to favours/connections (there is a word but I am missing it, opposite of meritocracy) for these artists? If I signed a urinal on the cafe I am now, I would be label a vandal, but if some 'important' person does it, it has meaning and perspective? I never went to a modern art gallery since maybe 15 years ago when tax-funded museum displayed a piece of art that was just an old piece of bread in the floor. No-one at the floor when I visited 'understood' it and found it the tacky and just self masturbation by the 'artist'. My tax money paid for that idiot to put a piece of bread on the floor and call it art, and through connections (which are more important in the art/movie/music world than people realised) I paid to have someone put a piece of fucking bread on the floor. Yes, after 15 years I am still angry because my tax-euros still go for this shitty things that are justifiable as 'art'
kansface 6y ago
> Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression that it was just too much to swallow for years. I dunno. The aesthetics of contemporary art place no value on skill or craft. Minus the idea, anyone really could have created this piece. That's the point... or anything and everything is art, or quality doesn't matter so nothing is good or bad or better or worse, or art doesn't live in some sacred realm (we would be pissing on it in any other context), or "interesting!?" as a principal aesthetic... So sure, we can recognize (works of post modernism) both as art and culturally significant/important, but at the same time, they tend to be profoundly un-engaging. They are more fun to talk about than to experience in person which is deeply weird for the visual arts! They may as well be a post on /r/hmmm/ because "hmmm" is all they are really going for. "look at me, I'm a urinal, but I'm still art!". hmmm... * Fountain is technically Dada and dates to 1917
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
You replied to my ragepost with one that said "I'm very confused as to why my most post caused a response loaded with so much anger." Seems you then deleted it. Well, here's my response, without the context of your post - I wish you had left it. Anyway. ---- A reasonable response. Let me try... I don't like sloppy thinking. You've responded in one useful way but in another, you quite blatantly haven't answered what were entirely solid questions I put to you - acknowledged? Sloppy thinking about art promulgates sloppy art. While dividing good from indifferent from bad art is not something I can do formally (but we as a society should try if art means anything), there is a real underlying value to art. Beauty is part of that (IMO/IME). Talking up shite art necessarily smears good art because they fit under the same label ("art"). At school we were introduced to art, and in retrospect what baffled me then was simply that we were being told utter shit and expected to osmose it then spout it back. I understood that much later as an adult. A social pressure was put upon me to conform by not thinking about what I'd been told. Not thinking is not an option, we have to. > but nothing I said forces anyone to do anything Yes it does. Pressure was put on you and you caved. You're now repeating the same stuff, which puts pressure on others. > I also don't think I'm saying anything novel or directly challenging; Yes you were. You were making a load of claims (read again what you wrote). None of it made sense to me. That was novel and challenging, if it meant anything at all. I just don't think it did. > without name calling I didn't name call but sure I said some strong stuff - feel free to refute it. The questions remain unanswered. Until they are I stand by my calling it self indulgent. I did not call you a moron. > What do we gain by this attack? You perhaps reconsider what you're saying ("...I continued to breeze past the installation, laughing quietly to myself like I knew something these art people didn't" - and perhaps exactly that, you actually did) or perhaps you explain what that word salad means, and I learn something good and useful. > It doesn't matter if you and I agree or disagree It's not about agree or disagree, I'm fine with either, I can learn from either, it's about writing stuff that AFAICS means literally nothing in itself. Sloppy thinking gets people killed. That's why I get upset.
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  I deleted my replies to you because I didn't think they added anything to the conversation, and did not raise the level of discussion. I do, however, feel that I now need to point something out. > Sloppy thinking gets people killed. That's why I get upset. We are discussing a urinal on a platform in an art museum.
Nasrudith 6y ago
Personally I always saw Duchampis and Dada in general as a case of what we would now call trolling. An expression of intenral disgruntlement in and by the art community of the time and taking the piss a bit more literally than usual. There were already several cases of feigned identity of painters to gain more fame already and it seemed to be a sincere expression of frustration by mockery. Which exasperated them further by being taken seriously. Ironically the "missing of the point" seems to have become a point in itself even without the historic context. Weird accidental statements by society in its reaction like ignoring the virtuoso playing the Strativius in the subway station because they don't recognize the quality without the trappings. A mere portrayal would be a ham handed allegory but if it really happens a lesson can be learned instead of an expression of another's opinion.

martythemaniak 6y ago

The trick is to transport yourself mentally to the time and place where that art was created. This is actually a very hard mental exercise, as art is a sort of "fingerprint" or "hash" of the world it was created in - it includes contemporary thought, politics, science, technology, social attitudes etc. Looking at art from the perspective of a century after it was introduced and its effects have become incorporated into mainstream culture just not that useful.

