4 ms·

Makes sense. And makes sense this plays on HN. "Art is a joke" plays well with engineer types. Scared of what you don't understand?

nearbuy 3y ago
Scared? Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire? No need to invent weird reasons for this.
- jancsika 3y ago
  > Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire? I'm going to speculate OP is correct here. Engineers do get persnickety when faced with sufficient ambiguity and messy historical context. Visual arts have both, and fear of the unknown isn't at all a weird default position for humans.
  - tomcam 3y ago
    Speak for yourself. I only get snickety.
- whateveracct 3y ago
  Have you seen a Jackson Pollock in person? Seen the thick paint on canvas? It's magnificent without context.
- tpm 3y ago
  Ignore the hype and go see it in person. Not Pollock if you feel it's not your thing, go see the Dutch masters or the famous Italian painters if you will. If you don't feel it moves you, then it might not be for you, but if you do, try to imagine someone is feeling the same seeing a Pollock (or Yves Klein, Rothko, etc.).
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    I used to think I liked a lot of art that on deeper reflection I’ve realized isn’t good. It was just me experiencing social psychology. This is such a common human phenomenon that there’s a fable about it: the emperor who wears no clothes. People will mercilessly ridicule the kid who says the emperor is naked. There is a bit of that type of ridicule in this thread. It’s silly. All reasonable people will agree that while you may be able to call anything art, not everything can be good art. Only an occasional isolated snowshovel or urinal (or 3 as it were) can be art, and only in the ironic it’s not really art but it is ha ha sense. Yet people insist that anything can be validly described as a work of art, none of it any better or worse than the rest. Sorry, but that’s wrong, obviously so, and just deeply offensive to anyone who cares at all. It’s literally the negation of art, espoused by people who claim to love art.
    - tpm 3y ago
      > It was just me experiencing social psychology. Well, that's you. Other people have other experiences. In my case peer pressure was pretty heavily against art in pretty much any form, being from a small agricultural town, with technical background and studying and working in engineering. I was ridiculed for my interest in music and later other art forms. In my environment there was no Pollock hype, 95% people didn't know who he is and the rest thought 'that's not art'. Yet it indeed is art, as is Duchamp's urinal, and many other creations. It might not be for you, but it is for someone. There are many art forms and artworks I don't care for, but at least I don't claim to speak for "all reasonable people" because perception and understanding is subjective. Expertise in art can give you better understanding and change your perception if you want, but ultimately there is a big share of subjectivity. It's offensive when you claim I am not reasonable and do not care at all, but more than that, it's quite obviously completely wrong.
      - 2devnull 3y ago
        Don’t take what I said personally. Many people have better taste than other people. You sound like one of the people who has better taste than I do so perhaps you’ll never have to reevaluate one of your favorites and decide they aren’t really so good. But you will be missing out on something if you don’t experience that. There is a real moment of transformation to be experienced when you see the emperor standing there naked and have to reevaluate your presuppositions. It allows you to find ever deeper levels of connection to good art. For me, this process of constantly refining my tastes and learning more about the techniques, history and economics of art all greatly increase the value of art in my life. I was exposed at a young age and was taught to appreciate Pollock and the rest. Critics and the art market are not efficient, to put it mildly.
- Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
  > Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire? It kinda is. In the sense that no one is confused if you say you do not Understand the 400th Marvel movie without seeing the previous ones, but art, which largely exists as a conversation with the movements that happened before it, is somehow expected to be understood without context. And mocked if not easily digestible. It is why artists like Banksy, who in my opinion offer little to nothing, cause a big stir. You do not need to understand what was happening in the art world in the 2000s to get Banksy, a instagram photo does all the work you need. The Great Wave off Kanagawa is now considered a japanese masterpiece, but in reality is heavily influenced by Dutch landscapes and Japan at the time considered it almost foreign art. As if some european now did anime. The conversation and circumstance of that print gives it a lot of nuance, and makes it infinitely more interesting than just the wave and Fuji in the background. Similarly Pollock, as pretentious as he was, lived in an interesting time when even math and physics where shaking their conceptual underpinnings. The time they lived in was a mess, that experience, put to canvas as a rejection of Easel and figurative painting and making the process and important part of the actual finished product is interesting almost in itself, beyond the painting. Think how many artists now show "behind the scenes" of their work, bringing people closer to the work. From Guillermo del Toro showing his monsters, to actors doing live chats, to artists publishing their doodles and sketches. Pollocks work was an attempt to merge that with the piece itself, make the action of painting it as obvious as possible, compared to art movements like the European French Academy that would knock you points if the brush strokes where visible. Their attempt at perfet painting, make the artist invisible and the subjects "greater than men", all angels and stuff is almost diametrically opposed to Pollock, that wants you to almost see where he tripped, where he was soft and where he just slammed the brush. Sorry for the rant, just think that it is such a shame, with how interesting art can be that people reject it out of, what looks to me, just not putting the minimum amount of effort to learn about it.
