• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Two year old abstract artist

I consider myself a fan of abstract art; but come on! Letting a kid finger paint doesn't exactly qualify as art.
 
I just saw the parents (both artists) interviewed on TV and they are convinced that their daughter is producing art. As did an art critic who was interviewed as well.
 
lionking said:
I just saw the parents (both artists) interviewed on TV and they are convinced that their daughter is producing art. As did an art critic who was interviewed as well.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous; art requires intent it cannot be produced accidentally.
 
I'm a bit skeptical the kid is leaving so much of the color fields fresh and not overly blended (smeared) to muck. I'm not sure she's finishing the painting unassisted.

If so imagine what sensitivity the child may develop by the time she attends first grade.

This truly is an art without the rambling dialog from the artist.
 
Hey...you have "art" where some guy injects paint up his butt, then squeezes it out over a canvas...the finished product can hardly have more "intent" behind it (in regards to the actual appearance) than this does...
 
This sort of thing is why I can't take the art world or discussions about art seriously. I like art, don't get me wrong, but really now....
 
lionking said:
I don't know who is more stupid here, the art gallery that agreed to exhibit and sell the "works of art" even when they found out the artist was two, or the parents who think she has artistic talent.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/01/07/1231004105005.html

Any similar examples of stupidity within the arts community?
Click to expand...

One of the most hilarious aspects of the homeopathic community is the occasional "fringe" homeopath who discovers that if you just write the name of the magic substance on a piece of paper and wave it at a bottle of pills, or shove one anointed pill into a bottle of blanks, it works exactly as well as "real" homeopathic medicine. Mainstream homeopaths won't condemn the super-kooks as frauds, but at the same time the mere existence of the super-kooks demonstrates that the whole homeopathic edifice is a pile of horse manure.

Elephants, two-year-olds and Pollack perform the same role for modern art. It's painfully obvious they aren't doing anything special, clever or interesting, but the mainstream art-wank community can't point this out without admitting that a lot (not all)) of prized modern art is worthless garbage.
 
Wolfman said:
Hey...you have "art" where some guy injects paint up his butt, then squeezes it out over a canvas...the finished product can hardly have more "intent" behind it (in regards to the actual appearance) than this does...
Click to expand...
That was all just a misunderstanding. They failed to print an 'f' at the start of the photo caption.
 
lionking said:
I don't know who is more stupid here, the art gallery that agreed to exhibit and sell the "works of art" even when they found out the artist was two, or the parents who think she has artistic talent.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/01/07/1231004105005.html

Any similar examples of stupidity within the arts community?
Click to expand...

I think they painted themselves into a corner, and are too proud to admit it. Having said the work is good, before they found out the age of the artist, they are stuck with their stupidity. They should have swallowed their pride earlier, though, because now they have just made fools of themselves nationally.
 
a_unique_person said:
I think they painted themselves into a corner, and are too proud to admit it. Having said the work is good, before they found out the age of the artist, they are stuck with their stupidity. They should have swallowed their pride earlier, though, because now they have just made fools of themselves nationally.
Click to expand...

If you ask me, they were framed.
 
I haven't checked, but what do you all think that the "works of art" might sell for?
 
My thought is that "lighten up" could apply here.

Art is always in the mind of the beholder. Art from accident does happen, and intent isn't necessarily required. I was blending some colored clays once, to get a darker color. At some point my mixing of the clays produced a very pretty marbled effect and I liked it so much, I made sheets from the clay and covered several tiny perfume bottles with it. That wasn't the intent I had for the clay at all. I still managed to make some artsy-fartsy bottles, though.

Some people might find artistic merit in the fact that this is simply the play of a child with paint and canvas, who doesn't know anything more than that the paint feels nice, and the colors are pretty. How will a mind that cannot express "art" work with artistic media, and can an attractive result emerge serendipitously? Now, why isn't that art?

If it was art before the source was known, it's art after the discovery.

It's art if anyone likes it. I like the red one. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom