6 ms·

I think part of this art is the story behind it. I'm sitting here trying to imagine Ringo Starr on a computer in MS Paint (or whatever he used) drawing blobby

I think part of this art is the story behind it. I'm sitting here trying to imagine Ringo Starr on a computer in MS Paint (or whatever he used) drawing blobby spacemen, and that alone makes me want to have one hanging on my wall.

nine_k 5y ago
I would say that this is what sets apart "classical art" and "modern art". "Classical art" is a technical feat that produces emotions in you through its execution, through the beauty of the "art piece" itself. Beatles' songs were closer to "classical art"; I want to hear "Yesterday" because of its melody. "Modern art" is an otherwise uninteresting material piece with a large bunch of metainfo attached: the author's personality and connections, the stories behind its creation / exhibition / resale, being in the circle of those who know about this particular piece or author, a practical joke or an ironic reference that the art piece or its metainfo comprises, etc. This metainfo is what produces the emotions, not the object which formally is the "art piece". Ringo's gallery items are firmly in the "modern art" category.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  I've heard this summarized before as "product" versus "process".
  - V__ 5y ago
    This is such a nice succinct metaphor.
  - russfink 5y ago
    But which is which?
- tessierashpool 5y ago
  except anyone with the slightest background in art history can tell you that those metadata mattered immensely for "classical art" pieces at the time that those pieces were made. and indeed even today two pieces of equivalent beauty and craftsmanship will not sell for the same price if one is a Michaelangelo and the other comes from a less famous artist. I'm sorry, because I'm sure you didn't realize this, but your taxonomy breaks down to "pieces I like, for which the metadata is old," and "pieces I dislike, for which the metadata is recent." edit — or, at best, "pieces I like, with a continuous aesthetic tradition, which made quality easy to evaluate, for which the metadata is old," vs "pieces I dislike, created after that continuity disintegrated, which made quality very subjective, for which the metadata is recent." because there was a massive break in that continuity, and there is a real distinction between modern and "classical" art (at least in the European/Western tradition), but it just doesn't have anything to do with the metadata.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    I do not say that the metadata for old pieces does not play a role! It very much does, beginning from the very age of an old piece. A lot of primitive ancient art coveted by museums or collectors is not aesthetically notable. The auction price of an old painting changes drastically depending on whether it's considered "genuine <insert a famous name>" or not. The difference I'm trying to make is that in "modern art" (not all art produced in modern times, but the kind that inherits from what Duchamp invented) the metadata is basically all that's interesting, and the art is produced with this assumption in mind. A "classical" piece of art usually had to also work without the metadata being known.
- j4yav 5y ago
  All that exact same metadata is there and evaluated in the price of the piece for classical art as well, and whether something is interesting to you or not is in the end subjective. There are plenty of people who find pieces of modern art interesting even without knowing the metadata. I’m not sure there is a meaningful concrete distinction here. I.e., have you just said that the fundamental difference between modern art and classical art is that you personally find classical art more interesting?
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Not I personally. Take 100 pieces of "classical art" and show them to somebody who does not have a context of it at all (a faraway country, Amazon jungles, kids these days); the reaction would mostly be "wow" or "hmm", because the pieces are usually technically interesting, without any metainfo attached. Do the same with 100 pieces of "modern art" like this [1], and the reaction will mostly be "wtf", because there is nothing to appreciate without the metainfo, like "this is a piece of art by X sold for $YM". [1]: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/banana-artwork-eaten-scli-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/banana-artwork-eaten-scli-... BTW, by this measure, Dali produced "classical" art.
    - j4yav 5y ago
      So, show a piece to someone without an art education, and if they think it is interesting it’s classical art, and if they think it is wtf then it’s modern art, nothing to do with when it was made or the definitions of those terms today? This still seems to me like you have redefined modern and classical as interesting and not interesting art you like. Modern art is something specific: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art. I would be surprised if you could really show a Van Gogh to someone without an art education, and without explaining the context, and they wouldn’t say it was interesting. Or any of the other art on that page. If you’re just saying in the end modern and classical art don’t exist as defined concepts except by showing individual pieces to people without art educations who are then qualified to sort them into modern or classical categories based on whether they find them interesting or wtf then fine, I don’t really agree but now I see what you’re saying. But if you think all modern art on that page would be found uninteresting by anyone without an art education I’d encourage you to do your experiment and I think you’d be surprised.
- bobthechef 5y ago
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Agree. If you showed his artwork, without mentioning the artist, you wouldn’t get much of a reaction.
- alar44 5y ago
  Nah. Ringo just is objectively bad at art. That's ok. You don't have to call it modern art. It's utter trash. He's not even trying. There's 0 self awareness here. But that probably happens when you're a Beatle and everyone around you just says yes.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  > "Classical art" is a technical feat that produces emotions in you through its execution, through the beauty of the "art piece" itself. This is true mostly for a fairly brief window of visual art produced in Europe. The idea that all art for all of time was judged through its execution and achievement of beauty until the 20th century came and ruined everything is just completely ahistorical.

