Sometimes I side with the philistines

[Skeptical Greg]

When I first saw this, I thought " again? "..

Nope. Same story I saw over a year ago.

Just read, it's been restored and back on display.

 

[arthwollipot]

Art is like gender. Super important, completely undefinable, and woe to you if you dissent from the orthodoxy.

Rubbish. So much of art is all about dissenting from the orthodoxy. Every new style exists because it dissented from orthodoxy, from impressionism to dadaism.

 

[Thermal]

Rubbish. So much of art is all about dissenting from the orthodoxy. Every new style exists because it dissented from orthodoxy, from impressionism to dadaism.

True, but it seems to a lot of us that what passes for art now is not dissenting from orthodoxy at all. It's beyond derivative, and simply doing the same old goofy things we've seen done over and over for years. There's no important difference between this chair covered in crystals compared to Fountain from over a century ago. It's why I like Banksy's 'in the wild' works so much. It's not the same old, same old.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's not the fault of the artists, it's what curators feel is safe to display

 

[Thermal]

Well, that's what we are presented with. Where else are we shown what is considered great art? Museums and galleries. If the lack of artistic originality is the fault of the curators, stop giving them attention. If they want to play it safe, let them go broke while the actual audience ignores their safe bets.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's the point: if you don't like it, don't go. If visitor numbers fall, focus will shift.

And there are plenty of other ways to see Art than in a Museum.

But don't endorse the destruction of a piece, just because you had a strong negative reaction.

 

[Thermal]

That's the point: if you don't like it, don't go. If visitor numbers fall, focus will shift.

But that's what we are talking about- the whole community is coming off as a bunch of posers. The fact that they can't even explain it anymore, beyond the well worn platitudes, is what we are questioning. If you can't even come up with anything till throwing in the towel saying "it's not for everybody" is reinforcing that it's kind of a put-on.

And there are plenty of other ways to see Art than in a Museum.

Indeed. I think you can find art everywhere. But we are talking about the self-described experts and connoisseurs and the 'great works'.

But don't endorse the destruction of a piece, just because you had a strong negative reaction.

...I don't. You don't destroy anything you have no claim to. I also didn't have a strong negative reaction. I expressed a bored and indifferent reaction. What makes you say all this?

 

[Steve]

I don't get the whole discussion about "what is art". If one person creates something they call art, and one other person views it as art, then it is art to a minimum of two people. If the balance of Earth's population chooses not to view that thing as art who cares. What is gained by criticizing it? (well, other than the ego boost of thinking your opinion matters, of course.)

 

[Thermal]

I don't get the whole discussion about "what is art". If one person creates something they call art, and one other person views it as art, then it is art to a minimum of two people. If the balance of Earth's population chooses not to view that thing as art who cares. What is gained by criticizing it? (well, other than the ego boost of thinking your opinion matters, of course.)

Right. Then it moves on to "what is great/exceptional art, belonging in a gallery or museum?"...and we see ◊◊◊◊ that is no more original.or creative than a grade school student's homework.

 

[Steve]

Right. Then it moves on to "what is great/exceptional art, belonging in a gallery or museum?"...and we see ◊◊◊◊ that is no more original.or creative than a grade school student's homework.

Why does it need to "move on"? That is entirely up to owners/management of the galleries and museums. Then those who agree with their opinions can go and experience it. And it shouldn't matter a damn to everyone else.

Example - I have a fairly extensive collection of music. It consists entirely of music I like. I don't care a damn if anyone else likes it and I don't give a damn what anyone else likes. Same with objects on display elsewhere. Let people like what they like and leave them alone.

 

[Thermal]

Why does it need to "move on"?

Because that's what things logically do. Your individual, subjective tastes and dislikes are unique to you. But the humans (I'm told) look to their wider communities, and compare/contrast them. When faced with the absurd, it may get questioned, like "what are you seeing here?". And here's the money shot: if the answer is vacuous, the mocking of it is justifiable.

