7 ms·

How a gray painting can break your heart

56 points by prismatic 5y ago

IndrekR 5y ago
This immediately reminded me The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. The title of this "article" is pretty much the summary of the novel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray
- baud147258 5y ago
  though the Dorian Gray's portrait actually showed something that looked like Dorian Gray, instead of random splotches of gray
  - IndrekR 5y ago
    It did, originally. In the end Dorian looked the same, but painting had morphed. Yet this is not what I meant by my comment.
delgaudm 5y ago
I wish I could read/see this. It jumps all over the place on mobile.
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.is/i8Klu https://archive.is/i8Klu
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
I'm fairly wary of this sort of analysis, seems very woo-y. That being said, I'm ready for my art to be taken into the MOMA representing my mental health. Its a Standard A4 piece of paper with the word "fuck" 2/3 to the right side of the page and 1/4 down. It shall be titled "**" Glory and riches come to me.
- dkural 5y ago
  I thought as far as this type of thing goes I thought it was analytical and closely following the development of the artist. I would've never realized the flag structure inherent in this final painting by myself!
- advrs 5y ago
  This is extremely cynical - do you find all abstract art to be unimpressive?
  - dougmwne 5y ago
    I've never been particularly impressed, though I enjoy a lot of other art.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      I'm kind of the opposite. I've never been all that impressed by photorealistic painting, myself. Oh, sure, I get that a lot of time and technique goes into these things, and I can certainly appreciate them as a technical achievement. But, much like overclocking a processor to 6.3Ghz by using LN2 cooling, I don't really see the point of it, especially since a digital photo can capture the same thing far more easily and faithfully. Abstracts of all sort have room for me in them; photorealism doesn't. SFMOMA had a piece on display at one point that was simply a giant, all red canvas. It was quite an unassuming piece at first, situated at the very entry of the gallery exhibit it was featured in. But, the more I stood and just took it in, the more in awe of it I became. I could never imagine feeling that while standing in front of a painting that very well could have been a photo. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
      - jevoten 5y ago
        Take your favorite digital camera, and take a picture the likes of https://www.wikiart.org/en/zdzislaw-beksinski/untitled-1976-2/ https://www.wikiart.org/en/zdzislaw-beksinski/untitled-1976-... or https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Caspar_David_Friedrich_-_Abtei_im_Eichwald_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Caspar_D...
alienbeast 5y ago
The style and presentation method of the article is great. I hate this style of "art", though. If modern art should exist at all, it should be only at the fringes of the art world, as an occasional novelty, rather than the main attraction. For some reason, I feel unusually, viscerally, strongly about this topic. My first instinct was to just declare that this art is absolute fucking garbage (which feels like an indisputable fact to me, not just an opinion). But I thought I should try to analyze why I feel that way. I have a fine-arts education and passion. I spent several years attending art schools, and working at art schools and galleries. I've been exposed to plenty of modern art and the artists who make it. But I absolutely loathe it. And, in surveys, the public agrees: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2016/10/10/it-art-according-general-public-probably-not https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2016/... I think art should have to pass a test: If you saw it in an alleyway, would you think it was art or trash? Or: Could a child have made it by accidentally smearing paint on a canvas? Art should generally display technical skill and years of practice. Viewers should think "I would never be able to make something as precise and beautiful as this", not "I could make five of these in an hour." If not technically demanding, art should at least be somehow clever, expressive, or interesting... And in a self-evident manner that doesn't require a backstory on a placard. The talent required for modern art is not in creating it, but in describing it. I consider modern artists (and critics) frauds, whose main skill is writing snooty descriptions of garbage, convincing people that it's valuable, like the tailor in "the emperor has no clothes". Finding something that no one has ever called art, and being the first to call it art, is not making art; it's just calling shit art. I understand modern artists are trying to be creative and unique, to push the limits of what can be called art, and maybe to show us beauty in where we haven't looked before... But most of their experiments fail. Modern art tries so hard to be original that it forgets to be appealing to viewers. Many traits can make a work of art appealing; originality is only one of them (other traits include technical skill, composition, realism, and subject matter.) Modern art sacrifices (or purposely sabotages) all other possibly-appealing traits in pursuit of originality, forgetting that appeal--not originality--is the ultimate goal. This generally results in an ugly piece of junk that anyone COULD have made, but no one else DID make yet... And that's if the artist is lucky. Art is capable of being naturally appealing to viewers. This documentary lays out a case for beauty in art, and how the intentional ugliness of modern art is demoralizing: https://vimeo.com/128428182 https://vimeo.com/128428182 Not incidentally, it's by a conservative-leaning host; apparently, opinions of modern art are closely tied to opinions on politics: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20856316/poll-yougov-art-ideology-trump https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20856316/p... I'm high in openness, and usually lean left, but not in this regard, somehow. A big part of the reason "realistic", "traditional", or "classical" artwork is traditional or classic is that those styles are naturally appealing; that's why they survived so long. I think modern artists tend to consciously and intentionally reject anything related to traditional values. Of course classical art can be boring, has all been done before, was replaced by photography, etc., but it's still intrinsically appealing in a way modern art isn't. I guess a big part of why I dislike modern art is its success. If the music world was the same as the art world, Brian Eno would be the most popular musician of all time. It just feels wrong. I like Brian Eno and other minimalist/expressionist/experimental music, but only because it's so different compared to the norm. It shouldn't be the norm.
jdkee 5y ago
For a literary interpretation of the Abstract Expressionist movement, the novel Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut is a pretty swell treatment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard_(Vonnegut_novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard_(Vonnegut_novel)

56 points by prismatic 5y ago

This immediately reminded me The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. The title of this "article" is pretty much the summary of the novel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray

baud147258 5y ago
though the Dorian Gray's portrait actually showed something that looked like Dorian Gray, instead of random splotches of gray
- IndrekR 5y ago
  It did, originally. In the end Dorian looked the same, but painting had morphed. Yet this is not what I meant by my comment.

delgaudm 5y ago

I wish I could read/see this. It jumps all over the place on mobile.

