art is an evolved human expression. you'd be amazed if you found a sh!tty piece of art floating in outer space from another lifeform.
Perhaps because your question was so long I forgot that you limited it to painting. Good grief, rereading your original question, I have to have knowledge of past developments in painting (whatever that means), I have to produce a painting to support my question that illustrate promote and expand upon the piece. When do you want me to turn in my dissertation? By the way if you didn't limit it to painting I'd give you a link to facebook or something, under the premise that art is considered a beautiful code now. Code replaces brushstrokes and computer monitors are canvasses.
1. Eh, it was a big enough deal that I remember it even dribbling into the 'mainstream', local news stations and such. Don't know what the 'cat painter community' is. 2. The impression I got from the documentary was that she did not have the real deal. I did find it interesting that, IIRC, she could have sold it for a good chunk of money but still passed for whatever reason. I don't know how 'objective' the film was, but I remember coming to that conclusion.
I did contradict myself. After reading the posts by heypartner and you, it's likely possible any role the CIA and its supporters had little effect on the movement. My initial statement about losing respect for the movement simply because it was a Cold War tool was lazy and incomplete. My last post better stated my position: an original art movement was taken to a whole new level after some decades by people who used it for their own agenda. But, its huge popularity in my circles coupled with my distaste for the style, made me suspicious of the whole movement to the point where reading two books, Saunder's and Wilford's 'The Mighty Wurlitzer', felt like I knew the subject well enough, especially because I could relate to the authors' arguments so well. I work in a field where it's often all just a facade: it can be working on deals for corporations that make millions selling t-shirts to gullible counterculture youths (simply because they have pictures of men from the 60s that fought against the very people selling their images), or selling overpriced sneakers that are marked 1800% higher than their manufacturing cost. You become cynical of people, given how much they're willing to pay with the right psychology and setting. Case in point: This painting, White Center (1950) by Rothko, was sold for ~$73 million.
I addressed the bolded part in my last post. It was typed in haste, and I was wrong to say that so definitively. And given your expertise, I'll concede my argument.
I would like to weigh in on a few matters. Some people here are working on a notion that there is such a thing as valid and invalid art. The "good" art is seen as being a craft like making a good ornamental cabinet on the one hand and the "stupid" art is based on ideas that are fraudulent. The former has value because it demonstrates skill, craft and a ready meaning, while the later, modern art, is dismissed as some sort of stunt that has fooled people. I just don't see it that way. Any piece of art (hell, anything at all) can be reduced to an absurdity if you try hard enough and aren't willing to understand, but it doesn't mean it is without value. Here's my understanding of Abstract Expressionism- I don't think it sprang up because a bunch of untalented painters (or the CIA) tried to get one over on the world. It developed in response to countless art movements that had come before it and in the context of the upheaval of the post-war world. I don't think it is a coincidence at all that Bebop developed in the same period. However, I don't think that Abstract Expressionism was the start of "modern" art. It was the end. The long trend in Europe from the end of the Middle Ages was to try and recreate external reality as accurately as possible, first in shape and proportion, later in detail and finally in light. After the camera there was no longer need for that. Recreating reality turned inward until the psyche of the artist was as likely to be on display, as anything else. The medium, itself, the layers, shapes and patterns of the paint and the sheer monumentality of the canvas became the message in Abstract Expressionism. There's nothing wrong with that.
I recognize your previous comments...that's cool. let's get past that. As for AbEx,,,the guys that can overlay series of oils (you know oils have to dry and if they mix...that's brown) and you can see a texture developed over many days and it comes out at you a good 1 inch of relief and you just want to eat it.... then you back up and see the whole thing. love it imo...it is as best as looking at Da Vinci from 6 inches away. and then back again. You know, Da Vinci cheated with light. Applying light to a face when there was no chance that was real. But that is just my theory, based on about 6 minutes of staring before the museum staff made me let others up. But I did go back the next day...and again. Can anyone name that Houston show? And how about the best modern art show in houston ever....name that. lastly,,,not sure why Rothko's sell for $73m...but that is beside the point of the thread. Rothko's are not stupid. The price might be, but he isn't....neither is what he did.
I'd buy that for One t r i l l i o n dollars or maybe less or more depending upon if there was a nearby worm hole portal.
