Always an interesting subject. For example, the following painting is valued at around $150 million: I'm all for looking at the beauty in things, and art is the sense of being. Being encompassed by the vision of the artist, and it colliding with your own. Going into details, the saturation, lighting, mood, historical and socioeconomic importance of the piece, what point in the artists life it took place, the vivid detail and the sombre lack of detail, thick lines vs thin lines, blatant realism vs subtle impressions blah blah blah but sometimes you just see junk. Another example of something I cannot comprehend: Both of these paintings represent absolute mediocrity to me. And yet, some times you see something so ugly, you're struck by the beauty of how far from the norm it is. The uniqueness and individuality of the piece. So I appreciate artists going into new boundaries such as intimidating the audience based on sheer magnitude alone, like Anish Kapoor. My favorite 20th century artist would be Francis Bacon, mainly because he emphasizes the raw state of things with an ambiguous background. Still life paintings never catch my attention. What makes this painting resonate with the viewer?
Check out the movie "Exit throguhthe gift shop" it will make you have a sense of humor, or at least laughing at the consumers who consider art to be so valuable. The movie will really make you realize how quick people are to call something art, and some artists even notice it. It is a movie directed by the street artist Banksy and has a spinal tap mockumentary feel to it, good movie.
So there appears to be substantial groups on the board who are anti-art, anti-science, anti-intellectual, and a whole lot of other antis for which they're admitted antis preclude an anti-dote. "Do the watusi/And go Rimbaud! Go Rimbaud!"
OK, let's play a game. Under the premise that art since 1940 seems to be so simple and stupid for a lot of people in here, why don't you guys come up with a new concept for painting (keep it at painting since that is the most basic and understood medium). Then write an explanation of your theory (these are often called manifestos), then produce some paintings that illustrate, promote, and perhaps expand upon your written piece. It is best if you have an understanding of the past development of painting and have a clear vision of why your position and production is original and challenging/forward thinking/destructive/etc with regards to the concept of painting, the production of painting, the role of a painter, etc. Ok, ready?...GO! PS - you know there was an early 20th century (and very short lived) German movement called Stupid. So...man, that Stupid movement really was stupid.
um, maybe you are thinking of dorky football players and baseball players who still let their mothers buy all their clothes. Do you not watch any frat movies? Go rent Animal House. As for me, I like to date artists ... they are so f!cking hot in bed. And most of them don't like guys who wear V-necks. You might also be thinking of the artists who bed those rich, philanthropic milfs. They f!cking rock in bed, too. btw, you ever seen this "Stupid" house: <img src="http://www.artlies.org/_issues/47/reviews/hou.roberts.inversion.jpg"> My sister's husband did that. I got a lot of play out of that...haha! All I had to do was help clean up. Greatest quote of the crowd of on-lookers who watched them finish it, "Did you do that on purpose?" haha
As bad as ART is . . . Fashion is worse. The ART OF FASHION is something beyond me. look at most things GAGA wears or even anything on the RED CARPETS or on the runways they either look like .. just another dress or some outlandish crap no one would ever wear in public. Seriously??? Rocket River
It's not easy, I have tried my hand at it. Although... sometimes that is the basis of what is actually being asked... is "challenging/forward thinking/destructive/etc" enough? Or should it also not seem to suck when you look at it? Being creative and doing what looks good don't always intersect, and often not at the point of general public approval. This is true in many ways and places. I think that most don't think or care about the work and knowledge regarding what is involved in the process of being a talented and recognized artist, let alone current. It's like the minutia of many things... if you haven't been interested enough in "x" long enough to know any of the how's and why's, then you are on the outside when you are critiquing a work in the domain of "x" and have mostly just a layman's statement of preference to offer. Nothing wrong with that. I agree art's own culture is to blame, but that's just in the current sense, and it seems it's not unlike anything of this nature... that IS its nature. Music, art, fashion; being different alienates, but it takes being different to be noticed/recognized. Too much recognition makes you not different or "in". This is the dynamic. See: figure A "hipsterkitty disaproves". Everyone doesn't have to be a critic and understand / appreciate all eras or forms of art, but we as a state/country could do a lot better to learn what we can from the history of art, and that alone might make whatever actual creative art that is current at whatever time seem more accessible to people in general, even if they only appreciate it for what it is rather than adore or hate it.
yea. . well . that is , .. uhm . . assumed but . . .we talking about something else. . . Rocket River
Art manifests itself throughout all forms of expression. "Modernism" is really about that shock of the new. When I think of some of the post-impressionists, I begin to study the timelines and there is a clear line of progression that extends to literature, film, theater, architecture, and music. Personally, I think of The Lost Generation, like Hemingway who started leaving out all the important details and started focusing more on the feeling and the underlying tones of certain themes, rather than presenting a plot in a symmetrical or non-linear fashion in which a protagonist overcomes obstacles and ultimately welcomes his/her fate. It reflected a new sense of self-awareness within the novel. Context becomes almost irrelevant and feeling is praised. If you've read Barthelme, you can see the 1960s New York art scene manifest itself in his style. He would view new "modern" pieces by Rauschenberg, with the layers and seemingly conflicting stories all being forced upon each other and incorporate that into his writing. Art is of the utmost importance because it ultimately reshapes perception.
