|
Post by TKennedy on Sept 2, 2014 22:15:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 3, 2014 0:24:39 GMT -5
Yeah, but it coulda been great art if they hadn't bent the damn spoon.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 3, 2014 0:25:42 GMT -5
it was the result of a three month residency by a respected minimalist. He was a fraud. A real minimalist would have done it in an afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by frazer on Sept 3, 2014 2:24:57 GMT -5
The video presentation is simplistic to the point that it can't be taken as the basis for a rational discussion, imho.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 3, 2014 6:34:48 GMT -5
There seem to be many directions this discussion could go:
1. One of the problems with the perception that "Modern Art" (<---in quotes because "Modern Art" doesn't mean the same thing as "contemporary") is bad is because, in contrast to the art produced throughout history, it has not yet been pared down to those few(er) pieces with "staying power".
It's a common complaint about contemporary church music. It sucks. But the complaint is, at least on some level, an unfair one because what is happening is that we are comparing the current output of writers with the enduring work of history.
2. The contemporary art -- to a greater extent than in the past thousand years of art history -- does not speak for itself. And, as it requires an expert to tell us what we are looking at, most are honest enough to admit that the expert's description still doesn't help (this aspect of the discussion was illustrated by the video professor's painter's smock illustration).
3. There is now more than ever an expectation of evaluating art based on monetary worth. That's not a completely valid way of judging art. It's not completely invalid either -- it CAN indicate a work's ability to communicate. But it's not the best way to evaluate the worth of a piece.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 3, 2014 7:10:48 GMT -5
4. The presenter has misinterpreted what's going on re:exchanging beautiful for ugly. But if he had said it more correctly, he is pointing out a real problem with the modern approach. The academy did, at one time, declare as illegitimate a whole range of human emotions and expressions. The problem is that the contemporary academy has done exactly the same thing (made illegitimate a whole range of human emotions and expressions)....and this time in reaction to the former's dogmatic declarations of beauty and worthiness. So, though the presenter misinterpreted the dynamic, in a general way he did describe the current state of art in the academy. I heard an interesting interview on "Tales of the Red Clay Rambler" podcast. www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tales+of+a+red+clay+rambler+podcast The podcast is an interesting set of interviews of ceramic artists across the country. The interviewer comes from an academic background, but is now making his way in the world of object making. Anyway, the interview to which I refer was with potter, Stephen Hill. And the academic interviewer observed: "You are among the few respected clay artists who seem to be intent on making beautiful objects." That comment, observed matter-of-factly, spoke volumes.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Sept 3, 2014 7:16:17 GMT -5
There seem to be many directions this discussion could go: 1. One of the problems with the perception that "Modern Art" (<---in quotes because "Modern Art" doesn't mean the same thing as "contemporary") is bad is because, in contrast to the art produced throughout history, it has not yet been pared down to those few(er) pieces with "staying power". It's a common complaint about contemporary church music. It sucks. But the complaint is, at least on some level, an unfair one because what is happening is that we are comparing the current output of writers with the enduring work of history. 2. The contemporary art -- to a greater extent than in the past thousand years of art history -- does not speak for itself. And, as it requires an expert to tell us what we are looking at, most are honest enough to admit that the expert's description still doesn't help (this aspect of the discussion was illustrated by the video professor's painter's smock illustration). 3. There is now more than ever an expectation of evaluating art based on monetary worth. That's not a completely valid way of judging art. It's not completely invalid either -- it CAN indicate a work's ability to communicate. But it's not the best way to evaluate the worth of a piece. Geez, John. It was a lot easier to comprehend you when you were tired. It was a much more minimalist synopsis.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Sept 3, 2014 7:27:36 GMT -5
No. That's dessert! (It is well executed. There's a lot of work and craft that went into making that pure simple figure look like a real spoon and cherry. [Though the stem doesn't look natural]. . . . , but it's the clouds that make the picture)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 7:45:15 GMT -5
Take a modern "Artist" and give him/her access to the same supplies that DaVinci or any of the Classical painters would have had, and see if they could create a piece of art. Probably not, those Artists made their own paint and quite often the brushes. They prepared their own canvases, or their apprentices did but they were once a apprentice themselves and knew how to do it. Classical art skills are being lost because artists are not classically trained. Why train people to make paint when it is so available ready made? Because when you stop passing on that knowledge it is lost forever. If you need a good example write something in cursive and ask one of your grandchildren to read it.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 3, 2014 8:58:37 GMT -5
Geez, John. It was a lot easier to comprehend you when you were tired. It was a much more minimalist synopsis. I have to have a clear head to write so obtusely.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Sept 3, 2014 9:12:25 GMT -5
Take a modern "Artist" and give him/her access to the same supplies that DaVinci or any of the Classical painters would have had, and see if they could create a piece of art. Probably not, those Artists made their own paint and quite often the brushes. They prepared their own canvases, or their apprentices did but they were once a apprentice themselves and knew how to do it. Classical art skills are being lost because artists are not classically trained. Why train people to make paint when it is so available ready made? Because when you stop passing on that knowledge it is lost forever. If you need a good example write something in cursive and ask one of your grandchildren to read it. I take issue with some of that. The artist uses the media and methods that are available to them at the time to create art. The canvase was the media of the day for a long time. Present day digital age blows that out-of-the- watercolor. Doesn't mean that old forms of art are negated. We're probably in a lull where the new media art has yet to emerge. Probably more so because we're so proletariat that we see only commercial media that's put out there to entice us to buy something. But I imagine that few plebes in the 1600s ever got anywhere near a real Rembrandt. So, for those of us who sit on our butts and consume only the pablum that the commercial world feeds us, we should not complain about the state of art in the modern world, if we're not willing to actually go out and seek the real deal.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Sept 3, 2014 9:13:08 GMT -5
