,
Upvote
Upvoted
0
Downvote
Downvoted
modern art
posted in
Off Topic
4812622i have decided to live my life under the assumption that modern art exists so rich people can give huge sums of money without being taxed and everyone who says that they understand it has no fucking idea what they're talking about
Why would they gift some random artist money
Why would they go to auctions for it, where someone else can outbid you
Why do they need a new art medium for that, why not just trade around with Rembrandts or whatever
(afaik taxes still apply to art auctions too anyway)
[quote=4812622]i have decided to live my life under the assumption that modern art exists so rich people can give huge sums of money without being taxed and everyone who says that they understand it has no fucking idea what they're talking about[/quote]
Why would they gift some random artist money
Why would they go to auctions for it, where someone else can outbid you
Why do they need a new art medium for that, why not just trade around with Rembrandts or whatever
(afaik taxes still apply to art auctions too anyway)
Why would they gift some random artist money
Why would they go to auctions for it, where someone else can outbid you
Why do they need a new art medium for that, why not just trade around with Rembrandts or whatever
(afaik taxes still apply to art auctions too anyway)
funhaver1998now whats genius about that is the simplicity. i've been watching some cooking documentaries and something that marco pierre white said that stuck out for me was 'you have to realize that mother nature is the true master and you are just the chef' in the context of making complex food. the best chefs are those that make good food in the most simple way possible. now if we apply that to art, the best artists are those that say what they want to say simply, and what better than one simple stroke of yellow, charged with emotion and imagery against a blank canvas. colours, especially yellow being a primary colour, are the most simple tools that an artist has, the same way a chef uses a potato and a writer uses language, and to say something while respecting these things, in its most purist form, is genius.
The point is that when you go to a restaurant and you're given a soup which consists solely of boiled water, you would not think it's delicious; you'd leave without paying because you can just put the kettle on at home. There is a difference between minimalism and non-existence. It's also not impressive to tell someone something in a vague and laborious manner which requires all sorts of background checking, that's just failing at getting your message across.
In the end, meaning is different for everyone(everything in the universe means fuck all until you decide for yourself that it has meaning), but within the framework of our society, if you put something on display or up for sale in a public place, you do have to try to communicate with that very same public in their framework. And even if you fail to do so, people might still appreciate your artistry without comprehending your message. But there is very little artistry in one stroke of paint or monochrome surface. This is also why someone can think a painting is ugly, but still appreciate it. With some modern art, if you don't understand the message there also isn't any artistry to fall back on that you could still appreciate. Hence the strong reactions people have to it compared to older art.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't enjoy a monochrome surface. You should just be cognisant of the reason why the vast majority of the public is not in a position to enjoy it and perhaps shouldn't be expected to put in the effort to be able to at the very least appreciate, let alone enjoy, what the artist was trying to communicate in a highly abstract and arguably incompetent manner.
[quote=funhaver1998]now whats genius about that is the simplicity. i've been watching some cooking documentaries and something that marco pierre white said that stuck out for me was 'you have to realize that mother nature is the true master and you are just the chef' in the context of making complex food. the best chefs are those that make good food in the most simple way possible. now if we apply that to art, the best artists are those that say what they want to say simply, and what better than one simple stroke of yellow, charged with emotion and imagery against a blank canvas. colours, especially yellow being a primary colour, are the most simple tools that an artist has, the same way a chef uses a potato and a writer uses language, and to say something while respecting these things, in its most purist form, is genius.[/quote]
The point is that when you go to a restaurant and you're given a soup which consists solely of boiled water, you would not think it's delicious; you'd leave without paying because you can just put the kettle on at home. There is a difference between minimalism and non-existence. It's also not impressive to tell someone something in a vague and laborious manner which requires all sorts of background checking, that's just failing at getting your message across.
In the end, meaning is different for everyone(everything in the universe means fuck all until you decide for yourself that it has meaning), but within the framework of our society, if you put something on display or up for sale in a public place, you do have to try to communicate with that very same public in their framework. And even if you fail to do so, people might still appreciate your artistry without comprehending your message. But there is very little artistry in one stroke of paint or monochrome surface. This is also why someone can think a painting is ugly, but still appreciate it. With some modern art, if you don't understand the message there also isn't any artistry to fall back on that you could still appreciate. Hence the strong reactions people have to it compared to older art.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't enjoy a monochrome surface. You should just be cognisant of the reason why the vast majority of the public is not in a position to enjoy it and perhaps shouldn't be expected to put in the effort to be able to at the very least appreciate, let alone enjoy, what the artist was trying to communicate in a highly abstract and arguably incompetent manner.
The point is that when you go to a restaurant and you're given a soup which consists solely of boiled water, you would not think it's delicious; you'd leave without paying because you can just put the kettle on at home. There is a difference between minimalism and non-existence. It's also not impressive to tell someone something in a vague and laborious manner which requires all sorts of background checking, that's just failing at getting your message across.