wbronitsky 6y ago
This is a great tip, thank you! I find the best museums and exhibits help you get into this mindset; I'm reminded of an exhibit I saw at the Tate Modern about Picasso in 1932. It provided not only the context to his art, but to him as a person. I was able to better understand how his art was shifting at the time due to the nature of the world around him and his personal relationships. It really allowed me to see the artist through the art and the art in its context. https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/ey-exhibition-picasso-1932-love-fame-tragedy https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/ey-e... I hope that I can take this idea to domains outside of art as well; considering the context of everything we encounter is important for a better understanding of our shared world.
the_af 6y ago
What if, after transporting yourself mentally to the time and place, you still consider it artless or worthless? Is this an opinion that one is still allowed to hold, or would it be a faux pas? I mean, I can look at art created thousands of years before "Fountain" and appreciate it, but still consider Fountain snobbery, can't I?
- imtringued 6y ago
  Art is just human expression or communication. A lot of the "lazy" art is seeing with how much you can get away and how little meat there is to the word "art". For centuries artists have tried their best to create the most beautiful artworks possible. This lead to an association of beauty with art. Art must be beautiful. You challenge this idea by making something that is not beautiful but people will still consider as art.
  - the_af 6y ago
    I realize this is spread across multiple comments of mine now, but I specifically said I acknowledge art and beauty are not required to go hand in hand. I acknowledge some pieces of art challenge established boundaries, and some are grotesque or purposefully repulsive. I just dislike Fountain and similar "found objects" and consider them artless. Otherwise, if everything is art as long as someone tells me it must be so, the concept of "art" becomes meaningless to me.

ssully 6y ago

I feel like it occupying space in your mind for years, even if only for a few minutes at a time, gives credence to it's value as art.

FriendlyNormie 6y ago

All you’re saying is that you eventually love anything that’s forced in front of your face enough times no matter how objectively bad it is. In other words, you’re a moron.

the_af 6y ago

> I remember the first time I saw "Fountain" by Duchamps, which, for the uninitiated, is a urinal, on its side, signed and dated by the artist I totally, completely agree with your point and with the parent post ("I could have created this", "but you didn't"), but... ...you can still, after all of this, conclude that the piece of art is snobbish, artless garbage. In fact I reserve the right to do so. I agree with your premise and still think "Fountain" is worthless as art. I could indeed have done this -- and yes, I see the irony, "but you didn't" -- and didn't because I didn't think it's the kind of art I want to make or celebrate. It's Duchamp's right to create it but I'm not a mean or ignorant person if I dislike it or consider it snobbish and not worth my time (or even "not art"). I don't know if Fountain is or isn't art. I "know" it's worthless to me. This is a discussion we must still be able to have, otherwise we can't say anything about artistic endeavors unless it's positive...

wbronitsky 6y ago
I agree, and did not mean to imply judgement against anyone who dislikes "Fountain" and other, similar pieces of art. I don't even know how I truly feel about "Fountain" either; all I know is that it is quite thought provoking for me and has taught me a lot about how I think about and digest the world. To me, even if the art is ugly and snobbish, it still has merit if it helps us better explore our world. The art piece's mere existence allows us to have this conversation about the relative merits of different forms of art, which I believe to be meritorious in and of itself. I think this has led us to an interesting, if for now rhetorical question: what is art for? Well, at least I'll have something to think about for the rest of the day :)
- the_af 6y ago
  Thanks for taking this the right way :) It's definitely a conversation worth having. There are plenty of things I consider art that other people despise.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
6y ago

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

> the simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement, one worth considering within its context. Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression Well done. You finally swallowed the bullshit.

mc32 6y ago

I believe the original was disposed of and only a photograph of it remains. All the physical versions would be replicas.

ajzinsbwbs 6y ago

For some of these pieces, I feel like the hard part is going to art school, obtaining notoriety, etc. The art is part of a larger endeavor in which I haven’t invested the necessary work, or experienced the luck to have it pay off. When I see a piece where “I could do that”, part of what I’m feeling is that nobody would care if I did it. From my perspective, it seems like the artist is cashing in on some status they obtained. It makes me think the artist must be really charming at cocktail parties. I’m more interested in art that pushes the boundaries of what a mind can conceive, rather than pushing the boundaries of how little an artist can expend and still have their output celebrated.

itronitron 6y ago
Some writers become comedians and are famous for their one-liners.
- justincredible 6y ago
  How much effort goes into creating a one-liner?