  - QuesnayJr 3y ago
    I was actually just in a museum, and thinking about this attitude, that the most important thing is that "art is a conversation", is what kills an art form. Thinking the important thing is "the conversation" is the sign that an art form has taken a turn for the hermetic, that it's insiders making art for other insiders, and is headed for cultural irrelevancy. Art requires some context to fully appreciate, but when the context is an insider's list of what's important then the art form has just died. Even without context, you can get something out of looking at Michaelangelo's Pieta, and the cultural context to appreciate it is available to broad audience. An interesting contrast is movies, which so far have not taken that hermetic turn to the same extent. You look at a list of "the hundred greatest movies of all time", and basically 90% of them can be appreciated by anyone with the attention span. You don't need to go to college (or be Italian) to appreciate "The Bicycle Thieves", let alone be an expert on movie history. Once an art form takes that hermetic turn, then everything becomes a game of relying on what experts say and brand management. That's why comic books are trash and Roy Lichtenstein panels sell for millions.
- godelski 3y ago
  Allow me to introduce to you White Painting, The inspiration for 4:33 https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.308.A-C/ https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.308.A-C/
posnet 3y ago
I am not scared of tax avoidance techniques.
- Consultant32452 3y ago
  Don't forget money laundering!
jackcosgrove 3y ago
I'm not sure it follows that some here think art is a joke. The Cold War lineage of many technologies like the internet and GPS is even more direct, and people don't think those are a joke. It's just a fascinating theory.
boppo1 3y ago
I'm a painter/illustrator. Lots of art, especially post-abstract expressionism, is definitely a joke.
- whateveracct 3y ago
  How do you feel about, say, The Fountain?
  - Hoasi 3y ago
    A joke. And a seminal piece of art. There is also a controversy with that piece by Duchamps; there is some evidence it was by Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven.
- 6510 3y ago
  I got to see copyright discussions here on how AI can reproduce similar art works much faster than a human. What if the definition of art is applying some paint to a canvas?
  - boppo1 3y ago
    I don't understand your question. In my experience, copyright and IP law have been leveled against me in employment contracts more than than they've ever helped me maintain a grip on my output. 'Intellectual strip mining' is a good way to put it. The definition of art hasn't protected what I do and changing it probably wouldn't affect that.
rcoveson 3y ago
> Scared of what you don't understand? Oof, big flashbacks to conversations I wish I never had with essential oils advocates and religious fundamentalists.
- whateveracct 3y ago
  You think the human history of art is a scam? Have you considered that you don't know the first thing about art history and would have to go back to cave dwellers' paintings to even have the first idea about what art is?
  - smolder 3y ago
    I think understanding "what art is" comes from the experience of creating for the sake of creation, not so much from observing what has been made. It's different from knowing the history of art, which just gives you contextual perspective. That's valuable, but like with any history, there are narratives that survive and don't, there's context that gets lost. So a kind of orthodoxy arises around how you are supposed to view art according to the imperfect historical context that survived. It's not "a scam" but there's also no immaculate history; we get what the stewards of history choose to give us, within their ability to do so.
    - whateveracct 3y ago
      The thing with art history is it isn't made up ex post facto. Throughout art history, at different levels of abstraction (individuals, schools, countries, philosophies), there is a constant and real conversation going on. A big part of art history (like any history) is finding out what that was at the time. Along with analyzing things ex post facto and coming up with ideas and narratives given our knowledge of all history.
  - rcoveson 3y ago
    I think you're making some incorrect, bold claims about art in an effort to simultaneously defend all artists and insult all engineers. You don't need to "go back to cave dweller's paintings to even have the first idea about what art is", you just need to look at some art. Lots of art can evoke emotion in people with no background in art history, just like lots of food and drink can please people with no background in culinary history. There's a narrow subset, though, that can more or less only be appreciated by people who know the history. I don't think that subset is uniquely important. In fact, I think it belongs at the periphery of art. An artistic subculture where the majority of attention is on works that don't do anything except deconstruct their mediums--works whose appreciation depends wholly on a socio-political understanding of the artist--is not a subculture I'm very interested in. And I don't think that makes me a dismissive, overly-analytic engineer. Quite the opposite! I think it's those who obsess over history and context instead of content that have lost themselves to analytics. Pure content-appreciation is our primitive, natural instinct.

