4 ms·

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 o

by 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.

by groby_b 12y ago

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.