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

So my post was downvoted and flagged. And without any reply, ok, here's why I said you'd swallowed the bullshit. > the simple fact of calling this art was a profound statement, A statement of what? Why is it profound? > one worth considering within its context. Why is it worth considering? Why is it worth doing so within its context? Its context is its siting within an art gallery, so does the re-siting it into an art gallery de-facto make it art? If so that's a pathetically shallow achievement. > Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression What effing perspective? What context particularly? What expression - what does 'expression' even mean here? This trademark nebulousity characterises self indulgent bullshit that props up 'art' and the people who 'consume'[0] art. (not knocking art, far from it, but lack of rigorous thinking is dangerous. Think for yourself, don't let others do it for you). [0] Damn, I hate that word.

bondarchuk 6y ago
I would like to know why some people get so extremely angry about something being in a museum that they don't think should be in a museum.
- odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
  Maybe because in many cases (not saying this one as I don't know the details) it is because it costs people in taxes to keep these museums/pay the artists and also it is also very much linked to favours/connections (there is a word but I am missing it, opposite of meritocracy) for these artists? If I signed a urinal on the cafe I am now, I would be label a vandal, but if some 'important' person does it, it has meaning and perspective? I never went to a modern art gallery since maybe 15 years ago when tax-funded museum displayed a piece of art that was just an old piece of bread in the floor. No-one at the floor when I visited 'understood' it and found it the tacky and just self masturbation by the 'artist'. My tax money paid for that idiot to put a piece of bread on the floor and call it art, and through connections (which are more important in the art/movie/music world than people realised) I paid to have someone put a piece of fucking bread on the floor. Yes, after 15 years I am still angry because my tax-euros still go for this shitty things that are justifiable as 'art'

kansface 6y ago

> Maybe this piece of art had so much to teach me about perspective, context and expression that it was just too much to swallow for years. I dunno. The aesthetics of contemporary art place no value on skill or craft. Minus the idea, anyone really could have created this piece. That's the point... or anything and everything is art, or quality doesn't matter so nothing is good or bad or better or worse, or art doesn't live in some sacred realm (we would be pissing on it in any other context), or "interesting!?" as a principal aesthetic... So sure, we can recognize (works of post modernism) both as art and culturally significant/important, but at the same time, they tend to be profoundly un-engaging. They are more fun to talk about than to experience in person which is deeply weird for the visual arts! They may as well be a post on /r/hmmm/ because "hmmm" is all they are really going for. "look at me, I'm a urinal, but I'm still art!". hmmm... * Fountain is technically Dada and dates to 1917

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

You replied to my ragepost with one that said "I'm very confused as to why my most post caused a response loaded with so much anger." Seems you then deleted it. Well, here's my response, without the context of your post - I wish you had left it. Anyway. ---- A reasonable response. Let me try... I don't like sloppy thinking. You've responded in one useful way but in another, you quite blatantly haven't answered what were entirely solid questions I put to you - acknowledged? Sloppy thinking about art promulgates sloppy art. While dividing good from indifferent from bad art is not something I can do formally (but we as a society should try if art means anything), there is a real underlying value to art. Beauty is part of that (IMO/IME). Talking up shite art necessarily smears good art because they fit under the same label ("art"). At school we were introduced to art, and in retrospect what baffled me then was simply that we were being told utter shit and expected to osmose it then spout it back. I understood that much later as an adult. A social pressure was put upon me to conform by not thinking about what I'd been told. Not thinking is not an option, we have to. > but nothing I said forces anyone to do anything Yes it does. Pressure was put on you and you caved. You're now repeating the same stuff, which puts pressure on others. > I also don't think I'm saying anything novel or directly challenging; Yes you were. You were making a load of claims (read again what you wrote). None of it made sense to me. That was novel and challenging, if it meant anything at all. I just don't think it did. > without name calling I didn't name call but sure I said some strong stuff - feel free to refute it. The questions remain unanswered. Until they are I stand by my calling it self indulgent. I did not call you a moron. > What do we gain by this attack? You perhaps reconsider what you're saying ("...I continued to breeze past the installation, laughing quietly to myself like I knew something these art people didn't" - and perhaps exactly that, you actually did) or perhaps you explain what that word salad means, and I learn something good and useful. > It doesn't matter if you and I agree or disagree It's not about agree or disagree, I'm fine with either, I can learn from either, it's about writing stuff that AFAICS means literally nothing in itself. Sloppy thinking gets people killed. That's why I get upset.

wbronitsky 6y ago
I deleted my replies to you because I didn't think they added anything to the conversation, and did not raise the level of discussion. I do, however, feel that I now need to point something out. > Sloppy thinking gets people killed. That's why I get upset. We are discussing a urinal on a platform in an art museum.

Nasrudith 6y ago

Personally I always saw Duchampis and Dada in general as a case of what we would now call trolling. An expression of intenral disgruntlement in and by the art community of the time and taking the piss a bit more literally than usual. There were already several cases of feigned identity of painters to gain more fame already and it seemed to be a sincere expression of frustration by mockery. Which exasperated them further by being taken seriously. Ironically the "missing of the point" seems to have become a point in itself even without the historic context. Weird accidental statements by society in its reaction like ignoring the virtuoso playing the Strativius in the subway station because they don't recognize the quality without the trappings. A mere portrayal would be a ham handed allegory but if it really happens a lesson can be learned instead of an expression of another's opinion.