5 ms·

If your works are displayed in a museum, you're not a struggling amateur. You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be def

If your works are displayed in a museum, you're not a struggling amateur. You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes. "Modern" "Art" is very far from someone actually creating something out of passion or curiosity. Last time I visited the Guggenheim, there were three different "works" from three different "artists" on display - all of them were plain, white canvases. I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit. I'd much rather enjoy someone's first attempt at C64 graphics or short story writing or programming, or try to improve my own skills in any of those areas (and many other).

joe_the_user 6y ago
If your works are displayed in a museum, you're not a struggling amateur. You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes. The criteria for what goes on display in a museum is not ability but significance. If someone is does the first version of style X, if style X is significant, then that someone's art rates museum display even if their version is a bit amateurish. The significance of blank canvas in particular is detail I wouldn't otherwise comment on, however.
askafriend 6y ago
> I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit. I think you're missing the point though. The whole significance of that exhibition is that esteemed artists are given a grand platform (with a long history) to express any idea they want and this (the 3 blank canvases) is the one they chose. That in and of itself is the art. They had no obligation to display those 3 blank canvases. In fact, they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive with the finest strokes and details (presumably if you're at the level of getting museum exhibits, this is just a base level of skill you've acquired and is trivial to display). But the very fact that the artist used the platform to express the idea that the canvas itself is the art and the entire point is beautiful. They placed an emphasis on the very beginning rather than the end of the creative process. In some ways, the exercise is totally pointless, cliche, and lazy. I agree. But there is also immense beauty in the same exercise because somewhere along that very seam lies the answer to the question "What is the meaning of anything at all? What's the point of this museum?". If that pointless piece with 3 blank canvases led to you and I to having this conversation here, then I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished".
- arexxbifs 6y ago
  > That in and of itself is the art. I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree. > they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive I honestly doubt that. At one point, most avant-garde artists were also very capable craftsmen, but that's a long time ago. > there is also immense beauty in the same exercise While there is truth to the old adage of the eye of the beholder, I happen to believe there is also universal, objective beauty. I sincerely disagree that any of the two need to be constructed by some contrived abstraction and over-interpretation of the act of exhibiting three blank canvases. > I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished" I think they considered their mission accomplished by the sheer increase in worth their work will have from being displayed at the Guggenheim.
  - jmcqk6 6y ago
    I'm not the person you're replying to, but I thought I would jump in. Just the fact that there is a disagreement about what is and isn't art points to the reality that there isn't an objective standard for judging art. Art by it's nature is personal. If there was truly an objective standard of beauty, then you could measure it, and there wouldn't be a debate. Unless you're claiming that there is an objective standard, but it's secret knowledge only known to you. Then I would be the one calling you full of shit. You can call this or that "full of shit" and that's your opinion, not some objective fact in reality.
    - arexxbifs 6y ago
      Jump right in! I seem to be in rant mode anyway. :) Defining art and defining beauty must not be confused. I don't think art _must_ be beautiful, I was commenting on whether three blank canvases could convey some kind of beauty. Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. Beauty is a very profound concept. We know if it's there. Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages). Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours). There can be art without beauty and there can be beauty without art, but the art I find most lasting, enjoyable and interesting is the one that manages to convey beauty above all else.
nmyk 6y ago
Reminds me of a quote from Picasso: "When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine." I can appreciate the type of conceptual art you're talking about as like a commentary on the very context it has ended up in, or as a way to question what makes us call an object "sculpture" vs. "garbage", or whatever. But I'm with you. I want to see folk art, outsider art, works-in-progress, beginner projects, and new experiments - both to connect with the community around me and so I can steal some of what I'm seeing to adapt for my own projects. I like to do the critic thing too, but for me experiencing the products of art does not get me nearly as excited as experiencing the processes of it, whether I'm the artist or someone else is.
derivativethrow 6y ago
> I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit. It sounds like you're disparaging the art (and in fact the artists for producing it) because you think it's not sufficiently technically difficult. It also sounds like you believe the artists are trying to present it as more than it is. But tell me if I've misunderstood you. This is a very antagonistic attitude. You're approaching art with an adversarial mindset that only recognizes it if it's something nontrivial. I don't think anyone is trying to bullshit you - art is just subjective. For many people, what's more important than the competence is the originality. Not even necessarily the originality of the thing itself, but of the meta surrounding it. In that sense, plain white canvas in a museum is actually pretty original. It's certainly less derivative than a lot of the highly competent also-rans who painted the same scenes in the same (highly proficient) styles in the same time period. Moreover, it made you think. You didn't have a positive reaction to it, but then (as any artist would tell you) art doesn't restrict itself to positivity :) Now with that in mind, let's circle back to your other statement: > You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes. It seems like they do have an ability, it's just not an ability you respect because your definition of art is more narrow than theirs. And that's okay! No one is forced to deeply appreciate all forms of art. But the way you're disparaging this kind of modern art is a perfect example of the middlebrow dismissal that's already been brought up in this thread. People are not full of shit just because you don't appreciate the (highly subjective) things they do. The triviality of many modern art pieces is part of a broader context which your criticism completely fails to capture.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > In that sense, plain white canvas in a museum is actually pretty original. Is it? I have a plain white canvas sitting in the garage. Maybe I should charge admission? :-)
