The Art Thread

Issacus Divus

ᛋᚢᚾᚢ ᚱᛖᛟᚱᛞᚲᚤᚾᛁᚾᚷᚨᛋ

Adrian

Civis Illustris
Welcome to postmodernism where every day is Saturnalia. As an aside every time I see a Pollack I'm instantly reminded of the Stone Roses.
I have nothing against Stone Roses (they are de facto godfathers of britpop rock); I just fail to see art in random set of chaotic lines, stripes and shapes... Perhaps I'm too conservative... or not enough "sophisticated"...
 
I have nothing against Stone Roses (they are de facto godfathers of britpop rock); I just fail to see art in random set of chaotic lines, stripes and shapes... Perhaps I'm too conservative... or not enough "sophisticated"...
Sir, it takes a very clever person with a high amount of intellectual clout (to tie themselves in knots with) to academically legitimize and promote crap art. Far too clever for the likes of us I'd punt.
 

Adrian

Civis Illustris
Edwin Parker Twombly Jr, abstractionist

Untitled I, 2005
This "astonishing" modern "piece of art" was sold for over $46 million in 2017

 
220px-James_Abbot_McNeill_Whistler_012.jpg

Whistler
Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket



Art critic John Ruskin wrote about the above in an 1877 piece stating:

"I have seen, and heard, much of Cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face."

Whistler sued Ruskin for libel and won.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
Edwin Parker Twombly Jr, abstractionist

Untitled I, 2005
This "astonishing" modern "piece of art" was sold for over $46 million in 2017


If it's still untitled, I would suggest "Child With a Ketchup Bottle".
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I wonder how academics justify the artistic status of that one.
 

Adrian

Civis Illustris
If it's still untitled, I would suggest "Child With a Ketchup Bottle".
Following your pattern, Pollocks No 5 should be called "Children with Kechup, Mustard, Garlic and Bbq Sauce Bottles"

I wonder how academics justify the artistic status of that one.
I've been to a modern art exhibition twice and spoke once with academical "art expert" . She kept talking about how art is an "unquantifiable value"; how "superficial is irrelevant" and how one has to "fell / experience" the emotion that artists wants to convey is his work.
I guess those "sophisticated art connoisseurs " can see through the surplice of pretentious reality into the art-realm where true beauty and emotion dwell...
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I've been to a modern art exhibition twice and spoke once with academical "art expert" . She kept talking about how art is an "unquantifiable value"; how "superficial is irrelevant" and how one has to "fell / experience" the emotion that artists wants to convey is his work.
I guess those "sophisticated art connoisseurs " can see through the surplice of pretentious reality into the art-realm where true beuty and emotion dwell...
I know that sort of argument. However, I wonder how they would justify calling those haphazard doodles million-worthy art and not mine, say. What does the ketchup painting have more?
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
I wonder how academics justify the artistic status of that one.

It's not that hard, is it?
Let's try a feminist reading:

[random description]
In this picture, intertwined red elliptical circles [weird contradiction, who cares] are sprayed on a pale yellow background. Fine red lines are dripping to the bottom from the inner ends of the ellipses.

[random conclusion before conducting any analysis]
In this picture, Edwin Parker provides a remarkably abstract allegory of everlasting female suppression under the male patriarchy.

[random explanation that tries to underline the previously-drawn conclusion]
A pale background full of nothing-coloredness [<-- it is important to make up random words] underlines a never-ending, never-changing, monotonous story: The endless circle of female subjugation under the rule of male tyranny. The circular shape of the red lines picks up on this idea: A never-ending, never-changing circle of events that every woman finds her- or himself trapped in. A vicious circle. Without escape. Red color was chosen as a symbol of female menstruation, an alleged display of bodily frailty, used by men to shame women over millenia and to keep them unaware of their own beauty and strength. Sure, it has not always been like that [random story about amazon warpaints consisting of menstrual blood that is completely ridiculous and completely made up] – yet, all attempts of female resistance eventually had to succumb to the primitive male who would cherish violence over wit to an end that no woman would ever have been ready to meet. As such, the painting criticizes the violence in today's male-dominated society. Red: the color of blood, war and death pictures the capitulation of female peacefulness to violent male belligerence. This is underlined by the fine red lines that are running down horizontally: They serve as an allusion to William Blake's "And the hapless soldier's sigh / Runs in blood down palace walls" – a warning that was clearly never to be heard by a society numbed under the brutal exertion of male privilege.

At the same time, menstrual blood has to be seen as a symbol of a woman's subjugation under male rule in every society peoplekind can think of: a woman's ability to give birth was shamelessly abused by the patriarchs to limit her place within society and tie her down to the shameful roles of a loving mother and a caring wife.

... I could go on from here, but you get the idea ...

I've been to a modern art exhibition twice and spoke once with academical "art expert" . She kept talking about how art is an "unquantifiable value"; how "superficial is irrelevant" and how one has to "fell / experience" the emotion that artists wants to convey is his work.
I guess those "sophisticated art connoisseurs " can see through the surplice of pretentious reality into the art-realm where true beuty and emotion dwell...

That's a nice post-modernist view, but I think she's still a bit too conservative when she says "the artist wants to convey". She should say "This picture underlines how the artist's own intention becomes evanescent, them themself being but a mere spectator of their own art. It is not about what they thinks anymore. The artist's intention is backgrounded against the actual meaning of the picture: something, that each viewer has to deconstruct by means of their individual perception and then to reconstruct into the world that surrounds themself. Circular red shapes underline the permanent process of deconstructing what has formerly been called 'reality' in order to reconstruct it into a new reality: a subjective reality that means everything to the individual."
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
Following your pattern, Pollocks No 5 should be called "Children with Kechup, Mustard, Garlic and Bbq Sauce Bottles"

I visited a friend of mine last Sunday who has a four-year-old. He produced similar pieces ... when he was 2.
 

Adrian

Civis Illustris
Bitmap - after reading your posts above two things come to my mind:
1) Andersen's Emperor's new clothes

2) this video I saw on youtube
 
Banksy made a documentary about exposing the US west coast postmodern art scene through a hoax and got his slightly barmy french pal to play the part of art genius. It's quite funny and fairly interesting.

I think it's called Exit at the Last Gift Shop. I've added it on the forum before somewhere but will be easily searchable on youtube should any fancy it.
 
If I recall his pal titled himself as Dr Brain, had a whole team producing his work with whopping pricetags and the west coast art scene fell hook and line.
 
Top