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.is/i8Klu https://archive.is/i8Klu

NikolaeVarius 5y ago

I'm fairly wary of this sort of analysis, seems very woo-y. That being said, I'm ready for my art to be taken into the MOMA representing my mental health. Its a Standard A4 piece of paper with the word "fuck" 2/3 to the right side of the page and 1/4 down. It shall be titled "**" Glory and riches come to me.

dkural 5y ago
I thought as far as this type of thing goes I thought it was analytical and closely following the development of the artist. I would've never realized the flag structure inherent in this final painting by myself!
advrs 5y ago
This is extremely cynical - do you find all abstract art to be unimpressive?
- dougmwne 5y ago
  I've never been particularly impressed, though I enjoy a lot of other art.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    I'm kind of the opposite. I've never been all that impressed by photorealistic painting, myself. Oh, sure, I get that a lot of time and technique goes into these things, and I can certainly appreciate them as a technical achievement. But, much like overclocking a processor to 6.3Ghz by using LN2 cooling, I don't really see the point of it, especially since a digital photo can capture the same thing far more easily and faithfully. Abstracts of all sort have room for me in them; photorealism doesn't. SFMOMA had a piece on display at one point that was simply a giant, all red canvas. It was quite an unassuming piece at first, situated at the very entry of the gallery exhibit it was featured in. But, the more I stood and just took it in, the more in awe of it I became. I could never imagine feeling that while standing in front of a painting that very well could have been a photo. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
    - jevoten 5y ago
      Take your favorite digital camera, and take a picture the likes of https://www.wikiart.org/en/zdzislaw-beksinski/untitled-1976-2/ https://www.wikiart.org/en/zdzislaw-beksinski/untitled-1976-... or https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Caspar_David_Friedrich_-_Abtei_im_Eichwald_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Caspar_D...

alienbeast 5y ago

The style and presentation method of the article is great. I hate this style of "art", though. If modern art should exist at all, it should be only at the fringes of the art world, as an occasional novelty, rather than the main attraction. For some reason, I feel unusually, viscerally, strongly about this topic. My first instinct was to just declare that this art is absolute fucking garbage (which feels like an indisputable fact to me, not just an opinion). But I thought I should try to analyze why I feel that way. I have a fine-arts education and passion. I spent several years attending art schools, and working at art schools and galleries. I've been exposed to plenty of modern art and the artists who make it. But I absolutely loathe it. And, in surveys, the public agrees: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2016/10/10/it-art-according-general-public-probably-not https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2016/... I think art should have to pass a test: If you saw it in an alleyway, would you think it was art or trash? Or: Could a child have made it by accidentally smearing paint on a canvas? Art should generally display technical skill and years of practice. Viewers should think "I would never be able to make something as precise and beautiful as this", not "I could make five of these in an hour." If not technically demanding, art should at least be somehow clever, expressive, or interesting... And in a self-evident manner that doesn't require a backstory on a placard. The talent required for modern art is not in creating it, but in describing it. I consider modern artists (and critics) frauds, whose main skill is writing snooty descriptions of garbage, convincing people that it's valuable, like the tailor in "the emperor has no clothes". Finding something that no one has ever called art, and being the first to call it art, is not making art; it's just calling shit art. I understand modern artists are trying to be creative and unique, to push the limits of what can be called art, and maybe to show us beauty in where we haven't looked before... But most of their experiments fail. Modern art tries so hard to be original that it forgets to be appealing to viewers. Many traits can make a work of art appealing; originality is only one of them (other traits include technical skill, composition, realism, and subject matter.) Modern art sacrifices (or purposely sabotages) all other possibly-appealing traits in pursuit of originality, forgetting that appeal--not originality--is the ultimate goal. This generally results in an ugly piece of junk that anyone COULD have made, but no one else DID make yet... And that's if the artist is lucky. Art is capable of being naturally appealing to viewers. This documentary lays out a case for beauty in art, and how the intentional ugliness of modern art is demoralizing: https://vimeo.com/128428182 https://vimeo.com/128428182 Not incidentally, it's by a conservative-leaning host; apparently, opinions of modern art are closely tied to opinions on politics: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20856316/poll-yougov-art-ideology-trump https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20856316/p... I'm high in openness, and usually lean left, but not in this regard, somehow. A big part of the reason "realistic", "traditional", or "classical" artwork is traditional or classic is that those styles are naturally appealing; that's why they survived so long. I think modern artists tend to consciously and intentionally reject anything related to traditional values. Of course classical art can be boring, has all been done before, was replaced by photography, etc., but it's still intrinsically appealing in a way modern art isn't. I guess a big part of why I dislike modern art is its success. If the music world was the same as the art world, Brian Eno would be the most popular musician of all time. It just feels wrong. I like Brian Eno and other minimalist/expressionist/experimental music, but only because it's so different compared to the norm. It shouldn't be the norm.

jdkee 5y ago

For a literary interpretation of the Abstract Expressionist movement, the novel Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut is a pretty swell treatment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard_(Vonnegut_novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard_(Vonnegut_novel)