- arexxbifs 6y ago
  > because you think it's not sufficiently technically difficult Yes and no. I can find beauty in - or otherwise appreciate - simplistic creations as well. For example, a lot of contemporary photography is very little about technical skills and very much about selection, timing, subject and setting. I can find that highly engaging. But yes, there has got to be some thought behind it other than that it's supposedly "unique". > Moreover, it made you think. Lots of things make me think. I believe this is a simultaneously pretentious and simplistic approach to defining art. > meta (...) original (...) derivative What about beautiful? Emotional? Timeless and with lasting meaning? The kind of meta-art "commenting" on what art is or trying be "unique" that seems to make up the bulk of today's production is more than a century old by now. > bullshit Quoting this last because this is the core of my reasoning. The majority of the contemporary art world has long since lost any kind of connection to what's worthwhile, beautiful, thoughtful, insightful or interesting. It's a massive bullshit machine, propped up by nothing but a lot of pseudo-intellectual meta-reasoning about made-up abstract concepts commenting on themselves. Many are provoked and angered by people getting famous for participating in reality shows or exposing their lives on Instagram. I can find the concept absurd, but it doesn't bother me as such. It's easy to ignore and if they can monetize their fame, good for them. That's between them and their audience. As soon as something is considered art, on the other hand, it's considered to be of such significance that it warrants not only recognition, but also for example public funding, the interest of academia and a self-evident spot in any public place. It demands to be taken seriously, and people in positions of power will comply, no matter how inane it is. It's the naked emperor, if you will: it permeates society in ways that are systemically upheld by people who, when asked the question, probably couldn't explain what's actually good or beautiful or interesting about it, yet I'm expected to accept it at face value. For every blank canvas exhibited, there is one carrying true beauty that is left ignored. That bothers me copiously, however much I wish it didn't.
xtajv 6y ago
I like to define "art" as "A display of intent". Example: the Voyager record. Any sufficiently-intelligent alien who comes across it is likely to conclude "That object probably wasn't an accident". Compare this to tabloid articles with stories like "The face of Jesus appeared in my toast this morning!". Regardless of whether you're an atheist or not, the Voyager record undeniably offers a higher standard of evidence that some intelligent entity intentionally produced it. Somebody spent time and energy to make it look exactly like that. I like this definition because it acts as an interesting litmus test. Fantasy novels? Art. A toilet? Definitely intentional, but how much thought went into every little aspect? How much of the design and production was left to chance? An extremely ergonomic and well-designed toilet? Inching more towards "art", because it's not just any old toilet -- it's that toilet. Plain white canvas in a fancy modern art museum? Debatable. Why does it look like that? Is the intent intrinsically obvious? Maybe it's obvious to serious art critics with a background in this stuff, but maybe it seems meaningless to everybody else. Random squiggles in a fancy modern art museum? Still debatable, but more obvious than the white canvas - even if it was all random, somebody decided that they really liked those squiggles, and made the call that the squiggles were "done", and they decided to put it up on a wall instead of trashing it. From the artist's perspective, this is definitely art - it encodes a number of judgement calls on the part of the artist. To everybody else, it might just look like squiggles, so everybody else doesn't have to agree that it's art.
- rtikulit 6y ago
  Ah, wow. My personal definition of music is "intended sound". (Needs additional qualifications, but most are obvious. "Intended sound that is not purely functional"?)
pradn 6y ago
All art worlds, including the international fine art world, require an amount of buy-in, or, if you'd like, delusion. The fine art consensus about what art is and what art is worthwhile is built on centuries of conceptual, aesthetic, philosophical, and market progression. If you don't believe in it, it's not for you. The problem with The Art World is that people think it's THE art world. There are many art worlds. You can always find another "art world", like that of C64 graphics creators. See people making motion graphics on Instagram, wallpaper artists on DeviantArt, folk artists around the world, hobbyist landscape artists. All of these have theories of what's worthwhile and what's not. It's unreasonable to use the standards of one in another. If, in The Art World, a clay folk figuring is cool but not worthy of exhibition, in the Indian folk art world, it might be what's actually worth making and continuing to make, not a white canvas.
jryle70 6y ago
Presumably you're talking about Agnes Martin, who had an exhibition at Guggenheim a few years ago. If you aren't my apologies. She had a lot of paintings that look like empty canvas from afar but show lot of details up close [0] You don't have to like her work, but dismissing her paintings as "full of shit" is, well, remarkably full of... Minimalism was her artistic choice that spanned many decades, and who knows how much time she spent to master her pursuit. She was so into her choice, she sought out to destroy her earlier works [1] She was recognized by her peers, who are more qualified than you and I in judging at the very least technique and dedication. [0] - https://www.moma.org/artists/3787 https://www.moma.org/artists/3787 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Martin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Martin
- arexxbifs 6y ago
  This was a mixed exhibition 11 years ago. The blank canvases were by three different artists. At least one of them had white primer on it, though. There were other paintings by other artists on display, too. I believe the main exhibition was designer clothes, can’t remember what brand (LV or Gucci or something like that).

