Art is supposed to be something pleasing to the eyes. Yes, I agree different people have different views of what is pretty. But why are some things that look outright dumb pass off as "art"? Like the guy with the half sunken yacht, the man with a camera on his forhead for 24/7, or the man who sprayed paint a whole room with cheese. These things are just plain dumb and waste of money and yet they are art? I took an art history class and the instructor was explaining pieces of abstract art that any kid could do. But because they were done by famous guys, those art pieces supposedly convey the moods of the artists. Well, if that's the case, I could come up with my explanations too. That's the dumb thing about art. And I wonder how those guys like Picasso become so famous with those ugly paintings anyway?
Art is stupid....to you. If you can grasp that statement, then you will understand art. And the whole idea of post-modernism.
If you think art is stupid try wrapping your head around the idea of jewelry and the fact that people will spend so much money on shiny useless rocks.
If you think jewelry is stupid try wrapping your head around the idea of sports and the fact that people will spend so much time on useless sports websites.
You think the fact that people will spend so much time on useless sports websites is stupid try wrapping your head around the idea that we all evolved from micro-organisms.
Sports is entertaining, full of action, suspense, drama, and is fun to follow and play. It can be interactive like fantasy or just going to a game. Sports can get you in shape, teach teamwork and humility, and inspires us. It invokes passion and debate and many times brings out the best in us. Art at least takes creativity and in many cases an abundance of breathtaking skill to create. Look at a Rembrandt or my favorite Casper David Friedrich and marvel at the ability to create something so vivid and lifelike. Jewelry is useless and how and why we got started assesssing so much value to shiny metal and rocks is beyone me.
What was always funny to me was that all of my friends who are artists look at that stuff like it's nonsense, and the people I know who are observers usually take that stuff very seriously. That's not to say that there aren't artists who are genuinely convinced doing weird stuff like that qualifies as art, because there most certainly are artists like that. The whole PoMo modus operandi of "but does it really mean anything? Does it have to mean anything?!" always seemed like a nonsensical, contrived cop-out that would mean more as philosophical conjecture on art rather than art itself. I suppose the only way you could convey that philosophy would be to make that kind of art, though. Doesn't mean I have to like it or consider it any good. :grin: Something I've noticed is that art is much less aesthetically driven and meaning driven than it was in the past. It's, in a way, becoming another form of entertainment really. People will make things because it's "cool" rather than because it's meaningful/beautiful. It's both good and bad, if you ask me.
And that's where you lost me. Art doesn't have to be anything of the sort. You may prefer art that is visually pleasing, but there's no rulebook somewhere that says it has to be. In fact, it very well may be the intention of the artist to make you feel uncomfortable and then hopefully make you think about why you feel uncomfortable. I'm not a visual artist but I can relate something from the world of music. There's a composition called "Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima". It's not a pretty piece of music yet it is very emotional, especially when you connect it to the title. Spoiler <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uzOb3UhPmig" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I never understood art or any abstract art in my life. I've always thought that with the invention of photography back in the... I don't know what year, but a long time ago... that paintings would go the way of the Mammoths. I mean, why try to paint someone when you can snap a picture of them in less than a second. If you want to add some crazy abstract things to them, there's photoshop. I have never once looked at a famous painting and go "hot damn that's the t*** right there!" but that's just me being ignorant I guess. I also don't get the fascination with shiny rocks.
Art takes many forms. Architecture, paintings, film, music, ect. If you don't appreciate any of these things, then maybe you're correct and you don't like art. Saying art is stupid may be the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. It is, and always has been, absolutely vital for human development.
I guess I was only talking about paintings and sculptures... the kind that was famous back in the ancient times. The point was why are some of these forms of art still around with newer, better technology, i.e. paintings. I remember a friend of mine bought some painting of God knows what and it cost him $300+ from an art show or something. I was dumbfounded. His response was that it was "cool man."
If he thought it was worth it then that's his business, just as if you were to purchase an album made by an "artist" that he thought was crap. Different strokes for different folks. I'm not trying to stomp on your nuts, just saying.
Why should musicians perform live when we have CD's and MP3's? Why should we still have books when we have movies and TV? Because one isn't necessarily a substitute or replacement of the other.
I enjoy art, have done a great deal of art in my lifetime, and even considered it as a career, but there is definitely such a thing as dumb art, stuff that should not be considered creative or intelligent, but rather simply garbage
