6 ms·
Yeah, but for a lot of modern art, I think the claim many people are making is both that "anyone could do it" and "people already have and just didn't make a bi
by teawrecks 6y ago
Yeah, but for a lot of modern art, I think the claim many people are making is both that "anyone could do it" and "people already have and just didn't make a big deal of it". Ex. When people say "my kid could paint that" they mean "something very similar to that is already hanging on my refrigerator".
- andmarios 6y agoI think they couldn't really. If you look into modern artists they are extremelly talented and their unique style that seems like _anyone could do it_ comes in later stages in their life. It's a bit like coding, where simple and elegant solutions only come to you after you reach a certain level. People looking into your work might think that the solution is simple enough that even a junior could do it, but it's not the case. It takes another good engineer to spot one. :)
- kansface 6y ago> I think they couldn't really. If you look into modern artists they are extremelly talented and their unique style that seems like _anyone could do it_ comes in later stages in their life. This is incorrect (although I don't know anything about the artist in question). Contemporary art degrees are heavily moving away from teaching craft or even consider it a valid aesthetic or criterion for judgement (along the lines of rejecting the notion of good/bad/better/worse). Was there any identifiable craft involved in this piece? Did the artists remove from circulation the boxes that weren't broken in just the right way? Is the art more interesting to look about than to talk about? Marginally... I find the pile of boxes sorta aesthetically pleasing, but its not clear to me that was even done by the artist (and not the gallery). What part of this piece are you proposing that a total outsider/complete amateur couldn't create on a first pass? The form of the glass looks to be haphazard, (ie, unimportant the artist). The boxes are off the shelf. What else is left?
- cwmartin 6y ago> Is the art more interesting to look about than to talk about? That is an interesting perspective. I have always judged art by its aesthetics and its ability to elicit thought / conversation equally. In my view art becomes shallow when it is purely visually appealing with no conceptual backing or purely conceptual with uninteresting visual components.
- esyir 6y agoI'll put it the other way though, if you attribute it to any other artist, would the appeal be greatly reduced? Can the art stand alone and be great on its own merit rather than the borrowed fame of its creator?
- tshaddox 6y agoCoding seems like a bad example, at least for me. I’m a professional coder with several years of experience, but I routinely encounter code or software architectures that very much impress me and make me think “not just any coder could have come up with this, at least without a great deal of thought and effort.”
- jweir 6y agoSome modern art does not stand on its own. It requires the expert explanation to transform it from garbage to art. For myself this is “clever art” and has little cultural value. Damien Hirst once had a work on display and a janitor threw it out - because he truly thought it was garbage. My toddler daughter once “ruined” a Mathew Barney work on a wall - it was a smear of black jelly that she smeared some more. The guard quickly looked the other way while motioning us to leave. Working in the gallery world I would read the epic descriptions of works for sale. A lot of ink went in to creating and describing the value of art works that had no apparent worth. It is fashion to be sold and adorn and tell your friends about. Not all modern art is like this, some works can be appreciated for its intrinsic properties. But this requires more skill, and dedication, and is rather rare. I value art similar to the rule about food - if your grandmother would recognize it as art then it probably is, if not then maybe not. And all things art - it boils down to opinion. This is mine.
- teddyh 6y agoThe same sentiment was also described here: http://absurdnotions.org/an20020724.gif http://absurdnotions.org/an20020724.gif http://absurdnotions.org/an20020731.gif http://absurdnotions.org/an20020731.gif http://absurdnotions.org/an20020814.gif http://absurdnotions.org/an20020814.gif (Images taken from (http://absurdnotions.org/page104.html http://absurdnotions.org/page104.html) and (http://absurdnotions.org/page105.html http://absurdnotions.org/page105.html))
- u678u 6y ago> Damien Hirst once had a work on display and a janitor threw it out Actually I thought it was Tracey Emin, I searched for it and it was both - and more other occurrences in other countries. https://www.bing.com/search?q=cleaner+throws+away+art&first=15 https://www.bing.com/search?q=cleaner+throws+away+art&first=...
- petre 6y agoOh that's the woman with the messy bed. Stuckists would like a word with YBA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Nicholas_Serota_Makes_an_Acquisitions_Decision https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Nicholas_Serota_Makes_an... No wonder the janitor thought it was trash and threw it out.
- petre 6y agoArt is also about communicating ideas, concepts. Most abstract expressionists could paint photorealistic scenes in detail, but they just found it boring and went on with soak staining or squeezing tubes.
- JALTU 6y agoScott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" is a excellent book for understanding art.
- ggm 6y agoI bought a tea-towel gift in the local modern art gallery: Modern Art == "I could have done that" - "Yea, but you didn't"