joe_the_user 6y ago

If your works are displayed in a museum, you're not a struggling amateur. You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes. The criteria for what goes on display in a museum is not ability but significance. If someone is does the first version of style X, if style X is significant, then that someone's art rates museum display even if their version is a bit amateurish. The significance of blank canvas in particular is detail I wouldn't otherwise comment on, however.

askafriend 6y ago

> I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit. I think you're missing the point though. The whole significance of that exhibition is that esteemed artists are given a grand platform (with a long history) to express any idea they want and this (the 3 blank canvases) is the one they chose. That in and of itself is the art. They had no obligation to display those 3 blank canvases. In fact, they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive with the finest strokes and details (presumably if you're at the level of getting museum exhibits, this is just a base level of skill you've acquired and is trivial to display). But the very fact that the artist used the platform to express the idea that the canvas itself is the art and the entire point is beautiful. They placed an emphasis on the very beginning rather than the end of the creative process. In some ways, the exercise is totally pointless, cliche, and lazy. I agree. But there is also immense beauty in the same exercise because somewhere along that very seam lies the answer to the question "What is the meaning of anything at all? What's the point of this museum?". If that pointless piece with 3 blank canvases led to you and I to having this conversation here, then I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished".

arexxbifs 6y ago
> That in and of itself is the art. I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree. > they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive I honestly doubt that. At one point, most avant-garde artists were also very capable craftsmen, but that's a long time ago. > there is also immense beauty in the same exercise While there is truth to the old adage of the eye of the beholder, I happen to believe there is also universal, objective beauty. I sincerely disagree that any of the two need to be constructed by some contrived abstraction and over-interpretation of the act of exhibiting three blank canvases. > I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished" I think they considered their mission accomplished by the sheer increase in worth their work will have from being displayed at the Guggenheim.
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  I'm not the person you're replying to, but I thought I would jump in. Just the fact that there is a disagreement about what is and isn't art points to the reality that there isn't an objective standard for judging art. Art by it's nature is personal. If there was truly an objective standard of beauty, then you could measure it, and there wouldn't be a debate. Unless you're claiming that there is an objective standard, but it's secret knowledge only known to you. Then I would be the one calling you full of shit. You can call this or that "full of shit" and that's your opinion, not some objective fact in reality.
  - arexxbifs 6y ago
    Jump right in! I seem to be in rant mode anyway. :) Defining art and defining beauty must not be confused. I don't think art _must_ be beautiful, I was commenting on whether three blank canvases could convey some kind of beauty. Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. Beauty is a very profound concept. We know if it's there. Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages). Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours). There can be art without beauty and there can be beauty without art, but the art I find most lasting, enjoyable and interesting is the one that manages to convey beauty above all else.

nmyk 6y ago

Reminds me of a quote from Picasso: "When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine." I can appreciate the type of conceptual art you're talking about as like a commentary on the very context it has ended up in, or as a way to question what makes us call an object "sculpture" vs. "garbage", or whatever. But I'm with you. I want to see folk art, outsider art, works-in-progress, beginner projects, and new experiments - both to connect with the community around me and so I can steal some of what I'm seeing to adapt for my own projects. I like to do the critic thing too, but for me experiencing the products of art does not get me nearly as excited as experiencing the processes of it, whether I'm the artist or someone else is.

