8 ms·

Neither murals nor graffiti is art. None of those would have been accepted in any gallery some 30~40 years ago when standards were higher and the world didn't s

• lucideer 3y ago
  I'm not sure if this kind of parody is against HN guidelines per se, but it's less common here than, say, Twitter, and as such is usually customary to add some indicator like "/s" or similar.
• crazygringo 3y ago
  Just so you know, the exact same thing was said about pretty much every major art movement over the past century and beyond. When you say, "None of it seems to be made by or for adults", the same was basically said of Salvador Dalí and Andy Warhol and Paul Gauguin and Henri Matisse. The more things change, the more they stay the same. :)
  • lucideer 3y ago
    Those examples have some similarities, but - while they had their contemporary detractors - they were, for the most part, formally educated participants in the art establishment of their times. I'd liken it more to the works of Henri Rousseau or even maybe the French Decadent movement.
  • mymythisisthis 3y ago
    The funny thing is, the classical art of Greece, probably looked much different than how we think about it. It was much more colorful and vibrant, it's just that all the pigment washed away. https://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/Original-Trojan-archer.jpg?itok=AByBSEbW https://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/styles/l... Cities adding art back onto the walls, is probably closer to how the ancient Greek cities actually looked. Our classical architectural view of pristine white walls is wrong. https://exploringgreece.tv/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/parthenosnas-xromata708.jpg.webp https://exploringgreece.tv/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/parthe...
    • ffgjgf1 3y ago
      I refuse to believe that the people who made some of the best ancient statues had an artistic sense of a 5-year old when it came to color... Obviously ancient status were colored but probably in a much nicer way. No way something like: https://static.frieze.com/files/inline-images/web-cg-h-102-a-cmyk-0.jpeg https://static.frieze.com/files/inline-images/web-cg-h-102-a... could be even close to the original ( considering that the Romans generally managed to somehow get skin tones more or less right in the few paintings that survived)
      • mcpackieh 3y ago
        The problem is they do careful analysis of statues and find evidence of pigmentation, but obviously they're only looking at the remnants of the base coat and don't see any of the careful detailing that almost certainly went towards making these statues look very lifelike (judging by the realistic quality of the sculpture itself.) And so the recreations look flat and uncanny because they're essentially unfinished.
        • mymythisisthis 3y ago
          I wonder if another problem might be fashion trends. Sometimes bright, contrasting, colours are in style and feel normal. https://www.apparelsearch.com/terms/images/cher-aerobics-leg-warmers-80s.jpg https://www.apparelsearch.com/terms/images/cher-aerobics-leg...
          • mcpackieh 3y ago
            I don't think the bright colors are the problem, just the opposite actually. Particularly in this example: https://static.frieze.com/files/inline-images/web-cg-h-102-a-cmyk-0.jpeg https://static.frieze.com/files/inline-images/web-cg-h-102-a... The bright clothes are fine, but his skin is awful. It's flat and lifeless, like a cold corpse drained of blood. It looks like they put the primer coat on then left it unfinished; I think that's literally what they did. Maybe this look is what they were originally going for, but I don't think so. Look at the detail on that guy's knees, they look just like real knees. I don't believe the original artists went through so much trouble to sculpt hyper-realistic knees then let some intern half-ass the paint job.
  • lo_zamoyski 3y ago
    That's not a very good argument. Putting aside the present topic, this argument doesn't address the substance and instead lazily falls back on an association fallacy: "if people said P about A in the past and we no longer think that, and you say P about B, then you must also be wrong". It's the same kind of progressive argument people use when they categorically dismiss any criticism of new music as just the same old hate old people always have for "new things". Boring, dismissive, unthinking, and refuses to consider that there might be valid criticism apart from the crankiness that does, in fact, exist. It assumes as a premise that art cannot be bad, or that it cannot be an expression of cultural decadence, whereas I claim that it can. And I would actually claim that most Warhol is trash, good swaths of Dali worthless, and both Matisse and Gaugin mixed bags.
    • llbeansandrice 3y ago
      > It assumes the premise that art cannot be bad The difference is that pieces of art can be bad, but you’re going to have to do a lot more work to dismiss an entire set of categories of art. Even the examples of Warhol, Dali, etc. are individual artists, not an entire medium. Imagine arguing that there are exactly zero good pieces of software written in JavaScript bc JavaScript is a bad language.
      • mcpackieh 3y ago
        When people say "it's bad so it's not art", they're challenging artistic value, essentially the same as what any art critic does. A cultured art critic who says "this is kitsch crap" and an unsophisticated man off the street who says "this crap isn't art" are both people expressing their dissatisfaction with the work. One expresses his thoughts in a way that is 'technically wrong' if taken literally and the other expresses his thoughts with jargon that is inaccessible to the general public.