nearbuy 3y ago

Scared? Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire? No need to invent weird reasons for this.

jancsika 3y ago
> Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire? I'm going to speculate OP is correct here. Engineers do get persnickety when faced with sufficient ambiguity and messy historical context. Visual arts have both, and fear of the unknown isn't at all a weird default position for humans.
- tomcam 3y ago
  Speak for yourself. I only get snickety.
whateveracct 3y ago
Have you seen a Jackson Pollock in person? Seen the thick paint on canvas? It's magnificent without context.
tpm 3y ago
Ignore the hype and go see it in person. Not Pollock if you feel it's not your thing, go see the Dutch masters or the famous Italian painters if you will. If you don't feel it moves you, then it might not be for you, but if you do, try to imagine someone is feeling the same seeing a Pollock (or Yves Klein, Rothko, etc.).
- 2devnull 3y ago
  I used to think I liked a lot of art that on deeper reflection I’ve realized isn’t good. It was just me experiencing social psychology. This is such a common human phenomenon that there’s a fable about it: the emperor who wears no clothes. People will mercilessly ridicule the kid who says the emperor is naked. There is a bit of that type of ridicule in this thread. It’s silly. All reasonable people will agree that while you may be able to call anything art, not everything can be good art. Only an occasional isolated snowshovel or urinal (or 3 as it were) can be art, and only in the ironic it’s not really art but it is ha ha sense. Yet people insist that anything can be validly described as a work of art, none of it any better or worse than the rest. Sorry, but that’s wrong, obviously so, and just deeply offensive to anyone who cares at all. It’s literally the negation of art, espoused by people who claim to love art.
  - tpm 3y ago
    > It was just me experiencing social psychology. Well, that's you. Other people have other experiences. In my case peer pressure was pretty heavily against art in pretty much any form, being from a small agricultural town, with technical background and studying and working in engineering. I was ridiculed for my interest in music and later other art forms. In my environment there was no Pollock hype, 95% people didn't know who he is and the rest thought 'that's not art'. Yet it indeed is art, as is Duchamp's urinal, and many other creations. It might not be for you, but it is for someone. There are many art forms and artworks I don't care for, but at least I don't claim to speak for "all reasonable people" because perception and understanding is subjective. Expertise in art can give you better understanding and change your perception if you want, but ultimately there is a big share of subjectivity. It's offensive when you claim I am not reasonable and do not care at all, but more than that, it's quite obviously completely wrong.
    - 2devnull 3y ago
      Don’t take what I said personally. Many people have better taste than other people. You sound like one of the people who has better taste than I do so perhaps you’ll never have to reevaluate one of your favorites and decide they aren’t really so good. But you will be missing out on something if you don’t experience that. There is a real moment of transformation to be experienced when you see the emperor standing there naked and have to reevaluate your presuppositions. It allows you to find ever deeper levels of connection to good art. For me, this process of constantly refining my tastes and learning more about the techniques, history and economics of art all greatly increase the value of art in my life. I was exposed at a young age and was taught to appreciate Pollock and the rest. Critics and the art market are not efficient, to put it mildly.
Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
> Is it really that hard to understand why people don't get the hype around a Jackson Pollock or Voice of Fire? It kinda is. In the sense that no one is confused if you say you do not Understand the 400th Marvel movie without seeing the previous ones, but art, which largely exists as a conversation with the movements that happened before it, is somehow expected to be understood without context. And mocked if not easily digestible. It is why artists like Banksy, who in my opinion offer little to nothing, cause a big stir. You do not need to understand what was happening in the art world in the 2000s to get Banksy, a instagram photo does all the work you need. The Great Wave off Kanagawa is now considered a japanese masterpiece, but in reality is heavily influenced by Dutch landscapes and Japan at the time considered it almost foreign art. As if some european now did anime. The conversation and circumstance of that print gives it a lot of nuance, and makes it infinitely more interesting than just the wave and Fuji in the background. Similarly Pollock, as pretentious as he was, lived in an interesting time when even math and physics where shaking their conceptual underpinnings. The time they lived in was a mess, that experience, put to canvas as a rejection of Easel and figurative painting and making the process and important part of the actual finished product is interesting almost in itself, beyond the painting. Think how many artists now show "behind the scenes" of their work, bringing people closer to the work. From Guillermo del Toro showing his monsters, to actors doing live chats, to artists publishing their doodles and sketches. Pollocks work was an attempt to merge that with the piece itself, make the action of painting it as obvious as possible, compared to art movements like the European French Academy that would knock you points if the brush strokes where visible. Their attempt at perfet painting, make the artist invisible and the subjects "greater than men", all angels and stuff is almost diametrically opposed to Pollock, that wants you to almost see where he tripped, where he was soft and where he just slammed the brush. Sorry for the rant, just think that it is such a shame, with how interesting art can be that people reject it out of, what looks to me, just not putting the minimum amount of effort to learn about it.
- QuesnayJr 3y ago
  I was actually just in a museum, and thinking about this attitude, that the most important thing is that "art is a conversation", is what kills an art form. Thinking the important thing is "the conversation" is the sign that an art form has taken a turn for the hermetic, that it's insiders making art for other insiders, and is headed for cultural irrelevancy. Art requires some context to fully appreciate, but when the context is an insider's list of what's important then the art form has just died. Even without context, you can get something out of looking at Michaelangelo's Pieta, and the cultural context to appreciate it is available to broad audience. An interesting contrast is movies, which so far have not taken that hermetic turn to the same extent. You look at a list of "the hundred greatest movies of all time", and basically 90% of them can be appreciated by anyone with the attention span. You don't need to go to college (or be Italian) to appreciate "The Bicycle Thieves", let alone be an expert on movie history. Once an art form takes that hermetic turn, then everything becomes a game of relying on what experts say and brand management. That's why comic books are trash and Roy Lichtenstein panels sell for millions.
godelski 3y ago
Allow me to introduce to you White Painting, The inspiration for 4:33 https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.308.A-C/ https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.308.A-C/