derivativethrow 6y ago

> I could have done that, but I didn't - because I'm not sufficiently full of shit. It sounds like you're disparaging the art (and in fact the artists for producing it) because you think it's not sufficiently technically difficult. It also sounds like you believe the artists are trying to present it as more than it is. But tell me if I've misunderstood you. This is a very antagonistic attitude. You're approaching art with an adversarial mindset that only recognizes it if it's something nontrivial. I don't think anyone is trying to bullshit you - art is just subjective. For many people, what's more important than the competence is the originality. Not even necessarily the originality of the thing itself, but of the meta surrounding it. In that sense, plain white canvas in a museum is actually pretty original. It's certainly less derivative than a lot of the highly competent also-rans who painted the same scenes in the same (highly proficient) styles in the same time period. Moreover, it made you think. You didn't have a positive reaction to it, but then (as any artist would tell you) art doesn't restrict itself to positivity :) Now with that in mind, let's circle back to your other statement: > You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes. It seems like they do have an ability, it's just not an ability you respect because your definition of art is more narrow than theirs. And that's okay! No one is forced to deeply appreciate all forms of art. But the way you're disparaging this kind of modern art is a perfect example of the middlebrow dismissal that's already been brought up in this thread. People are not full of shit just because you don't appreciate the (highly subjective) things they do. The triviality of many modern art pieces is part of a broader context which your criticism completely fails to capture.

WalterBright 6y ago
> In that sense, plain white canvas in a museum is actually pretty original. Is it? I have a plain white canvas sitting in the garage. Maybe I should charge admission? :-)
arexxbifs 6y ago
> because you think it's not sufficiently technically difficult Yes and no. I can find beauty in - or otherwise appreciate - simplistic creations as well. For example, a lot of contemporary photography is very little about technical skills and very much about selection, timing, subject and setting. I can find that highly engaging. But yes, there has got to be some thought behind it other than that it's supposedly "unique". > Moreover, it made you think. Lots of things make me think. I believe this is a simultaneously pretentious and simplistic approach to defining art. > meta (...) original (...) derivative What about beautiful? Emotional? Timeless and with lasting meaning? The kind of meta-art "commenting" on what art is or trying be "unique" that seems to make up the bulk of today's production is more than a century old by now. > bullshit Quoting this last because this is the core of my reasoning. The majority of the contemporary art world has long since lost any kind of connection to what's worthwhile, beautiful, thoughtful, insightful or interesting. It's a massive bullshit machine, propped up by nothing but a lot of pseudo-intellectual meta-reasoning about made-up abstract concepts commenting on themselves. Many are provoked and angered by people getting famous for participating in reality shows or exposing their lives on Instagram. I can find the concept absurd, but it doesn't bother me as such. It's easy to ignore and if they can monetize their fame, good for them. That's between them and their audience. As soon as something is considered art, on the other hand, it's considered to be of such significance that it warrants not only recognition, but also for example public funding, the interest of academia and a self-evident spot in any public place. It demands to be taken seriously, and people in positions of power will comply, no matter how inane it is. It's the naked emperor, if you will: it permeates society in ways that are systemically upheld by people who, when asked the question, probably couldn't explain what's actually good or beautiful or interesting about it, yet I'm expected to accept it at face value. For every blank canvas exhibited, there is one carrying true beauty that is left ignored. That bothers me copiously, however much I wish it didn't.