Yes. She did. Yes to all the questions. I'm not buying that. Art goes nowhere without patronage (money). And the CIA has quite a bit. Maybe AbEx grew organically from the art community, but AbEx was catalyzed by the millions in backing from Wall Street and the government. We can disagree about the extent of this outside help in AbEx's popularity, but to say it had no effect is naive. Don't know if you even read the link (not just the excerpts I posted): "The connection is not quite as odd as it might appear. At this time the new agency, staffed mainly by Yale and Harvard graduates, was a haven of liberalism when compared with a political world dominated by McCarthy or with J Edgar Hoover's FBI. If any official institution was in a position to celebrate the collection of Leninists, Trotskyites and heavy drinkers that made up the New York School, it was the CIA. To pursue its underground interest in America's lefty avant-garde, the CIA had to be sure its patronage could not be discovered. "Matters of this sort could only have been done at two or three removes," Mr Jameson explained, "so that there wouldn't be any question of having to clear Jackson Pollock, for example, or do anything that would involve these people in the organisation. And it couldn't have been any closer, because most of them were people who had very little respect for the government, in particular, and certainly none for the CIA. If you had to use people who considered themselves one way or another to be closer to Moscow than to Washington, well, so much the better perhaps." This was the "long leash". The centrepiece of the CIA campaign became the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a vast jamboree of intellectuals, writers, historians, poets, and artists which was set up with CIA funds in 1950 and run by a CIA agent. At its height, it had offices in 35 countries and published more than two dozen magazines, including Encounter. The Congress for Cultural Freedom also gave the CIA the ideal front to promote its covert interest in Abstract Expressionism. It would be the official sponsor of touring exhibitions; its magazines would provide useful platforms for critics favourable to the new American painting; and no one, the artists included, would be any the wiser. Because Abstract Expressionism was expensive to move around and exhibit, millionaires and museums were called into play. Pre-eminent among these was Nelson Rockefeller, whose mother had co-founded the Museum of Modern Art in New York
The underlying condescension from you and heypartner is painful. Maybe in another life you two used to be critics at the Salon many years ago. AbEx is a case of Emperor's New Clothes. Yes, my initial point of AbEx being nothing without the CIA was exaggerated, but it did have a role - significant imo - in making AbEx popular. An original groundbreaking movement within the arts was propelled much further with huge sums of money, contacts in field, and elites in the major world cities. Granted, the art history professor was a young associate/junior instructor at the time with very anti-American opinions, but this was an intro course was taught at the University of Chicago which has slightly better academics and faculty than a rural community college.
A few things. First, are you not contradicting yourself? First you say AbEx sucks and was CIAO created. Then you say it is emperor's new clothes. Then it started as a legitimately grounbreakijg movement? That was my point. CIAO had nothing to do with the creation of the movement...that goes back to Mane, really. I said nothing about the popularity of the movement...or about my own opinion of its merits. Personally I think it is interesting conceptually and creatively but the work itself is nut my ideal and I certainly don't think it should have been milked as much as it was. I hate repeating oneself iver and over. Give me Duchampian philosophy on art any day. Second, I don't care where it was she was a bad teacher. First don't telk the students if something is good or bad. Present what it is and get them to think about or discuss their iwn ideas. Second, regardless of opinion it was a hugely important movement because of it being the first true American form that was water copied by other cultures and, for whatever reason, was a big movement. Finally, sure I am being condescending at times in here but it is deserved with almost if the faulty assumptions and dismissive statements. I don't mike willful or lazy ignorance. Sorry if this was messy - on my phone.
I hate arguing against people who read one book and think that it. That's everything. Francis Stoner Saunders is completely discredited. And no I didn't read your link. Because I already knew what Saunders wrote. I've read the "STUPID" book. I've studied this very subject. It is revisionist crap. This happens to be my strongest subject in art history: Soviet and Cold War effect on Art. And I didn't read just books. I read the actual historical, critical art reviews after review, propaganda letter after propaganda letter. Soviet and Western artist memoirs. Museum curator testimonials. Actual memos and transcripts from Senators speaking in the US Congress, and the Soviet leaders. And finally, yes, official memos of the Director of the CIA. And for those watching at home. Just in case you don't believe me that Sauders is more Stupid than Art: Do you know how much literature there is on this AbEx movement. Hell, wikipedia is a huge encyclopedia of highly reviewed history on AbEx. Look at that page. Many historians contributed to that page. There is only one small paragraph on this CIA thing, completely devoted to refuting it. And even if we are talking about specific post-War painters and buyers, I was specifically commenting on this opening comment of yours: "After reading how it was just a tool to fight the Soviets culturally, I lost whatever little respect I had for it." If anything, and this is also debated, it was US patrons trying to drive up the value of US art on the global scene by saying it was patriotic vs Social Realism.
Rimmy, I was trying to find a quote that I remember reading in Constance Rourke's book, the Roots of American Culture earlier today. She mentions that one of the early american ideas was that any art that wasn't useful was a waste of time. Basically driving home the point that americans should be more concerned with what helps (at that time) the industrial revolution. I can't remember the guys name that said this but he was using it as an argument against the europeans who were trying to undercut American culture by illustrating our lack of fine arts. So to answer your question, I'd say computer programming might satisfy as real art today. Moving from a canvass to a computer screen.