In the end, meaning is different for everyone(everything in the universe means fuck all until you decide for yourself that it has meaning), but within the framework of our society, if you put something on display or up for sale in a public place, you do have to try to communicate with that very same public in their framework. And even if you fail to do so, people might still appreciate your artistry without comprehending your message. But there is very little artistry in one stroke of paint or monochrome surface. This is also why someone can think a painting is ugly, but still appreciate it. With some modern art, if you don't understand the message there also isn't any artistry to fall back on that you could still appreciate. Hence the strong reactions people have to it compared to older art.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't enjoy a monochrome surface. You should just be cognisant of the reason why the vast majority of the public is not in a position to enjoy it and perhaps shouldn't be expected to put in the effort to be able to at the very least appreciate, let alone enjoy, what the artist was trying to communicate in a highly abstract and arguably incompetent manner.
friendly reminder that if you think it's shit or even if you post in this thread you are in fact interpreting it and are a part of the system.
friendly reminder that if you think it's shit or even if you post in this thread you are in fact interpreting it and are a part of the system.
The point is that when you go to a restaurant and you're given a soup which consists solely of boiled water, you would not think it's delicious; you'd leave without paying because you can just put the kettle on at home. There is a difference between minimalism and non-existence. It's also not impressive to tell someone something in a vague and laborious manner which requires all sorts of background checking, that's just failing at getting your message across
no on the train i overheard a group of people go to a restaurant for exactly that, in a dark room where you can't see anything and with loud noises in the background or something like that and they paid. if you went into a restaurant like that, would you not be curious why they're selling that? it costs money to keep a restaurant open, it costs money to have gallery space that tonnes of other artists are competing for.
one of the pieces in the tate (i think) is quite literally just a mirror. just a mirror. a bunch of people who are older than you, smarter than you and richer than you, spent their whole lives dedicated to art, went to the top universities for it, decided that this mirror was worth more of their time, money, matienance than then something realistic and impressive, so i don't really understand the whole notion of just dismissing it as shit and not delving as deep as they do if people are so confused as to why people give a shit about it
[quote] The point is that when you go to a restaurant and you're given a soup which consists solely of boiled water, you would not think it's delicious; you'd leave without paying because you can just put the kettle on at home. There is a difference between minimalism and non-existence. It's also not impressive to tell someone something in a vague and laborious manner which requires all sorts of background checking, that's just failing at getting your message across [/quote]
no on the train i overheard a group of people go to a restaurant for exactly that, in a dark room where you can't see anything and with loud noises in the background or something like that and they paid. if you went into a restaurant like that, would you not be curious why they're selling that? it costs money to keep a restaurant open, it costs money to have gallery space that tonnes of other artists are competing for.
one of the pieces in the tate (i think) is quite literally just a mirror. just a mirror. a bunch of people who are older than you, smarter than you and richer than you, spent their whole lives dedicated to art, went to the top universities for it, decided that this mirror was worth more of their time, money, matienance than then something realistic and impressive, so i don't really understand the whole notion of just dismissing it as shit and not delving as deep as they do if people are so confused as to why people give a shit about it
no on the train i overheard a group of people go to a restaurant for exactly that, in a dark room where you can't see anything and with loud noises in the background or something like that and they paid. if you went into a restaurant like that, would you not be curious why they're selling that? it costs money to keep a restaurant open, it costs money to have gallery space that tonnes of other artists are competing for.
one of the pieces in the tate (i think) is quite literally just a mirror. just a mirror. a bunch of people who are older than you, smarter than you and richer than you, spent their whole lives dedicated to art, went to the top universities for it, decided that this mirror was worth more of their time, money, matienance than then something realistic and impressive, so i don't really understand the whole notion of just dismissing it as shit and not delving as deep as they do if people are so confused as to why people give a shit about it
GoaskAlice shall i put out a musical single that plays the G chord only from start to finish on the guitar for 5 minutes and say that its modern music let you guys decide if you feel happy or feel sad listening to it let you guys decide how i felt whilst playing that amazing piece of modern music... even that would be better art and require more talent holding the position of a G chord on a guitar then to dip a paint brush into yellow paint and stroke it against a white canvas once
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg
and look at all the people that paid money and gave their time for this too
[quote=GoaskAlice] shall i put out a musical single that plays the G chord only from start to finish on the guitar for 5 minutes and say that its modern music let you guys decide if you feel happy or feel sad listening to it let you guys decide how i felt whilst playing that amazing piece of modern music... even that would be better art and require more talent holding the position of a G chord on a guitar then to dip a paint brush into yellow paint and stroke it against a white canvas once [/quote]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg
and look at all the people that paid money and gave their time for this too
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg
and look at all the people that paid money and gave their time for this too
dont they like try to be super deep when they dont have any message to convert or anything to say?
dont they like try to be super deep when they dont have any message to convert or anything to say?
fahrenheitWilliam Basinski , Philip Glass, and Steve Reich.