I think, to the every day man, it has a lot to do with control vs non control. Why do we value ballet so much as opposed to rolling around on the floor and maybe spasming enough to do the worm? It's about control, center of gravity, grace, elegance, etc. Things that place a premium on the talent itself and can't be replicated by the vast majority of the population. Now if I started a new sort of physical dance class called "Rolling on the floor randomly", and came up with a complex set of rules based on my observations of people rolling on the floor randomly, wouldn't I be hailed as a saint to those incapable of actual ballet and passionately involved in rolling on the floor randomly, in a spasmodic manner? Of course the context of my situation is also important. I see beauty in the ugly and random, and it has it's own grace due to the direct contradiction of actual grace. Blah blah blah. And so anything can be classified as art if you just want to feel good about yourself. "Oh... it's a new genre. So new, there can be no prejudice or misconceptions about it." And boom, you have guys like heypartner ready to jump on that wagon, simply because they want to belong. They want to be a part of something. Even in this thread, people are more interested in talking about how elitist and educated they are through their understand of certain ar concepts, rather than trying to actually explain it. Why? Because people cant really think beyond what they've already been taught. The irony is they need a strong structural system to abide by, because they act through fear of the abyss, fear of not being part of something and fear of not being validated because of their "education". I feel like Im reading excerpts from books and essays, not actual opinions. And it's also these same people who find greater beauty in things like a board full of lines and dots, because they tell themselves they are looking at something "beyond the surface." When in reality, they might as well be registering for Rolling on the Floor Randomly dance classes because ballet school... never really accepted them. Regulated.
I'm not an art buff. But what you said is a TERRIBLE precedent in living a "calculator life". "Outsourcing" everything. What you describe is efficiency, not expression. Efficiency just strips humanity out of yourself. If you can have machines that do EVERYTHING for you, then what are YOU left with? It then goes back to art and imagination again.
Performance art is the worst example. To me its become nothing but exhibition, shock value, trying too hard from straight trying to conjure up complexity out of the completely mundane. Or giving random gibberish a deeper "meaning". Feminists and failed artists who couldnt get into the indie film industry.
To add something to my previous post - I feel abstract art is a scary reminder of the mediocrity of the arts we see in the 21st century. No longer do we value timeless ideals, distinct class or some greater, untouchable power... but it's a world where you scratch, claw and spit your way to the top. The motto here is, anyone can do it. Just work hard and persevere. But that's really not what art is about. It's not what the ideals of aesthetics have taught us over centuries and centuries of history. You might say only a distinct few artists are capable of producing abstract art that resonates with the viewers so-called 'interpretation', but that's a contradiction of everything it stands for. The untouched pastures, the abyss, the unregulated thought process. People are just desperate to justify and validate some form of mediocrity. Unless some connoissuer can come in here and prove otherwise, that there is something that separates the great abstract artists from the average ones, analyzing the following paintings: Spoiler There are abstract artists out there who have been paid a lot of money for paintings they admitted... they had no idea what they were doing.
You don't really have to do what I wrote - I used those parameters because that is exactly what people were speaking bad about in this thread. And, yes, it does take knowledge and work and thinking. And I did mention the need for a manifesto. Art can be hard. Incidentally, computer art is a big deal with the kids these days...but they need to be slapped around a bit. dmc, I respect your self-awareness and your willingness to admit what you did. I think you need to separate in your mind the art movements and the art market. Monetary value gets ascribed to art based on all sorts of factors that often don't make sense. It is the combination of recognition of ability, plus time capsule "moment in history" elements, personality, hype, etc. You bring up Rothko, whom I happen to enjoy far more than Pollock. First, as heyp said, technically, these are very difficult and accomplished paintings. There is also a critique of painting involved in the process as well as philosophical/spiritual foundation that can be quite powerful. For many he represents the death of painting with the huge emergence of conceptualism shortly after and the "been there, done that" nature of postmodern painting. So, again, many reasons a Rothko can elicit high prices. You are buying history, you are buying philosophy, and you are buying aesthetics (and of course there is the element of trophy collecting that often brings up prices). People have mentioned in this thread that it is only names that make something valuable. Well, sure...but that name had to be formed in the first place based on some kind of merit. It is not as if there are all these talentless art students who manufacture a big name for themselves and then start selling works for millions. Well, except for Schnabel. Artist's careers are finite so there certainly comes a point when their inferior work will go for high mounts...but that is a community trying to hold on and preserve more than a fraudulent hoax or scam.
what i hate is that art is that so unapproachable for so many people. there are many factors why, which rimbaud or whomever may want to elaborate on, but i will not. i am an artist and a gallerist and i want whatever i'm involved in to be viewed by the largest cross section of people possible. i want to make it EZ. this is just me though, the "A"rt world is filled with elitist douchebags, some of whom are my friends. like all of life it's an exercise in tolerance. better education towards the arts and a little less attitude are good starting points but hey, those who don't embrace art are the one's losing out.
Word... I will say that some things people "get" and some don't...I dont' "get" a lot of it, as some of it is fugly, but to each their own... As a side note, for those in DFW, the Dallas Museum of Art is doing the late night tomorrow night...perfect for a date night...I'll be there... Late Nights at DMA
Art is all about Publicity Pump and circumstance. Those 'in the know' set the bar. . .those with the coin accept the bar and those 'not in the know' . . . accept it because those with coin back the play of those 'in the know' If the rich and the 'elite' say it is Great Art . . . .Then it is great art based on nothing more . . than their say so. Rocket River
