10 ms·

I visited the Tate modern art museum in London while on vacation this summer, and left bothered by the idea of modern art. I could put a collection of furnace d

by BruceIV 12y ago

I visited the Tate modern art museum in London while on vacation this summer, and left bothered by the idea of modern art. I could put a collection of furnace ducts in a corner, or hang a mirror on the wall, or bedazzle an internal combustion engine (all exhibits), but it wouldn't be art, because I don't know why it's art, and neither would it take any particular skill. It bothers me that this 'art' lacks both skill and approachability. As a PhD student, I'm no stranger to obscure academic fields that can't be understood by anyone outside your narrow specialization, but at least even the most obscure theoretical work in computer science might actually be useful to people who aren't theoretical computer scientists, and that possible future approachability to people outside the field seems to be lacking in modern art.

anigbrowl 12y ago
I feel the same way, despite being a fan of Dadaism and Marcel Duchamp. You might find it interesting to investigate the Stuckist movement, made up of artists who are similarly exasperated by institutional hostility to representation.
groby_b 12y ago
Like obscure results in computer science, (post-)modern art requires the observer to actually engage with both the field and the art object in question. Like obscure results in computer science, few will bother to do so. Of those few who do, even fewer can translate it into something that has any impact on the general populace. Dali was one of the few surrealists that connected to a large audience. Kandinsky is one of the few Bauhaus people to produce art accessible to a larger audience. Andy Warhol left a huge impact on the public as well - but again, not many pop artists did. All the above qualify as modern art, and all of them are approachable to a wider audience. I'd argue that we see the same in CS. And I suspect that "approachability" is a function of time - we forget about all the ones who had no success, and remember the ones who did. It'll be interesting to see what people say about modern art 100 years hence.
- BruceIV 12y ago
  In computer science, the later approachability comes from people finding ways to use the work, and eventually we get to the point where the people using the work aren't specialists anymore (one of my professors used to say that if you're the first to do something you're a scientist, if you're the second you're an engineer, and if you're the third you're just a technician). With modern art (my impression at least) is that the art is contained in the commentary on society and the dialog with other contemporary artists, and that will never become more relevant or approachable, you'll just need to be an art historian to understand it in a century. That said, what I find approachable is not a terribly important criterion for art, I just found the it irritating that the actual art was in the process but the context of being in a gallery suggested that the artifact was the art. (For what it's worth, I also find theoretical computer science papers that produce unimplemented and likely unimplementable algorithms which shave log factors off existing bounds irritating as well, but that is again a matter of personal taste - those at least might give some later researcher a hint about how to actually build a usably better algorithm, though.)
- cardiffspaceman 12y ago
  The difference is, if you don't understand or care about the lambda calculus, the computer scientists who do won't judge you. The practitioners and patrons of the arts who go off on these rarified tangents that require "engaging the field" do judge and dismiss those who don't understand or care for the creations of these practitioners. Thesis: if you did decide to "engage the field" of modern art, it would take about a year (i.e. equivalent of one serious college course of two semesters) plus intermittent reading from a popular journal such as ARTFORUM to stay current.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- lstamour 12y ago
  +1 for the correction. -1000 for missing the point. When I last checked, synonyms for modern include contemporary, current, present day... I'm having a hard time drawing a comparison to CS terms, but I'm sure there are at least a few similarly ambiguous to outsiders. Edit: I'll write here, since I do think it was worth stating, that the original correction was that "modern art" in this context is often called "contemporary art" to distinguish it from art from the period "Modern", which is then referenced in "Post-Modern" art. Yes, history can be confusing, art history just the same. I don't pretend to understand it either ;-)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
normloman 12y ago
Let's play devils advocate: If spilled paint on a canvas, and accidentally produced a fresco by Raphael, would it cease being beautiful (because it took no skill to make?). Do you go to art galleries just to be impressed by someone's skill? Is art a talent competition? Furthermore, what is unapproachable about a collection of furnace ducts? It's not to hard to understand. Just a pile of ducts. Does art always have present you with a puzzle to figure out, or contribute to some theory? Why can't I say "Look, a pile of ducts. Neat, huh?"
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  By that logic, you should come see me play the guitar and sing. I am terrible at both (really, truly terrible; not being shy, objectively, you-would-rather-listen-to-nails-on-glass terrible). But you should come see me express myself and attempt to do this. It will be super artistic, I promise. The thing is, we agree that there is music and there is noise. People draw the line in different places, but we all agree that it exists. Why is it that I can literally shit on the floor in front of you and when you yell "what the fuck is this?" I can answer "it's art" and have the audience go "oh, he's good!"? Is it perhaps because, no matter what, I can say that my brand of art is just so new, so advanced, that nobody has understood it yet? Then have some PhD candidate years from now write a dissertation on how I managed to portray the human condition to validate the shit I put out. Wow, that turned into a rant...
  - scotty79 12y ago
    I define art as creation that does not have to do anything but could invoke some feelings in the recipient. What's important is that you don't have to like art. If it evokes feelings in you that you don't like then just stay away from it. Appreciating art is not a contest. If someone expects you to appreciate same art as them that's their problem with expectations management not yours with performance. I would come to hear you play but if your music would invoke feelings in me that I wouldn't want then I'd leave. Some other person might like the chaos brought by lack of skills crossed with enthusiasm. The problem starts when people start talking about art ... they say dumbest things and often get away with it.
anon4 12y ago
Related: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html - basically a detailed explanation of the equivalent of modern art in modern literary theory from a scientific person who went to great lengths to dig into it and understand what these people are talking about.