xtajv 6y ago

I like to define "art" as "A display of intent". Example: the Voyager record. Any sufficiently-intelligent alien who comes across it is likely to conclude "That object probably wasn't an accident". Compare this to tabloid articles with stories like "The face of Jesus appeared in my toast this morning!". Regardless of whether you're an atheist or not, the Voyager record undeniably offers a higher standard of evidence that some intelligent entity intentionally produced it. Somebody spent time and energy to make it look exactly like that. I like this definition because it acts as an interesting litmus test. Fantasy novels? Art. A toilet? Definitely intentional, but how much thought went into every little aspect? How much of the design and production was left to chance? An extremely ergonomic and well-designed toilet? Inching more towards "art", because it's not just any old toilet -- it's that toilet. Plain white canvas in a fancy modern art museum? Debatable. Why does it look like that? Is the intent intrinsically obvious? Maybe it's obvious to serious art critics with a background in this stuff, but maybe it seems meaningless to everybody else. Random squiggles in a fancy modern art museum? Still debatable, but more obvious than the white canvas - even if it was all random, somebody decided that they really liked those squiggles, and made the call that the squiggles were "done", and they decided to put it up on a wall instead of trashing it. From the artist's perspective, this is definitely art - it encodes a number of judgement calls on the part of the artist. To everybody else, it might just look like squiggles, so everybody else doesn't have to agree that it's art.

rtikulit 6y ago
Ah, wow. My personal definition of music is "intended sound". (Needs additional qualifications, but most are obvious. "Intended sound that is not purely functional"?)

pradn 6y ago

All art worlds, including the international fine art world, require an amount of buy-in, or, if you'd like, delusion. The fine art consensus about what art is and what art is worthwhile is built on centuries of conceptual, aesthetic, philosophical, and market progression. If you don't believe in it, it's not for you. The problem with The Art World is that people think it's THE art world. There are many art worlds. You can always find another "art world", like that of C64 graphics creators. See people making motion graphics on Instagram, wallpaper artists on DeviantArt, folk artists around the world, hobbyist landscape artists. All of these have theories of what's worthwhile and what's not. It's unreasonable to use the standards of one in another. If, in The Art World, a clay folk figuring is cool but not worthy of exhibition, in the Indian folk art world, it might be what's actually worth making and continuing to make, not a white canvas.

jryle70 6y ago

Presumably you're talking about Agnes Martin, who had an exhibition at Guggenheim a few years ago. If you aren't my apologies. She had a lot of paintings that look like empty canvas from afar but show lot of details up close [0] You don't have to like her work, but dismissing her paintings as "full of shit" is, well, remarkably full of... Minimalism was her artistic choice that spanned many decades, and who knows how much time she spent to master her pursuit. She was so into her choice, she sought out to destroy her earlier works [1] She was recognized by her peers, who are more qualified than you and I in judging at the very least technique and dedication. [0] - https://www.moma.org/artists/3787 https://www.moma.org/artists/3787 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Martin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Martin

arexxbifs 6y ago
This was a mixed exhibition 11 years ago. The blank canvases were by three different artists. At least one of them had white primer on it, though. There were other paintings by other artists on display, too. I believe the main exhibition was designer clothes, can’t remember what brand (LV or Gucci or something like that).