they are all extremely talented artists, a better analogy would be comparing john cage's 4'33 or maybe something by sachiko m
[quote=fahrenheit]William Basinski , Philip Glass, and Steve Reich.[/quote]
they are all extremely talented artists, a better analogy would be comparing john cage's 4'33 or maybe something by sachiko m
they are all extremely talented artists, a better analogy would be comparing john cage's 4'33 or maybe something by sachiko m
funhaver1998MouldI don't know or particularly care whether it's art or not, I don't see why I should be impressed if it takes no real talent.
why is a matter of being impressed? if an author just strung together the most abstract longest words they could find and string it into a coherent sentence, that alone doesn't make them a great author.
there is no reason to make paintings and sculptures as realistically as possible for the sake of impressing people today. with the 3D modelling technology available or just plain simple cameras, which is probably what motivated this shift to what we see today. why spend months and years painting some bridge for the sake of it when you could take a picture of it, have it look as realistic as possible going beyond what any human could achieve in a second?
which is why this is worth shit and no one cares about it
https://ibb.co/fVcL4Q]
and this worth millions and in the tate
https://ibb.co/fKNbdk
when i show rothko's work to anyone or bring them into the tates rothko room, which is a room soley dedicated to a collection of these paintings and is a pretty huge deal, in fact i think in rothko's prime he was considered one of the best american artists, they usually say shit like 'anyone could do that' or that its just dog shit for rich people and never understand why someone would spend literally millions on these, one of which was #10 on this documentary i watched yesterday where they were showing the most expensive paintings ever sold to date (this being after 2009 i think) and they usually hate it so much they never ask themselves the questions that would lead to the answers.
could you imagine painting that set? why would a grown adult painter, someone who makes their living off of it grab a paint brush and just start painting 'like a 3 year old' in the first place? he didnt just shit these out either they're huge and there's like 11 of them. the motivation behind them was also a comission for a fancy restaurant so a lot is on the line here. now taking that all in mind, this specific piece is a lot more important than the random decisons and lack of control of a 3 year old and now opens the question thats central to appreciating modern art, which is what is this person trying to tell me?
by the way, this is an early rothko, before he started with those formless pieces which dominated his work and that he is more known for https://ibb.co/kpcjEQ] so its not that he just cant paint either. hes painting like that on purpose. why? he credits the change in his style after the red studio by matisse. i cant find the documentary i saw on this, but it would be really interesting to show you where they said his favourite part was and why he liked it so much, which was just the blank space which is also kinda funny the way they zoom into the nothingness https://ibb.co/gHP6uQ
rothko said if a person understood his work, that they would cry. now theres no real use explaining why i personally think it merits its prestige, because you could google and find heaps and heaps of essays on this thing which is what seperates this from the daft punk picture (first thing that came to my mind when thinking 'impressive' and modern) is there any more to it other than it looks cool? no, you see it, you've taken it all in and its shit. its cool the person had the ability to replicate what they see, but it says nothing, its lifeless.
so what does that mean for paintings before the modern movement like turner and william adolphe? the difference between their works and the daft punk is that the old guy's paintings have that same emotion, that same depth as the rothko, maybe even more, which is why they are remembered today. they're the shakespeares of painting basically. its got much less to do with how realistic and impressive their work is, it always comes back to the question of what is this person trying to tell me. people who paint now are influenced by the old masters the same way today's playwrights and poets are influenced by shakespeare and aristotle even though their shit looks nothing alike.
watch this what do you think about it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hsxR8aT2Ob0 they show this at the tate and i dont even think you need to think to understand the emotion, not even because of how aggressive he is, but to look at the painting after watching him fucking pound the canvas, the music, the colours, the shape, how it became all come together to make this feeling, extremely similar to how the old masters make a 'feeling' but it looks nothing alike, which just goes to show the old masters influence and spirit are still much so alive in art, just doesn't look the same.
fahrenheitPhilip Glass, and Steve Reich.i highly recommend you listen to these 2 even if u still dont buy the whole modern art thing. i had no idea who they were but was searching for their music for years cause i heard them in films, the first hunger games film where they start running for the cornucopia was my favourite part of the film because of the music, and i found it was steve reich like 2 years ago. listen to six pianos by steve reich and floe by philip glass.
Varihttps://my.mixtape.moe/oaeadb.png
hi guys please rate my painting!!!!! :)
the fact that the 1st comment is sitting on 0 votes and this one is on 3 is a joke lmao
i guess its funner to circlejerk than actually try to educate yourself and see things from a new perspective
[quote=funhaver1998][quote=Mould]I don't know or particularly care whether it's art or not, I don't see why I should be impressed if it takes no real talent. [/quote]
why is a matter of being impressed? if an author just strung together the most abstract longest words they could find and string it into a coherent sentence, that alone doesn't make them a great author.
there is no reason to make paintings and sculptures as realistically as possible for the sake of impressing people today. with the 3D modelling technology available or just plain simple cameras, which is probably what motivated this shift to what we see today. why spend months and years painting some bridge for the sake of it when you could take a picture of it, have it look as realistic as possible going beyond what any human could achieve in a second?
which is why this is worth shit and no one cares about it
[img]https://ibb.co/fVcL4Q][/img]
and this worth millions and in the tate
[img]https://ibb.co/fKNbdk[/img]
when i show rothko's work to anyone or bring them into the tates rothko room, which is a room soley dedicated to a collection of these paintings and is a pretty huge deal, in fact i think in rothko's prime he was considered one of the best american artists, they usually say shit like 'anyone could do that' or that its just dog shit for rich people and never understand why someone would spend literally millions on these, one of which was #10 on this documentary i watched yesterday where they were showing the most expensive paintings ever sold to date (this being after 2009 i think) and they usually hate it so much they never ask themselves the questions that would lead to the answers.
could you imagine painting that set? why would a grown adult painter, someone who makes their living off of it grab a paint brush and just start painting 'like a 3 year old' in the first place? he didnt just shit these out either they're huge and there's like 11 of them. the motivation behind them was also a comission for a fancy restaurant so a lot is on the line here. now taking that all in mind, this specific piece is a lot more important than the random decisons and lack of control of a 3 year old and now opens the question thats central to appreciating modern art, which is what is this person trying to tell me?
by the way, this is an early rothko, before he started with those formless pieces which dominated his work and that he is more known for [img]https://ibb.co/kpcjEQ][/img] so its not that he just cant paint either. hes painting like that on purpose. why? he credits the change in his style after the red studio by matisse. i cant find the documentary i saw on this, but it would be really interesting to show you where they said his favourite part was and why he liked it so much, which was just the blank space which is also kinda funny the way they zoom into the nothingness [img]https://ibb.co/gHP6uQ[/img]
rothko said if a person understood his work, that they would cry. now theres no real use explaining why i personally think it merits its prestige, because you could google and find heaps and heaps of essays on this thing which is what seperates this from the daft punk picture (first thing that came to my mind when thinking 'impressive' and modern) is there any more to it other than it looks cool? no, you see it, you've taken it all in and its shit. its cool the person had the ability to replicate what they see, but it says nothing, its lifeless.
so what does that mean for paintings before the modern movement like turner and william adolphe? the difference between their works and the daft punk is that the old guy's paintings have that same emotion, that same depth as the rothko, maybe even more, which is why they are remembered today. they're the shakespeares of painting basically. its got much less to do with how realistic and impressive their work is, it always comes back to the question of what is this person trying to tell me. people who paint now are influenced by the old masters the same way today's playwrights and poets are influenced by shakespeare and aristotle even though their shit looks nothing alike.
watch this what do you think about it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hsxR8aT2Ob0 they show this at the tate and i dont even think you need to think to understand the emotion, not even because of how aggressive he is, but to look at the painting after watching him fucking pound the canvas, the music, the colours, the shape, how it became all come together to make this feeling, extremely similar to how the old masters make a 'feeling' but it looks nothing alike, which just goes to show the old masters influence and spirit are still much so alive in art, just doesn't look the same.
[quote=fahrenheit]Philip Glass, and Steve Reich.[/quote]
i highly recommend you listen to these 2 even if u still dont buy the whole modern art thing. i had no idea who they were but was searching for their music for years cause i heard them in films, the first hunger games film where they start running for the cornucopia was my favourite part of the film because of the music, and i found it was steve reich like 2 years ago. listen to six pianos by steve reich and floe by philip glass.[/quote]
[quote=Vari][img]https://my.mixtape.moe/oaeadb.png[/img]
hi guys please rate my painting!!!!! :)[/quote]
the fact that the 1st comment is sitting on 0 votes and this one is on 3 is a joke lmao
i guess its funner to circlejerk than actually try to educate yourself and see things from a new perspective
why is a matter of being impressed? if an author just strung together the most abstract longest words they could find and string it into a coherent sentence, that alone doesn't make them a great author.
there is no reason to make paintings and sculptures as realistically as possible for the sake of impressing people today. with the 3D modelling technology available or just plain simple cameras, which is probably what motivated this shift to what we see today. why spend months and years painting some bridge for the sake of it when you could take a picture of it, have it look as realistic as possible going beyond what any human could achieve in a second?
which is why this is worth shit and no one cares about it
[img]https://ibb.co/fVcL4Q][/img]
and this worth millions and in the tate
[img]https://ibb.co/fKNbdk[/img]
when i show rothko's work to anyone or bring them into the tates rothko room, which is a room soley dedicated to a collection of these paintings and is a pretty huge deal, in fact i think in rothko's prime he was considered one of the best american artists, they usually say shit like 'anyone could do that' or that its just dog shit for rich people and never understand why someone would spend literally millions on these, one of which was #10 on this documentary i watched yesterday where they were showing the most expensive paintings ever sold to date (this being after 2009 i think) and they usually hate it so much they never ask themselves the questions that would lead to the answers.
could you imagine painting that set? why would a grown adult painter, someone who makes their living off of it grab a paint brush and just start painting 'like a 3 year old' in the first place? he didnt just shit these out either they're huge and there's like 11 of them. the motivation behind them was also a comission for a fancy restaurant so a lot is on the line here. now taking that all in mind, this specific piece is a lot more important than the random decisons and lack of control of a 3 year old and now opens the question thats central to appreciating modern art, which is what is this person trying to tell me?
by the way, this is an early rothko, before he started with those formless pieces which dominated his work and that he is more known for [img]https://ibb.co/kpcjEQ][/img] so its not that he just cant paint either. hes painting like that on purpose. why? he credits the change in his style after the red studio by matisse. i cant find the documentary i saw on this, but it would be really interesting to show you where they said his favourite part was and why he liked it so much, which was just the blank space which is also kinda funny the way they zoom into the nothingness [img]https://ibb.co/gHP6uQ[/img]
rothko said if a person understood his work, that they would cry. now theres no real use explaining why i personally think it merits its prestige, because you could google and find heaps and heaps of essays on this thing which is what seperates this from the daft punk picture (first thing that came to my mind when thinking 'impressive' and modern) is there any more to it other than it looks cool? no, you see it, you've taken it all in and its shit. its cool the person had the ability to replicate what they see, but it says nothing, its lifeless.
so what does that mean for paintings before the modern movement like turner and william adolphe? the difference between their works and the daft punk is that the old guy's paintings have that same emotion, that same depth as the rothko, maybe even more, which is why they are remembered today. they're the shakespeares of painting basically. its got much less to do with how realistic and impressive their work is, it always comes back to the question of what is this person trying to tell me. people who paint now are influenced by the old masters the same way today's playwrights and poets are influenced by shakespeare and aristotle even though their shit looks nothing alike.
watch this what do you think about it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hsxR8aT2Ob0 they show this at the tate and i dont even think you need to think to understand the emotion, not even because of how aggressive he is, but to look at the painting after watching him fucking pound the canvas, the music, the colours, the shape, how it became all come together to make this feeling, extremely similar to how the old masters make a 'feeling' but it looks nothing alike, which just goes to show the old masters influence and spirit are still much so alive in art, just doesn't look the same.
[quote=fahrenheit]Philip Glass, and Steve Reich.[/quote]
i highly recommend you listen to these 2 even if u still dont buy the whole modern art thing. i had no idea who they were but was searching for their music for years cause i heard them in films, the first hunger games film where they start running for the cornucopia was my favourite part of the film because of the music, and i found it was steve reich like 2 years ago. listen to six pianos by steve reich and floe by philip glass.[/quote]
[quote=Vari][img]https://my.mixtape.moe/oaeadb.png[/img]
hi guys please rate my painting!!!!! :)[/quote]
the fact that the 1st comment is sitting on 0 votes and this one is on 3 is a joke lmao
i guess its funner to circlejerk than actually try to educate yourself and see things from a new perspective
gemmfriendly reminder that if you think it's shit or even if you post in this thread you are in fact interpreting it and are a part of the system.
hahahaha that means u are now interpreting it and are a part of the system get rekt gemm
[quote=gemm]friendly reminder that if you think it's shit or even if you post in this thread you are in fact interpreting it and are a part of the system.[/quote]
hahahaha that means u are now interpreting it and are a part of the system get rekt gemm
hahahaha that means u are now interpreting it and are a part of the system get rekt gemm
the votes don't matter at all. when i went to bed it had like 4, but when certain europeans who don't like me woke up they just all down voted. one of my posts when posted had -6 and then the next day like +10 its so funny hahaha i dont care about them at all though. and i'm sure there are people who just don't fuck with my ideas but -5 to +15 seems a little extreme
the votes don't matter at all. when i went to bed it had like 4, but when certain europeans who don't like me woke up they just all down voted. one of my posts when posted had -6 and then the next day like +10 its so funny hahaha i dont care about them at all though. and i'm sure there are people who just don't fuck with my ideas but -5 to +15 seems a little extreme
Lmao at people acting it's an obvious idea to produce minimalist paintings or visual art pretending you wouldn't have your mind blown back in the 50s.
I'm also confused at the idea that contemporary art is necessarily deep or conveys an intricate message. Sometimes a piece of art is about an interesting visual effect, and there's nothing to 'get'. Gerhard Richter's Strip paintings are an example; they don't look like much in a 600x400 brower image, but sitting in front of them and really trying to visually process them is a fascinating experience.
Or take Beuys' 7000 Oaks. You don't need a fine arts degree to think about what it says about public space and who or what is allowed in it.
If you get the chance, visit your local museum of modern art and just take a couple seconds to take in each work, then keep walking if it doesn't appeal to you. There's no reason to be ashamed of not liking individual works, or not being able to rattle down 5 minutes of interpretation after one look at a painting.The contemporary art landscape is so vast that it is impossible to not find anything to enjoy. Hell, if you absolutely must have naturalistic stuff, why not check out a photography exhibition?
EDIT: Huge props to the post about Rothko btw, the room at the Tate blew my mind when I was there, you really have to see them in person, feels like you're drowning in color. The short film about the restoration of one of the paintings was also really cool (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGqAggmwyMU).
Lmao at people acting it's an obvious idea to produce minimalist paintings or visual art pretending you wouldn't have your mind blown back in the 50s.
I'm also confused at the idea that contemporary art is necessarily deep or conveys an intricate message. Sometimes a piece of art is about an interesting visual effect, and there's nothing to 'get'. [url=https://www.gerhard-richter.com/datadir/images_new/xlarge/16143.jpg]Gerhard Richter's Strip paintings[/url] are an example; they don't look like much in a 600x400 brower image, but sitting in front of them and really trying to visually process them is a fascinating experience.
Or take Beuys' [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7000_Oaks]7000 Oaks[/url]. You don't need a fine arts degree to think about what it says about public space and who or what is allowed in it.
If you get the chance, visit your local museum of modern art and just take a couple seconds to take in each work, then keep walking if it doesn't appeal to you. There's no reason to be ashamed of not liking individual works, or not being able to rattle down 5 minutes of interpretation after one look at a painting.The contemporary art landscape is so vast that it is impossible to not find anything to enjoy. Hell, if you absolutely must have naturalistic stuff, why not check out a photography exhibition?
EDIT: Huge props to the post about Rothko btw, the room at the Tate blew my mind when I was there, you really have to see them in person, feels like you're drowning in color. The short film about the restoration of one of the paintings was also really cool (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGqAggmwyMU).
I'm also confused at the idea that contemporary art is necessarily deep or conveys an intricate message. Sometimes a piece of art is about an interesting visual effect, and there's nothing to 'get'. [url=https://www.gerhard-richter.com/datadir/images_new/xlarge/16143.jpg]Gerhard Richter's Strip paintings[/url] are an example; they don't look like much in a 600x400 brower image, but sitting in front of them and really trying to visually process them is a fascinating experience.
Or take Beuys' [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7000_Oaks]7000 Oaks[/url]. You don't need a fine arts degree to think about what it says about public space and who or what is allowed in it.
If you get the chance, visit your local museum of modern art and just take a couple seconds to take in each work, then keep walking if it doesn't appeal to you. There's no reason to be ashamed of not liking individual works, or not being able to rattle down 5 minutes of interpretation after one look at a painting.The contemporary art landscape is so vast that it is impossible to not find anything to enjoy. Hell, if you absolutely must have naturalistic stuff, why not check out a photography exhibition?
EDIT: Huge props to the post about Rothko btw, the room at the Tate blew my mind when I was there, you really have to see them in person, feels like you're drowning in color. The short film about the restoration of one of the paintings was also really cool (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGqAggmwyMU).
All_Over_RSgemmfriendly reminder that if you think it's shit or even if you post in this thread you are in fact interpreting it and are a part of the system.hahahaha that means u are now interpreting it and are a part of the system get rekt gemm
i know
[quote=All_Over_RS][quote=gemm]friendly reminder that if you think it's shit or even if you post in this thread you are in fact interpreting it and are a part of the system.[/quote]
hahahaha that means u are now interpreting it and are a part of the system get rekt gemm[/quote]
i know
hahahaha that means u are now interpreting it and are a part of the system get rekt gemm[/quote]
i know
I went to a contemporary art exhibit once, saw a napkin stapled to a wall.
I'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean.
Edit: Found the pic I took of it
https://puu.sh/xIzDq/af69704ece
I went to a contemporary art exhibit once, saw a napkin stapled to a wall.
I'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean.
Edit: Found the pic I took of it
https://puu.sh/xIzDq/af69704ece
I'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean.
Edit: Found the pic I took of it
https://puu.sh/xIzDq/af69704ece
knsumeI went to a contemporary art exhibit once, saw a napkin stapled to a wall.
I'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean.
Edit: Found the pic I took of it
https://puu.sh/xIzDq/af69704ece
wash ya ass
[quote=knsume]I went to a contemporary art exhibit once, saw a napkin stapled to a wall.
I'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean.
Edit: Found the pic I took of it
https://puu.sh/xIzDq/af69704ece[/quote]
wash ya ass
I'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean.
Edit: Found the pic I took of it
https://puu.sh/xIzDq/af69704ece[/quote]
wash ya ass
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34648339
a classic tale
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34648339
[img]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/BAB2/production/_86349774_01_museion_goldischmiedechiari_fotomuseion-2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/6C92/production/_86349772_955b9890-4d2d-4e84-af09-4aae824f09ed.jpg[/img]
a classic tale
[img]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/BAB2/production/_86349774_01_museion_goldischmiedechiari_fotomuseion-2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/6C92/production/_86349772_955b9890-4d2d-4e84-af09-4aae824f09ed.jpg[/img]
a classic tale
knsumeI went to a contemporary art exhibit once, saw a napkin stapled to a wall.
I'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean.
Edit: Found the pic I took of it
https://puu.sh/xIzDq/af69704ece
who is it by? usually small pieces like that are in a series, the same way that singles fit into albums, and they lead to a dominant and central emotion/thought and sometimes 1 piece is too ambigious to analyse
but think what is a napkin in the first place. its something to clean yourself or how i'm using one right now, as a coaster for this drink i just made, a layer of protection. but the napkin is hung up on a wall, alone, not doing any of those thingd and is therefore stripped of its purpose. not only that, but this is also utlizing the convention that when you enter a gallery, it is the norm that you can't touch, which is illustrated by the way it's hung, with those harsh straight lines. a napkin is something soft and gentle, but because of the way it was hung, if you rubbed your hand over this it would be coarse and bumpy, the exact opposite. the napkin therefore symbolises disorder, uncleanliness and unobtainable needs. the colour is this dark, moody blue that represents the depression caused by all the things i previously described, segregated from the border by the white, blank nothingness of the perfect straight lines, which even they fall victim for the way that the napkin was hung and have become warped and distorted. the napkin is a symbol of chaos, a glimpse into a dystopian world, where nothing is clean and although what would remedy this is in our grasp, we dare not reach for it because its a in a museum and we'd get told off for something like that. the scenario is kind of like a depressed person being told to make friends and go outside, and the doors right there and they could do it, but they don't.
but if you could write all that for just a fucking napkin on a wall, couldn't you just do that about literally anything? yeah, and that's why for my GCSE creative writing coursework, i did what i just did to the napkin to my friend's facebook selfies, a poster for a children's play called 'the dinosaur that pooped a planet', some paintings that i did when i was 1 years old and the cheap blue chairs we sat on during english class. this is the kind of thinking that modern art embraces, the idea that literally anything is art. i'll post some of that shit if u wanna see it although the chair one is 100 percent still at school some of these are my old facebook posts.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI i HIGHLY recommend anyone who sees this watch this. even if u think the shit i just typed out was the most retarded thing you've ever witnessed on the forums, and it might as well be, i even think so actually which is why i was laughing so hard writing it, but it exists, and has to exist and most importantly its existence is 100 percent valid as the idea that its just a fucking napkin.
the video is a speech by david foster wallace that i think is genius, even if you aren't into art or literature, this would help you just live. gonna write this in caps because i want people to see it but srsly watch it for at least ONE MINUTE before turning it off its really interesting.
[quote=knsume]I went to a contemporary art exhibit once, saw a napkin stapled to a wall.
I'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean.
Edit: Found the pic I took of it
https://puu.sh/xIzDq/af69704ece[/quote]
who is it by? usually small pieces like that are in a series, the same way that singles fit into albums, and they lead to a dominant and central emotion/thought and sometimes 1 piece is too ambigious to analyse
but think what is a napkin in the first place. its something to clean yourself or how i'm using one right now, as a coaster for this drink i just made, a layer of protection. but the napkin is hung up on a wall, alone, not doing any of those thingd and is therefore stripped of its purpose. not only that, but this is also utlizing the convention that when you enter a gallery, it is the norm that you can't touch, which is illustrated by the way it's hung, with those harsh straight lines. a napkin is something soft and gentle, but because of the way it was hung, if you rubbed your hand over this it would be coarse and bumpy, the exact opposite. the napkin therefore symbolises disorder, uncleanliness and unobtainable needs. the colour is this dark, moody blue that represents the depression caused by all the things i previously described, segregated from the border by the white, blank nothingness of the perfect straight lines, which even they fall victim for the way that the napkin was hung and have become warped and distorted. the napkin is a symbol of chaos, a glimpse into a dystopian world, where nothing is clean and although what would remedy this is in our grasp, we dare not reach for it because its a in a museum and we'd get told off for something like that. the scenario is kind of like a depressed person being told to make friends and go outside, and the doors right there and they could do it, but they don't.
but if you could write all that for just a fucking napkin on a wall, couldn't you just do that about literally anything? yeah, and that's why for my GCSE creative writing coursework, i did what i just did to the napkin to my friend's facebook selfies, a poster for a children's play called 'the dinosaur that pooped a planet', some paintings that i did when i was 1 years old and the cheap blue chairs we sat on during english class. this is the kind of thinking that modern art embraces, the idea that literally anything is art. i'll post some of that shit if u wanna see it although the chair one is 100 percent still at school some of these are my old facebook posts.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI i HIGHLY recommend anyone who sees this watch this. even if u think the shit i just typed out was the most retarded thing you've ever witnessed on the forums, and it might as well be, i even think so actually which is why i was laughing so hard writing it, but it exists, and has to exist and most importantly its existence is 100 percent valid as the idea that its just a fucking napkin.
the video is a speech by david foster wallace that i think is genius, even if you aren't into art or literature, this would help you just live. gonna write this in caps because i want people to see it but srsly watch it for at least ONE MINUTE before turning it off its really interesting.