by BruceIV 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago

I feel the same way, despite being a fan of Dadaism and Marcel Duchamp. You might find it interesting to investigate the Stuckist movement, made up of artists who are similarly exasperated by institutional hostility to representation.

groby_b 12y ago

Like obscure results in computer science, (post-)modern art requires the observer to actually engage with both the field and the art object in question. Like obscure results in computer science, few will bother to do so. Of those few who do, even fewer can translate it into something that has any impact on the general populace. Dali was one of the few surrealists that connected to a large audience. Kandinsky is one of the few Bauhaus people to produce art accessible to a larger audience. Andy Warhol left a huge impact on the public as well - but again, not many pop artists did. All the above qualify as modern art, and all of them are approachable to a wider audience. I'd argue that we see the same in CS. And I suspect that "approachability" is a function of time - we forget about all the ones who had no success, and remember the ones who did. It'll be interesting to see what people say about modern art 100 years hence.

BruceIV 12y ago
In computer science, the later approachability comes from people finding ways to use the work, and eventually we get to the point where the people using the work aren't specialists anymore (one of my professors used to say that if you're the first to do something you're a scientist, if you're the second you're an engineer, and if you're the third you're just a technician). With modern art (my impression at least) is that the art is contained in the commentary on society and the dialog with other contemporary artists, and that will never become more relevant or approachable, you'll just need to be an art historian to understand it in a century. That said, what I find approachable is not a terribly important criterion for art, I just found the it irritating that the actual art was in the process but the context of being in a gallery suggested that the artifact was the art. (For what it's worth, I also find theoretical computer science papers that produce unimplemented and likely unimplementable algorithms which shave log factors off existing bounds irritating as well, but that is again a matter of personal taste - those at least might give some later researcher a hint about how to actually build a usably better algorithm, though.)
cardiffspaceman 12y ago
The difference is, if you don't understand or care about the lambda calculus, the computer scientists who do won't judge you. The practitioners and patrons of the arts who go off on these rarified tangents that require "engaging the field" do judge and dismiss those who don't understand or care for the creations of these practitioners. Thesis: if you did decide to "engage the field" of modern art, it would take about a year (i.e. equivalent of one serious college course of two semesters) plus intermittent reading from a popular journal such as ARTFORUM to stay current.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

lstamour 12y ago
+1 for the correction. -1000 for missing the point. When I last checked, synonyms for modern include contemporary, current, present day... I'm having a hard time drawing a comparison to CS terms, but I'm sure there are at least a few similarly ambiguous to outsiders. Edit: I'll write here, since I do think it was worth stating, that the original correction was that "modern art" in this context is often called "contemporary art" to distinguish it from art from the period "Modern", which is then referenced in "Post-Modern" art. Yes, history can be confusing, art history just the same. I don't pretend to understand it either ;-)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

normloman 12y ago

Let's play devils advocate: If spilled paint on a canvas, and accidentally produced a fresco by Raphael, would it cease being beautiful (because it took no skill to make?). Do you go to art galleries just to be impressed by someone's skill? Is art a talent competition? Furthermore, what is unapproachable about a collection of furnace ducts? It's not to hard to understand. Just a pile of ducts. Does art always have present you with a puzzle to figure out, or contribute to some theory? Why can't I say "Look, a pile of ducts. Neat, huh?"

IgorPartola 12y ago
By that logic, you should come see me play the guitar and sing. I am terrible at both (really, truly terrible; not being shy, objectively, you-would-rather-listen-to-nails-on-glass terrible). But you should come see me express myself and attempt to do this. It will be super artistic, I promise. The thing is, we agree that there is music and there is noise. People draw the line in different places, but we all agree that it exists. Why is it that I can literally shit on the floor in front of you and when you yell "what the fuck is this?" I can answer "it's art" and have the audience go "oh, he's good!"? Is it perhaps because, no matter what, I can say that my brand of art is just so new, so advanced, that nobody has understood it yet? Then have some PhD candidate years from now write a dissertation on how I managed to portray the human condition to validate the shit I put out. Wow, that turned into a rant...
- scotty79 12y ago
  I define art as creation that does not have to do anything but could invoke some feelings in the recipient. What's important is that you don't have to like art. If it evokes feelings in you that you don't like then just stay away from it. Appreciating art is not a contest. If someone expects you to appreciate same art as them that's their problem with expectations management not yours with performance. I would come to hear you play but if your music would invoke feelings in me that I wouldn't want then I'd leave. Some other person might like the chaos brought by lack of skills crossed with enthusiasm. The problem starts when people start talking about art ... they say dumbest things and often get away with it.

anon4 12y ago

Related: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html - basically a detailed explanation of the equivalent of modern art in modern literary theory from a scientific person who went to great lengths to dig into it and understand what these people are talking about.