3 ms·

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 i

by 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.
gilleain 5y ago
All art is a mixture of craft and marketing. There's just a lot more marketing to modern art than classical art.

by j4yav 5y ago

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.

gilleain 5y ago

All art is a mixture of craft and marketing. There's just a lot more marketing to modern art than classical art.