4 ms·

What do you think is weird about Banksy? Looks like older pre-modern art to me. If you like neoclassicism and hate brutalism, then I would say you are very str

What do you think is weird about Banksy? Looks like older pre-modern art to me. If you like neoclassicism and hate brutalism, then I would say you are very strange too. To me, brutalism hits the same things neoclassicism does but much more organically and better.

ericmay 1mo ago
Idk. I don't see any cultural or artistic resemblance with Balloon Girl versus say, Luncheon of the Boating Party. Separately it's always peculiar to me that folks go on to defend some art, but I bet if I went around saying neoclassic art is terrible I'd not get much opposition. I wonder why. > If you like neoclassicism and hate brutalism, then I would say you are very strange too. What artworks would you compare here?
- hardbass 1mo ago
  Architecture. In both neoclassicism and brutalism, regardless of intended aim, the effect seems to be one of silublime monumental scale that humbles a person. Both paintings you cited are very much on the traditional and representative end of the spectrum. None of them seem to be on the more abstract 20th century styles.
  - ericmay 1mo ago
    > Architecture. In both neoclassicism and brutalism, regardless of intended aim, the effect seems to be one of silublime monumental scale that humbles a person. Well why would you discard the intention? I think there is more to compare as well than just the ability of the architecture to humble someone. What does the architecture say? Who does it glorify (in these cases)? How difficult is it to make? You can also say they're similar but one is good and done well (neoclassicism as you mentioned but there are others) and one is done very poorly (brutalism). Part of how you could argue that is something like number of visitors. Nobody visits brutalist architecture. It's extremely unpopular outside of academic circles or art establishment points of view. > Both paintings you cited are very much on the traditional and representative end of the spectrum. None of them seem to be on the more abstract 20th century styles. I have a hard disagreement here but I'm not sure what there is to really talk about.
    - hardbass 1mo ago
      Intent is not very relevant to the effect it has on people. You can make a building for any reason you want. Modern neoclassicism doesn't glorify any particular person, it may glorify the State or some Institution. Brutalism also doesn't glorify anyone, it isn't usually made by the state for itself either, I do not understand what the point of 'glorifying someone' would be to a general building. If you want to know 'who' a building glorifies someone then answer who CN Tower glorifies, and the Space Needle, and the Empire State Building. I am neither an academic nor a member of the art establishment. I find neoclassicism nakedly fake in an irritating manner. Brutalism is a more honest and organic execution of what people try to do with neoclassical buildings. >I have a hard disagreement here but I'm not sure what there is to really talk about. You were the one who put Bansky among "weird and ridiculous" art movements which is frankly absurd as Bansky does very traditional and representative art. Did you have any trouble recognizing what Girl with a balloon was? It is a very clear and representational style of painting that has absolutely nothing to do with the more abstract art movements of the 20th century. Do you know of Woman with a towel? Do you consider it normal or "weird"? Girl with a balloon is no more "abstract" roughly than girl with a balloon. If you think one is and the other isn't then you have a really absurd and incorrect view.
      - ericmay 1mo ago
        But you pointed out the intent in your comparison between neoclassicism and brutalism, I didn't. But to your point about the effect that some building has on people, we have things we can measure about that effect. You can look at number of visitors, or perhaps price on the market. > You were the one who put Bansky among "weird and ridiculous" art movements which is frankly absurd as Bansky does very traditional and representative art. Well it's ridiculous (worthy of ridicule) in part because of the poor quality and craftsmanship. It's poor art because it fails to express meaning in a way that, for example, you can clearly see if you are to compare it to Woman with a Towel. There is much more depth. Individual brushstrokes, intent. Popular and modern art today lacks the ability to evoke meaning and depth in the same way. This is measurable. There's a reason that IKEA sells Andy Warhol prints and not Women with a Towel prints - yet many more visit and covet visiting the great masters. Modern art requires an industry to convince you that it is art and worthy of praise while the others draw people in without needing marketing. One is a faucet of the degradation of modern culture post-World War I/II (which we can rebound from of course) and is easily made and easily reproduced. The other, isn't. > If you think one is and the other isn't then you have a really absurd and incorrect view. No, your view is incorrect and absurd.