That is entirely up to owners/management of the galleries and museums. Then those who agree with their opinions can go and experience it. And it shouldn't matter a damn to everyone else.

Example - I have a fairly extensive collection of music. It consists entirely of music I like. I don't care a damn if anyone else likes it and I don't give a damn what anyone else likes. Same with objects on display elsewhere. Let people like what they like and leave them alone.

Ok, agreed. Your musical tastes are yours and yours alone. Staying with your example:

A concert is promoted as one of our generations most inspired composers and performers. An eager crowd pays their $250 per ticket and fills the stadium. The artist takes the stage... and proceeded to slap a spackle bucket with one hand in 2/4 time for an hour. The crowd erupts in uproarious applause.

Thermal, being the inquisitive sort, feels compelled to ask: "Ummm... what exactly are you guys hearing here that constitutes greatness? Spackle bucket slappers have been doing the same thing for like a century now, in different times and with different buckets, but... what exactly is going on here?"

 

[Steve]

Because that's what things logically do. Your individual, subjective tastes and dislikes are unique to you. But the humans (I'm told) look to their wider communities, and compare/contrast them. When faced with the absurd, it may get questioned, like "what are you seeing here?". And here's the money shot: if the answer is vacuous, the mocking of it is justifiable.

Ok, agreed. Your musical tastes are yours and yours alone. Staying with your example:

A concert is promoted as one of our generations most inspired composers and performers. An eager crowd pays their $250 per ticket and fills the stadium. The artist takes the stage... and proceeded to slap a spackle bucket with one hand in 2/4 time for an hour. The crowd erupts in uproarious applause.

Thermal, being the inquisitive sort, feels compelled to ask: "Ummm... what exactly are you guys hearing here that constitutes greatness? Spackle bucket slappers have been doing the same thing for like a century now, in different times and with different buckets, but... what exactly is going on here?"

Criticizing or mocking other peoples tastes is rarely productive and is a complete waste of time beyond, as I said, boosting one's own ego.

Your "example" has nothing to do with mine. It is ridiculous and does not warrant comment.

 

[Thermal]

Criticizing or mocking other peoples tastes is rarely productive and is a complete waste of time beyond, as I said, boosting one's own ego.

Your "example" has nothing to do with mine. It is ridiculous and does not warrant comment.

Translation: you can't argue the point, so retreat, trying to blame me.

It's your example, and it's damn near perfectly analogous. We see, say, a banana taped to a wall, selling for millions of dollars. The unwashed masses, like yours truly, cannot fathom what you are seeing here. So we ask, and get either meaningless, generic canned answers, or hostility at being called on what you want accepted unquestioningly. You chose the latter.

I mean, seriously. I would love to know what's going on here. I'm not trying to be a prick. I legit want to understand, even if I don't agree.

Eta: fleshing out a little more: we had a very similar discussion on the 'banana taped to the wall' thread. The only answer I got was that art is supposed to make you talk about it, and here we are, talking about it, so it's great/important." That is meaningless, or at least has nothing to do with the piece. It's a generalization that can be asked without the piece at all. The same discussion could be had without a banana or duct tape or wall in sight.

At one point, I pointed my phone at the ground and snapped a pic of a cigarette butt on the pavement, then named it and contrived some half-assed narrative to hang on it. The discussion turned to how it was actually a good pic and legit piece of art. The arguers didn't understand that they were making my point for me.

So now I'm asking you: can you explain what the ◊◊◊◊ is going on with this ridiculous ◊◊◊◊? I'm not trying to find 'gotchas'. I would seriously like to understand beyond the most empty of platitudes that I usually get treated to. This seems like the forum where I might get a better answer than I have in the past.

And importantly, this has nothing to do with tastes. It is about why you call a guy slappng a spackle bucket in 2/4 time for an hour a musician at all. Especially if others have already been slapping spackle buckets for a century before him.