Art Snobbery

[Slytovhand]

Are Aboriginal cave paintings art? After all, a lot of that is just hand prints done from blowing/spitting paint from the mouth over the hand, leaving a silhouette. Done in seconds.

[RootedPhoenix]

I was discussing this issue in the Real World, and brought up the example used in this thread, of plywood with the knots painted white. My friend hopped on Google and found an article on Sherrie Levine;

And silly me, I made my own interpretation of "golden leaves" upon seeing this and thought it was nifty. *shrug* I never thought I was a good judge of what was art and what wasn't, though, so I don't care. I also fully accept that I am a very odd person.

Of course, that's the subjective part about artistic endeavors. Someone, somewhere likes it, and someone else thinks you're a loon for doing it.

I don't understand why the time taken to bring a piece to its final stage has any bearing on whether it is art or not. So a drawing takes 20 minutes to make. Nobody agonized over the proportions or composition for hours. Maybe the artist doesn't even know the theory. Is it then not art because nobody was in agony of theory over it?

[Stormraven]

I will admit to disliking much of contemporary / abstract art. I don't like the great majority of those who put up toilets as social commentary or what have you. But generally, if people want to buy it, and are willing to call what they buy 'art', I'm not going to argue.

But there is one piece of modern art that I consider completely outside of art itself. It is not art, it should never have sold (and only did because of the artist's name and connections) as art.

You may know of it.

An immaculate white canvas. That's it. The artist (and I use the term, because he does apparently do art outside of this piece) did nothing to it, aside from set the canvas in a frame and sell it. That is even less than painting the knots in rope. Even if we assume that he painted the canvas, that puts the piece in the realm of construction, not art.

[the_std]

My issue is that I can't understand what he is trying convey with the paintings. I mostly felt that they were incomplete or that he couldn't convey what he wanted to.

That's not a problem of the names, then. That's a problem with the piece itself.

[tabbyblack13]

The reason I didn't like "unnamed #" for titles is that most of it was a white canvas with lines on it. All of the canvases had the same colored lines (yellow and blue) and most of the patterns looked the same. Most of the canvas was still white. Other paintings were called woman # and I could see the outline of women in various poses and shapes even without looking at the name.

My issue is that I can't understand what he is trying convey with the paintings. I mostly felt that they were incomplete or that he couldn't convey what he wanted to.

As with close up photo or a piece of work that can actual appear like several things I enjoy those. It's a puzzle to me.

[the_std]

I can understand making an abstract piece to depict emotions but when your pieces are for the most part call "unnamed #" there is no association of what you are trying to convey.

Why does the name of the piece being "unnamed #" completely destroy that? Many of my pieces (photos) are named "unnamed #" because I don't want to tell anyone what it is. I want them to make their own impressions, take away their own experience of what my work means and not impose my interpretation upon them, if I don't want to. There is a purpose to that.

[tabbyblack13]

I can understand making an abstract piece to depict emotions but when your pieces are for the most part call "unnamed #" there is no association of what you are trying to convey. There was a show in a Minnesota museum that featured an artist like that. My parents love museums and I remember going to them as a child. The only reason we went to this is that they had a show there that my parents loved years before and my parents assumed that they would enjoy this.

I enjoy realist art for the fact the reality can be beautiful too. This is for both photography, traditional, and digital art.

[Seshat]

If you can't communicate in a visual medium, why are you in visual art?


(That's what I always want to ask 'artists' who insist on supplemental material.)

[DesignFox]

My friend hopped on Google and found an article on Sherrie Levine; is she the person discussed herein?

Yes it is. Although I guess I forgot that she at least used color. I agree with your sentiment that if the work requires supplemental material, you've missed the mark.

[Sylvia727]

I was discussing this issue in the Real World, and brought up the example used in this thread, of plywood with the knots painted white. My friend hopped on Google and found an article on Sherrie Levine; is she the person discussed herein? Looks like it. Said friend claims that a discussion of a certain art piece is impossible without knowing the context of the art. My position remains that if the audience requires supplementary materials to understand it, then it is not good art.

[DesignFox]

Well, like I said, art is subjective. And to me, knots of wood is not art. Jumping jack man with his flopping penis, is not art. I have some pretty loose standards all things considered- having been there and done it myself. There's a lot of stuff I just don't get but can at least appreciate. Those are two examples of stuff I think is BS. I also happen to think that sticking a urinal on the wall was BS- and that was the point of the whole thing!

Again, I'm dirt poor. So who am I to say what people want to blow their cash on. But when I go to an art gallery and pay an entrance fee, I don't want to see that crap. I want to see something that required a little more than a bunch of connections and smooth talk on the part of the artist.

*shrug* Everyone's entitled to their opinion. This is mine.

(and yes, the digital revolution in photography pisses me off because it has destroyed any appreciation that ever existed for photography- especially in portraiture)

[Seshat]

Artists put tons of time and effort into their pieces that most people don't consider. Yes, even people who paint the knots on boards of wood. They came up with the idea. They spent the time making connections with people. They put themselves out there, got a show, got an audience, got people to pay attention. It takes time, it takes effort, it takes skill and the courage to put yourself out there.

Ideas are cheap. The work comes in the development, creativity, and expression of the idea. 'They came up with the idea' doesn't impress me.

As for the rest of it, if I want to see marketing and schmoozing, I'll go to an advertising & PR convention. When I go to an art gallery, I want to see art.

I want to see the development, creativity and expression of ideas. I want to see something where the artist has had the idea, and sat back and thought 'how can I convey this idea?'

And yes, the idea the artist wishes to convey might be a mood. It might be the refinement of a scene. It might be a critique of society or of events (eg Guernica). It might even be an attempt to convey how the artist feels about a particular colour!

I'm a professional writer. In my field, it is my responsibility to ensure that the ideas I give expression to are properly conveyed to my chosen audience. If my message is lost to more than a tiny fraction of my audience, I haven't done my job.
(There's always going to be some who don't get it - but it's my job to minimise that.)

To some extent I can do it by choosing my audience: if I want to write a non-fiction book about some highly technical material, I can target the book to professionals in that field. But if I'm writing fiction, I should be targetting it to something like 'anyone who can read English to an adult level and is interested in romance novels'.


I simply don't understand artists who act as if it's not their responsibility to actually convey their idea. If they're not going to try to communicate, what's the point of their art?

[lordlundar]

See, this is what makes me upset about this. Artists put tons of time and effort into their pieces that most people don't consider. Yes, even people who paint the knots on boards of wood. They came up with the idea. They spent the time making connections with people. They put themselves out there, got a show, got an audience, got people to pay attention. It takes time, it takes effort, it takes skill and the courage to put yourself out there. Just because it isn't layers upon layers upon layers of paint, meticulously crafted with hours of finger-cracking labour, that doesn't mean that it was easy, or simple, or worthless.

Ahhh! I see now. It's art because he's a good PUBLICIST!

Sorry, no.

Someone who's project is 95% conning people and 5% actual work on the project is not an artist, it's a con-man. Calling it art is simply trying to make it legal. I see no difference between this person and the old snake oil salesmen, apart from getting the government hooked in the scam.

[AdminAssistant]

And writing a grant isn't exactly easy. NEA grant applications are very sticky and competitive. (I'm hoping that the NEA is even still around in a year, it was one of the sticking points in the stimulus package - Republicans have been trying to get rid of it since it was instituted)

[the_std]

The artist came up with that idea. You didn't. If you'd done it, and had the artist's connections, got the show, publicized it, set it up, took it down, put all the "behind the scenes" effort into it, then maybe you'd have been paid the same amount.

See, this is what makes me upset about this. Artists put tons of time and effort into their pieces that most people don't consider. Yes, even people who paint the knots on boards of wood. They came up with the idea. They spent the time making connections with people. They put themselves out there, got a show, got an audience, got people to pay attention. It takes time, it takes effort, it takes skill and the courage to put yourself out there. Just because it isn't layers upon layers upon layers of paint, meticulously crafted with hours of finger-cracking labour, that doesn't mean that it was easy, or simple, or worthless.

Art is an idea, a feeling. It's not just about the pieces you look at, it's also about the emotions generated, the response, making you think and analyze and feel. The fact that you guys hate it and talk about it and dismiss it really just reinforces her show as a success.