• bigbillheck 3y ago
  > None of those would have been accepted in any gallery some 30~40 years ag Graffiti started showing up in art galleries 30-40 years ago.
  • lostlogin 3y ago
    There is a Banksy one on now in Glasgow. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/rare-banksy-solo-exhibition-opens-in-glasgow-180982411/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/rare-banksy-solo-e...
• tchaffee 3y ago
  You're uninformed about it all being the same. The graffiti in São Paulo has a vast range of styles. I have hundreds of photos I've taken myself. This fine art I can see outdoors is one of the most pleasurable things about living or visiting there. I studied art in university, am an artist myself, and visit major exhibitions around the world on a regular basis. Much graffiti is indeed valid art.
  • Luctct 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • vjjsejj 3y ago
      To be fair you definitely do sound like an “artist”
    • oivey 3y ago
      I’d expect an artist to know that a mural is just art applied to a wall. That includes frescos like The Last Supper. Usually artists also don’t police and get so angry about other people’s self expression.
    • lIl-IIIl 3y ago
      >"I studied art in university, am an artist myself" Garbage argument. Why? I would assume "what is art?" is a subject on which much time is spent in art school.
      • lo_zamoyski 3y ago
        That's not a question for artists, but philosophers of art, which, of course, artists can also do, but generally, most artists are really bad at philosophy.
        • hypertele-Xii 3y ago
          University begins with philosophy so the question would indeed have been asked.
• gnramires 3y ago
  Art that isn't made to make the lives of those around it better, is dead, or worse. As someone living in São Paulo, those murals are one of my favorite aspect of the city. I love them. Not that it really matters, but those large commissioned artworks are very much how Da Vinci or Michelangelo worked. I have little doubt they would be proud and amazed. They also reflect the sensibilities and thoughts of the artist in relation to the city and its inhabitants. I love em' :)
• Bloating 3y ago
  Good art sucks. Interpret that however you want
• NikolaNovak 3y ago
  Real art is deep, meaningful, largely in the eye of beholder, and far from timeless but always culturally interconnected. I genuinely don't know if you're trolling, or actually believe what you wrote? If the latter, I'd love to hear more. I vehemently disagree with everything you said but that's no reason to downvote - we learn more from opposing viewpoints, especially if new and hard to comprehend.
• soapdog 3y ago
  As someone who graduated from an art school, let me be another voice here to say that you're absolutely wrong. Art is about intentionality and process. Duchamp and Wahrol are prime mainstream examples of that. The intervention in urban equipment is art. Making it yours, sharing it with the world, the dialectical dialogue between the mural and the surrounding cityscape, there is so much to unpack here. Also, comic books are art as well. Sequential art has been recognised by everyone with an ounce of heart and one of the main mediums for storytelling. Some even been calling it the ninth art just like cinema is the seventh. It is a medium unlike painting, cinema, or photography, one in which you can do things you can't in any other medium. I recommend checking out the following books if you want to move past your misconceptions: - The Work Of Art In The Age Of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin. - Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art, Scott McCloud. - Comics and Sequential Art, Will Eisner. All those books are quite approachable and engaging reads.
  • Luctct 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • RobotCaleb 3y ago
      ... they said, while wasting (in the true sense of the word, it would seem based on the quality of this comment) their time replying. Maybe tone it down a bit and be nicer? Even if they have a poor education, why would you publicly shame them for it?
    • Luctct 3y ago
      RobotCaleb, kindly explain: 1. Why are you admonishing me and not saying a word to the poster who said "check out the following books if you want to move past your misconceptions"? Why doesn't that come across as patronizing to you? 2. Why is art subjective but "the following books" are not? 3. Where did you get the idea that art is supposed to be inclusive? Kindergarten teachers routinely invited my mother to go there just to show her, "Look at the amazing drawings your son has been making AGAIN!" Do you think my kindergarten drawings should be blown up and plastered on publicly visible walls? Seriously, I want to know.
• rodgerd 3y ago
  > None of those would have been accepted in any gallery some 30~40 years ago when standards were higher It's funny to see someone wax pretentious about standards in art when they obviously haven't heard of, say, Diego Rivera, and don't know that Haring's heyday was "30 to 40 years ago". You should have kept your mouth shut instead of embarrassing yourself.
• dkh 3y ago
  So there’s no art in comics or animation either? Pixar’s Best Picture-nominated “Up” is too lowbrow, shallow, and lacking of artistic quality?
• ycomuser 3y ago
  [flagged]