I'm sorry but what the fuck does that mean.
Edit: Found the pic I took of it
https://puu.sh/xIzDq/af69704ece[/quote]
who is it by? usually small pieces like that are in a series, the same way that singles fit into albums, and they lead to a dominant and central emotion/thought and sometimes 1 piece is too ambigious to analyse
but think what is a napkin in the first place. its something to clean yourself or how i'm using one right now, as a coaster for this drink i just made, a layer of protection. but the napkin is hung up on a wall, alone, not doing any of those thingd and is therefore stripped of its purpose. not only that, but this is also utlizing the convention that when you enter a gallery, it is the norm that you can't touch, which is illustrated by the way it's hung, with those harsh straight lines. a napkin is something soft and gentle, but because of the way it was hung, if you rubbed your hand over this it would be coarse and bumpy, the exact opposite. the napkin therefore symbolises disorder, uncleanliness and unobtainable needs. the colour is this dark, moody blue that represents the depression caused by all the things i previously described, segregated from the border by the white, blank nothingness of the perfect straight lines, which even they fall victim for the way that the napkin was hung and have become warped and distorted. the napkin is a symbol of chaos, a glimpse into a dystopian world, where nothing is clean and although what would remedy this is in our grasp, we dare not reach for it because its a in a museum and we'd get told off for something like that. the scenario is kind of like a depressed person being told to make friends and go outside, and the doors right there and they could do it, but they don't.
but if you could write all that for just a fucking napkin on a wall, couldn't you just do that about literally anything? yeah, and that's why for my GCSE creative writing coursework, i did what i just did to the napkin to my friend's facebook selfies, a poster for a children's play called 'the dinosaur that pooped a planet', some paintings that i did when i was 1 years old and the cheap blue chairs we sat on during english class. this is the kind of thinking that modern art embraces, the idea that literally anything is art. i'll post some of that shit if u wanna see it although the chair one is 100 percent still at school some of these are my old facebook posts.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI i HIGHLY recommend anyone who sees this watch this. even if u think the shit i just typed out was the most retarded thing you've ever witnessed on the forums, and it might as well be, i even think so actually which is why i was laughing so hard writing it, but it exists, and has to exist and most importantly its existence is 100 percent valid as the idea that its just a fucking napkin.
the video is a speech by david foster wallace that i think is genius, even if you aren't into art or literature, this would help you just live. gonna write this in caps because i want people to see it but srsly watch it for at least ONE MINUTE before turning it off its really interesting.
Oppebowhere is his trillion dollars viper
https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2016/8-13/sbGeQ7p6OZ-4.png
[quote=Oppebo]where is his trillion dollars viper[/quote]
[img]https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2016/8-13/sbGeQ7p6OZ-4.png[/img]
[img]https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2016/8-13/sbGeQ7p6OZ-4.png[/img]
HaHaHaHa Dude It Is A Napkin Stapled To A Wall Dude.
HaHaHaHa Dude It Is A Napkin Stapled To A Wall Dude.
funhaver1998GCSE creative writing.
u fkn nerd
[quote=funhaver1998]GCSE creative writing.[/quote]
u fkn nerd
u fkn nerd
regardless of what u think is stupid or whatever, and regardless of your opinion on the process, there are many artists who put a lot of thought and effort into their art. if your only experience of modern art is looking at shit on a screen then you don't have any idea what you're shitting on. imo modern art that goes beyond a simple painting is better viewed in person, though even then paintings are more impressive in person. the art isn't about "oh that is blue and red", it's about thinking about the artist's use of colours, shapes, imagery, and what they are trying to convey. sometimes that art seems ridiculous, i.e the napkin on a wall, but imo there is a thought process behind it; why blue and white, why have fold marks, why have a lone napkin on the wall, away from other props that would be associated with it (table, cutlery)? the deeper meaning is what interests beyond the physical appearance. this goes for all art.
regardless of what u think is stupid or whatever, and regardless of your opinion on the process, there are many artists who put a lot of thought and effort into their art. if your only experience of modern art is looking at shit on a screen then you don't have any idea what you're shitting on. imo modern art that goes beyond a simple painting is better viewed in person, though even then paintings are more impressive in person. the art isn't about "oh that is blue and red", it's about thinking about the artist's use of colours, shapes, imagery, and what they are trying to convey. sometimes that art seems ridiculous, i.e the napkin on a wall, but imo there is a thought process behind it; why blue and white, why have fold marks, why have a lone napkin on the wall, away from other props that would be associated with it (table, cutlery)? the deeper meaning is what interests beyond the physical appearance. this goes for all art.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.