posnet 3y ago

I am not scared of tax avoidance techniques.

Consultant32452 3y ago
Don't forget money laundering!

jackcosgrove 3y ago

I'm not sure it follows that some here think art is a joke. The Cold War lineage of many technologies like the internet and GPS is even more direct, and people don't think those are a joke. It's just a fascinating theory.

boppo1 3y ago

I'm a painter/illustrator. Lots of art, especially post-abstract expressionism, is definitely a joke.

whateveracct 3y ago
How do you feel about, say, The Fountain?
- Hoasi 3y ago
  A joke. And a seminal piece of art. There is also a controversy with that piece by Duchamps; there is some evidence it was by Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven.
6510 3y ago
I got to see copyright discussions here on how AI can reproduce similar art works much faster than a human. What if the definition of art is applying some paint to a canvas?
- boppo1 3y ago
  I don't understand your question. In my experience, copyright and IP law have been leveled against me in employment contracts more than than they've ever helped me maintain a grip on my output. 'Intellectual strip mining' is a good way to put it. The definition of art hasn't protected what I do and changing it probably wouldn't affect that.

rcoveson 3y ago

> Scared of what you don't understand? Oof, big flashbacks to conversations I wish I never had with essential oils advocates and religious fundamentalists.

whateveracct 3y ago
You think the human history of art is a scam? Have you considered that you don't know the first thing about art history and would have to go back to cave dwellers' paintings to even have the first idea about what art is?
- smolder 3y ago
  I think understanding "what art is" comes from the experience of creating for the sake of creation, not so much from observing what has been made. It's different from knowing the history of art, which just gives you contextual perspective. That's valuable, but like with any history, there are narratives that survive and don't, there's context that gets lost. So a kind of orthodoxy arises around how you are supposed to view art according to the imperfect historical context that survived. It's not "a scam" but there's also no immaculate history; we get what the stewards of history choose to give us, within their ability to do so.
  - whateveracct 3y ago
    The thing with art history is it isn't made up ex post facto. Throughout art history, at different levels of abstraction (individuals, schools, countries, philosophies), there is a constant and real conversation going on. A big part of art history (like any history) is finding out what that was at the time. Along with analyzing things ex post facto and coming up with ideas and narratives given our knowledge of all history.
- rcoveson 3y ago
  I think you're making some incorrect, bold claims about art in an effort to simultaneously defend all artists and insult all engineers. You don't need to "go back to cave dweller's paintings to even have the first idea about what art is", you just need to look at some art. Lots of art can evoke emotion in people with no background in art history, just like lots of food and drink can please people with no background in culinary history. There's a narrow subset, though, that can more or less only be appreciated by people who know the history. I don't think that subset is uniquely important. In fact, I think it belongs at the periphery of art. An artistic subculture where the majority of attention is on works that don't do anything except deconstruct their mediums--works whose appreciation depends wholly on a socio-political understanding of the artist--is not a subculture I'm very interested in. And I don't think that makes me a dismissive, overly-analytic engineer. Quite the opposite! I think it's those who obsess over history and context instead of content that have lost themselves to analytics. Pure content-appreciation is our primitive, natural instinct.