Modern Art vs. Toddler Art: can you tell the difference?

5/11

To be honest, they all look like garbage to me. Abstract paintings are boring.

 

4 outta 11. I failz

 

7/11

I'm sophisticated

 

11/11

Top that rimbaud!

Uh, mainly because I've seen them all. So that's somewhat a unfair advantage that rimbaud and I have on all you dorks.

that said, #1 almost got me. But that one is a fake.

An experienced artists dipped those brushes in the paint for the toddler.

So, the tell tale sign is were the brushes mixing paint in a highly skilled manner. You can only make those strokes with mixed paint about once, after that the paint gets muddy and you need a new brush.

Another tip is: is the paint overlayed. It takes hours (with oil, could even be days) for the paint to dry to do another layer. You really have to know what the hell you are doing to plan that out. It's pretty amazing what these dudes do.

The skill of these artists is tremendous. Y'all can say you don't like it, but don't say they aren't highly skilled.

 

your art is the prettiest art of all the art..

 

5/11

maybe its not that modern art is dumb, its that its rewarded because they have childish genius of a toddler into their adult years

 

10/11

The swirly green and orange one threw me off.

 

Read it as:

Modern Art vs. Toddler Fart: can you tell the difference?

I clicked the thread to say no I cant.

Then realized that OP threw a curve-ball at me and decided to take his test.

0/11. My suspicions were confirmed.

And then in an ironic twist, my toddler ripped one as she passed by me.

 

Ding ding ding! I bet some people here couldn't tell the difference between a $10 bottle of wine from $500 bottle

Art high school student here.

 

I was looking at the brush strokes mainly. The more professional looking ones I assumed were modern artists. I don't have any art background though.

 

Its true that realistic, naturalistic art styles are not always ideal and in most cases aren't indicative at all about how skilled the painter is, or how great the art is.

But I draw the line where you can some splash random colors and sporadically fling your paint at a canvas and call it art; my teacher and art connoisseurs all around the world will disagree.

Currently taking a visual arts class at UT.

 

I got 9 out of 11

Mostly guess but I agree with the "intention" part someone else mentioned. You can definitely tell some of the paintings had a motivation and goal behind them, even if they still look like ****.

 

They don't "splash random colors and sporadically fling paint" around. Paint doesn't work that way, especially when you are talking layers, that can take days and months to do, because of drying needs.. You make one mistake, and mixed colors turn to brown. That's just a fact.

Maybe you are talking about post-modern. But even guys like Duchamp proved they could do all the other styles prior to doing something new.

Viewing pictures is not the same as seeing it live from both 6 inches away and 20 feet away. seeing the layers and texture....I want to eat the paintings.

 

I get what you're saying, but I can only appreciate functional, visually comprehend-able art. Strange architecture, surrealist paintings, etc; all fine in my book. Clever art is great, but when it gets too abstract its a huge turn off. That's just me. Good thing art is subjective.

 

I'm reminded of when free jazz/avant-garde jazz hit the scene in 60s. The critics ate it up. A prominent jazz musician (I forget who, I want to say Duke Ellington) decided to give a concert of the "new" experimental music for critics. Except that the musicians were hidden behind a curtain. The critics loved the performance. Then they pulled back the curtain and it was nothing but 10 year old beginning band students.

With free jazz/avant-garde, musicians in the know can tell the difference between people who can really play and are pushing the limits and people who can't play and are just ****ing around. Casual listeners can't tell the difference. Critics fall somewhere in between.

 

RedRedemption...

Cool you're taking an art class at UT. You are probably a better artist than me. Hell, everyone is. I'm just a patron....enthusiast.

rimbaud is cfnet's resident authority on this stuff...an actual PhD Art Historian. Yes, one of the '99ers is a Rockets freak fan and Art Historian...you dorks!

Me...best I can say is I love my sisters work. She's an MFA, and married one of the Havel brothers in Houston. Maybe you can recognize him in this picture...He did the Inversion House on Montrose. he's on the right.

Art is "subjective." So is food and women. What is your point?

What isn't subjective is the way color works...and paint. That is physics. Guys like de Kooning are just off the charts in art history at how much they studied paint...and how to use it. Not only that, he has the hand of a master....like a surgeon.

Look at the pieces from 6 inches away. The brush actually has many colors on it. If those colors mix, it turns brown...no good. It must have gone through 100s of brushes per painting.

He can plan a 3 month long painting out in his mind before he does it. And he can mix those paints on the brush and paint that on the canvas when he plans for it to be seen from 30 feet away.

 

10/11

I'd encourage people to read the differences between Modernism, modern art (late 19th c. till the 70s), contemporary art (70s till now), and Abstract Expressionism (40s through the 60s).

I like a few paintings from these eras, but I wouldn't pay as much as art collectors do if I had the money for them.

 

Great thread. Got only 6/11. I think the quiz makes an excellent point...

 

It would be a lot easier if they showed the whole painting. If you crop VanGoghs, you end up with a bunch of dots.

 

Sorry, heypartner, I got 10/11. I missed #8 because I thought it was a trick because it seemed too obviously toddler.

What should be realized is that some of those are so zoomed in that it is cheating. I could zoom in hard on something from the 17th century and make it look dumb and pointless.

I also think it is funny that "modern art" is used when it doesn't mean what most think it means. It is a defined period that has long been over.

Some art is crap as some everything is crap but grand statements of "______" art is crap/meaningless/s**t/etc. is just ignorance. But rock on with your ignorant selves.