ericmay 1mo ago

Idk. I don't see any cultural or artistic resemblance with Balloon Girl versus say, Luncheon of the Boating Party. Separately it's always peculiar to me that folks go on to defend some art, but I bet if I went around saying neoclassic art is terrible I'd not get much opposition. I wonder why. > If you like neoclassicism and hate brutalism, then I would say you are very strange too. What artworks would you compare here?

hardbass 1mo ago
Architecture. In both neoclassicism and brutalism, regardless of intended aim, the effect seems to be one of silublime monumental scale that humbles a person. Both paintings you cited are very much on the traditional and representative end of the spectrum. None of them seem to be on the more abstract 20th century styles.
- ericmay 1mo ago
  > Architecture. In both neoclassicism and brutalism, regardless of intended aim, the effect seems to be one of silublime monumental scale that humbles a person. Well why would you discard the intention? I think there is more to compare as well than just the ability of the architecture to humble someone. What does the architecture say? Who does it glorify (in these cases)? How difficult is it to make? You can also say they're similar but one is good and done well (neoclassicism as you mentioned but there are others) and one is done very poorly (brutalism). Part of how you could argue that is something like number of visitors. Nobody visits brutalist architecture. It's extremely unpopular outside of academic circles or art establishment points of view. > Both paintings you cited are very much on the traditional and representative end of the spectrum. None of them seem to be on the more abstract 20th century styles. I have a hard disagreement here but I'm not sure what there is to really talk about.
  - hardbass 1mo ago
    Intent is not very relevant to the effect it has on people. You can make a building for any reason you want. Modern neoclassicism doesn't glorify any particular person, it may glorify the State or some Institution. Brutalism also doesn't glorify anyone, it isn't usually made by the state for itself either, I do not understand what the point of 'glorifying someone' would be to a general building. If you want to know 'who' a building glorifies someone then answer who CN Tower glorifies, and the Space Needle, and the Empire State Building. I am neither an academic nor a member of the art establishment. I find neoclassicism nakedly fake in an irritating manner. Brutalism is a more honest and organic execution of what people try to do with neoclassical buildings. >I have a hard disagreement here but I'm not sure what there is to really talk about. You were the one who put Bansky among "weird and ridiculous" art movements which is frankly absurd as Bansky does very traditional and representative art. Did you have any trouble recognizing what Girl with a balloon was? It is a very clear and representational style of painting that has absolutely nothing to do with the more abstract art movements of the 20th century. Do you know of Woman with a towel? Do you consider it normal or "weird"? Girl with a balloon is no more "abstract" roughly than girl with a balloon. If you think one is and the other isn't then you have a really absurd and incorrect view.
    - ericmay 1mo ago
      But you pointed out the intent in your comparison between neoclassicism and brutalism, I didn't. But to your point about the effect that some building has on people, we have things we can measure about that effect. You can look at number of visitors, or perhaps price on the market. > You were the one who put Bansky among "weird and ridiculous" art movements which is frankly absurd as Bansky does very traditional and representative art. Well it's ridiculous (worthy of ridicule) in part because of the poor quality and craftsmanship. It's poor art because it fails to express meaning in a way that, for example, you can clearly see if you are to compare it to Woman with a Towel. There is much more depth. Individual brushstrokes, intent. Popular and modern art today lacks the ability to evoke meaning and depth in the same way. This is measurable. There's a reason that IKEA sells Andy Warhol prints and not Women with a Towel prints - yet many more visit and covet visiting the great masters. Modern art requires an industry to convince you that it is art and worthy of praise while the others draw people in without needing marketing. One is a faucet of the degradation of modern culture post-World War I/II (which we can rebound from of course) and is easily made and easily reproduced. The other, isn't. > If you think one is and the other isn't then you have a really absurd and incorrect view. No, your view is incorrect and absurd.