nine_k 5y ago

I would say that this is what sets apart "classical art" and "modern art". "Classical art" is a technical feat that produces emotions in you through its execution, through the beauty of the "art piece" itself. Beatles' songs were closer to "classical art"; I want to hear "Yesterday" because of its melody. "Modern art" is an otherwise uninteresting material piece with a large bunch of metainfo attached: the author's personality and connections, the stories behind its creation / exhibition / resale, being in the circle of those who know about this particular piece or author, a practical joke or an ironic reference that the art piece or its metainfo comprises, etc. This metainfo is what produces the emotions, not the object which formally is the "art piece". Ringo's gallery items are firmly in the "modern art" category.

nerdponx 5y ago
I've heard this summarized before as "product" versus "process".
- V__ 5y ago
  This is such a nice succinct metaphor.
- russfink 5y ago
  But which is which?
tessierashpool 5y ago
except anyone with the slightest background in art history can tell you that those metadata mattered immensely for "classical art" pieces at the time that those pieces were made. and indeed even today two pieces of equivalent beauty and craftsmanship will not sell for the same price if one is a Michaelangelo and the other comes from a less famous artist. I'm sorry, because I'm sure you didn't realize this, but your taxonomy breaks down to "pieces I like, for which the metadata is old," and "pieces I dislike, for which the metadata is recent." edit — or, at best, "pieces I like, with a continuous aesthetic tradition, which made quality easy to evaluate, for which the metadata is old," vs "pieces I dislike, created after that continuity disintegrated, which made quality very subjective, for which the metadata is recent." because there was a massive break in that continuity, and there is a real distinction between modern and "classical" art (at least in the European/Western tradition), but it just doesn't have anything to do with the metadata.
- nine_k 5y ago
  I do not say that the metadata for old pieces does not play a role! It very much does, beginning from the very age of an old piece. A lot of primitive ancient art coveted by museums or collectors is not aesthetically notable. The auction price of an old painting changes drastically depending on whether it's considered "genuine <insert a famous name>" or not. The difference I'm trying to make is that in "modern art" (not all art produced in modern times, but the kind that inherits from what Duchamp invented) the metadata is basically all that's interesting, and the art is produced with this assumption in mind. A "classical" piece of art usually had to also work without the metadata being known.
j4yav 5y ago
All that exact same metadata is there and evaluated in the price of the piece for classical art as well, and whether something is interesting to you or not is in the end subjective. There are plenty of people who find pieces of modern art interesting even without knowing the metadata. I’m not sure there is a meaningful concrete distinction here. I.e., have you just said that the fundamental difference between modern art and classical art is that you personally find classical art more interesting?
- nine_k 5y ago
  Not I personally. Take 100 pieces of "classical art" and show them to somebody who does not have a context of it at all (a faraway country, Amazon jungles, kids these days); the reaction would mostly be "wow" or "hmm", because the pieces are usually technically interesting, without any metainfo attached. Do the same with 100 pieces of "modern art" like this [1], and the reaction will mostly be "wtf", because there is nothing to appreciate without the metainfo, like "this is a piece of art by X sold for $YM". [1]: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/banana-artwork-eaten-scli-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/banana-artwork-eaten-scli-... BTW, by this measure, Dali produced "classical" art.
  - j4yav 5y ago
    So, show a piece to someone without an art education, and if they think it is interesting it’s classical art, and if they think it is wtf then it’s modern art, nothing to do with when it was made or the definitions of those terms today? This still seems to me like you have redefined modern and classical as interesting and not interesting art you like. Modern art is something specific: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art. I would be surprised if you could really show a Van Gogh to someone without an art education, and without explaining the context, and they wouldn’t say it was interesting. Or any of the other art on that page. If you’re just saying in the end modern and classical art don’t exist as defined concepts except by showing individual pieces to people without art educations who are then qualified to sort them into modern or classical categories based on whether they find them interesting or wtf then fine, I don’t really agree but now I see what you’re saying. But if you think all modern art on that page would be found uninteresting by anyone without an art education I’d encourage you to do your experiment and I think you’d be surprised.
bobthechef 5y ago
mbrodersen 5y ago
Agree. If you showed his artwork, without mentioning the artist, you wouldn’t get much of a reaction.
alar44 5y ago
Nah. Ringo just is objectively bad at art. That's ok. You don't have to call it modern art. It's utter trash. He's not even trying. There's 0 self awareness here. But that probably happens when you're a Beatle and everyone around you just says yes.
UncleMeat 5y ago
> "Classical art" is a technical feat that produces emotions in you through its execution, through the beauty of the "art piece" itself. This is true mostly for a fairly brief window of visual art produced in Europe. The idea that all art for all of time was judged through its execution and achievement of beauty until the 20th century came and ruined everything is just completely ahistorical.