I was once the project manager for a series of Christmas displays for the windows of the old Daytons department store, based on recognizable locations around the cities. One of the settings was the sculpture garden and the original design called for a small replica of the spoonbridge, but the budget didn't allow for it so we went with a painted backdrop. I was disappointed. There was something about building a miniature Claes Oldenburg that stuck my fancy.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Sept 3, 2014 9:20:32 GMT -5
A lot of the original complaint is about what appears in galleries and museums. But aren't they a relatively recent phenomenon themselves? Most of the classical artworks were created for individual patrons.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 3, 2014 9:32:49 GMT -5
I think the proper curmudgeon reply is "I know what I like" With that in mind is this Art? I always liked it. Called it the melted tic tac toe. That's a screen capture from Google street view so it's not a good picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 9:48:41 GMT -5
Take a modern "Artist" and give him/her access to the same supplies that DaVinci or any of the Classical painters would have had, and see if they could create a piece of art. Probably not, those Artists made their own paint and quite often the brushes. They prepared their own canvases, or their apprentices did but they were once a apprentice themselves and knew how to do it. Classical art skills are being lost because artists are not classically trained. Why train people to make paint when it is so available ready made? Because when you stop passing on that knowledge it is lost forever. If you need a good example write something in cursive and ask one of your grandchildren to read it. I take issue with some of that. The artist uses the media and methods that are available to them at the time to create art. The canvase was the media of the day for a long time. Present day digital age blows that out-of-the- watercolor. Doesn't mean that old forms of art are negated. We're probably in a lull where the new media art has yet to emerge. Probably more so because we're so proletariat that we see only commercial media that's put out there to entice us to buy something. But I imagine that few plebes in the 1600s ever got anywhere near a real Rembrandt. So, for those of us who sit on our butts and consume only the pablum that the commercial world feeds us, we should not complain about the state of art in the modern world, if we're not willing to actually go out and seek the real deal. I'm not saying artists should ignore modern materials or methods or that these do not have value. I'm saying classical forms should be taught so that knowledge is not lost. Don't throw away the old knowledge just because we have new methods. Choose any of my apprentices and take away their modern clamps, they will continue the repair using old world clamping methods, tourniquet clamp, weight clamp, wedge clamp, string clamp, go bar and a few others. None of these methods uses a screw, cam or ratchet and have been around for a thousand years or more, I still use them from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 3, 2014 10:06:00 GMT -5
A lot of the original complaint is about what appears in galleries and museums. And education.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 3, 2014 10:23:09 GMT -5
This is a fascinating topic. I agree with some of the points our sound byte professor makes, and disagree with others. By the way, I watched a number of other Prager U videos, every one began with an opinion espoused as a fact, and their entire argument built from that. But I digress...
My appreciation of the visual arts peaks with the Impressionists, I wholly disagree that they were the beginning of the end.. neither were the Abstractionists or the Surrealists. Those artists were grounded in representational methods (look at van Gogh's very early work, for instance). I think part of what separates real art from tomfoolery is knowing and embracing the traditions and rules before you break them or expand upon them.
I did a little research, it's interesting to note that the advent of the camera and the accessibility of color photography roughly coincides with the outbreak of impressionism. So paintings no longer needed to be representational, there was a new medium to capture reality, giving the artist license to move in a different direction.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Sept 3, 2014 10:32:46 GMT -5
I take issue with some of that. The artist uses the media and methods that are available to them at the time to create art. The canvase was the media of the day for a long time. Present day digital age blows that out-of-the- watercolor. Doesn't mean that old forms of art are negated. We're probably in a lull where the new media art has yet to emerge. Probably more so because we're so proletariat that we see only commercial media that's put out there to entice us to buy something. But I imagine that few plebes in the 1600s ever got anywhere near a real Rembrandt. So, for those of us who sit on our butts and consume only the pablum that the commercial world feeds us, we should not complain about the state of art in the modern world, if we're not willing to actually go out and seek the real deal. I'm not saying artists should ignore modern materials or methods or that these do not have value. I'm saying classical forms should be taught so that knowledge is not lost. Don't throw away the old knowledge just because we have new methods. Choose any of my apprentices and take away their modern clamps, they will continue the repair using old world clamping methods, tourniquet clamp, weight clamp, wedge clamp, string clamp, go bar and a few others. None of these methods uses a screw, cam or ratchet and have been around for a thousand years or more, I still use them from time to time. The purists (blues nazis) keep saying things like "Robert Johnson didn't use no pedals and gimmicks." My thought on that is that if they'd been available, he'd have plugged in. Would Mozart have composed and demoed his work with Pro Tools ands synthesizers if he'd had them? Would he have made the same music?
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Sept 3, 2014 10:33:03 GMT -5
It's interesting to note that the advent of the camera and the accessory of color photography roughly coincides with the outbreak of impressionism. So paintings no longer needed to be representational, there was a new medium to capture reality, giving the artist license to move in a different direction.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 3, 2014 10:33:19 GMT -5
What Lonnie said.
I think you should be able to paint the cow in the field before you branch off to strange stuff.
|
|