the nature of humankind wants to understand always and the experience must tells you something; this kind of art, doesn’t tell you anything and this experiece goes nowhere!
I saw a wall covered with framed Twitter quotes at the Chicago art Institute. Was just really confused how to feel about it. Do any of you think that's art? Or of it even belongs in a museum?
Time will tell. As of now, many of these pieces, I do see them, feel them and like them as art. No through any rational argument but through an emotional take.
Nihilism has gripped the human soul like a vice and won't let go. These self referencing 'Easy' artifacts passing themselves off as having some kind of cultural significance are the product of bookish academics, and so called 'experts, having polluted the well from which the Art in past centuries nourished itself. The so called 'artist' being reduced to the mere channeler of taste belonging to critics and afficionados. The end result is 'Art' made for a market, not for the sake of life. Banal in the extreme , much of what is valued these days has no real purpose other than to reflect the degraded taste of academics and critics and subjective notions of beauty. A waste of time emblematic of the decline of the West.
Some of these "art" pieces are just too abstract to have an emotional functionality, which leaves me asking what's the point? How can we find any value in it
Let's just say, judging by the extreme variety of objects and experiences one finds in galleries and museums, that there is currently no consensus on what art is. Many recent exhibitions at the Venice Biennale have become entertainment for the easily bored. Two seconds here, two seconds there. Nothing sticks.
The guy who said that the majority of people have always despised art while a few could understand and appreciate it was wilfully telling bulls**t. It began only in the last half of the nineteenth century. Nobody ever told Leonardo or Raphael that their paintings were garbage, no great artist of the past was "rediscovered" after struggling against a hostile public reception, and that's because art was a craft that you learned for a living, not a hobby.
I find it interesting that; if a piece of art, like banana taped to the wall, was taken out of the gallery, would it still be art? I'm not sure, but I am certain it would have less of an affect if it was on the wall in someone's house and probably just laughed at. This suggests that a lot of modern art needs the gallery in order to be validated. However, if a painting of a landscape, a portrait, or a still life, was taken out of a gallery, then we all would still recognise it as art. A painting stands for itself, it does not need a gallery to validate it. I also found it interesting that this documentary began with showing the huge prices of art today, which in itself tells a lot.
A lot of art simply does not work in the home setting. Even some great abstract paintings would look gaudy in a typical home. The huge prices are simply investment art. No different than real-estate. Beyond investment art, the wealthy don't want to pay what great art is worth. Stealing from the lower classes makes them feel more important. They rejoice in it!
A lot of modern artwork becomes valuable just because someone famous has produced it or placed a thing on show. Almost like possessions belonging to famous people. However I like the paintings of Stephen Hough and the sculptures of Jonathan Miller not just because they are and were famous polymaths but because they are created from the heart and because I just like them but I feel inclined to like them because I like famous polymaths.
@@MikeFuller-ok6ok lf you like a work of art for personal reasons that are linked to your own identity, then l believe there is no greater reason than that because it is an aurhentic response. This is what all 'genuine' artists hope for.
I think this minidoc does a good job showing the folly and validity of the various modern movements in 'art'. It doesn't always have to look 'photorealistic'--or even beautiful--to be appreciated, either my stimulating the senses, or communicating (something to be interpreted) that would be difficult or impossible to do through other media. (Being the producer of this is from an Arabic background, he's likely aware of how 'haram' it is to depict nature, and how Muslim artists went to produce beautiful calligraphy, tilework, and other abstract items to create beauty and meaning). And then there's the nonsense of 'conceptual' art. Honestly, it's not a bad thing to put, let's say, a cheap ceramic on a pedestal if the intent and end result is to make the viewer appreciate that there's nice and well-crafted things all around us, if only we paid attention to them. But things have gotten a little ridiculous with this. The 'worst' part of art is the idea that you always have to be 'pushing the envelope'. Why?
The issue I have with contemporary art is that it makes me feel nothing. If anything most of it makes me feel worse. Also the financial side is very sketchy, seems to me like a popularity contest where the purpose of owning a piece is just to own it for the name of the artist and the clout. A banana taped to a wall is just a banana on a wall who cares what the name of the person was who put it there.
Robert Ryman, not art. Michael Findlay justifies why a large number of people are shocked by new ideas and concepts in art and few accept and admire and enjoy them, well Yaa Michael Findlay till the large number of people that say its bad and ones who really know art are indoctrinated by galleries and few OL's and the few that tout the "Bad Art". When people start telling you that you should like this or that art and why realize you are being indoctrinated and The majority have bin controlled by the few 'Because the majority give their power to the few in the form of "Acquiescence".
To those of you who don't get what contemporary art is, try making something yourself with an emotion in mind. It doesn't have to be pretty, it only needs to come from you. That something that moved you to pick a certain color and draw a line or whatever, that came from your soul, and no one else in the history of mankind can replicate it.
Call themselves art-experts even when 99.99% of everyone doesn't agree with them ?!! It's not 'Real' art when all you need is some ignorant rich guy to buy your painting after they had been fooled by some con-art-expert who are just there for the money !!!
There are always these three entities of an art piece. The artists' intention (if there is any), the viewers' reception or emotional attachment received, and the art piece itself which doesn't care about any of the previous entities. It doesn't care about its existence and when it does exist, it never questions itself. Every one of these entities stands for themselves and are not comparable. So since it is nearly impossible to get the artists' intention, the experience of oneself is the most important.
Art is supposed to be a representation of the artists vision and their skill in expressing it. When an artist insults you with a bunch of rotten bananas on the floor, it tells you more about the artist than their “vision”.
agree, although skill is what someone who's never tried to express themself artistically expects from art in general, if it makes sense. A good artist venturing into a new medium of expression will find a way to convey emotion without great skill. And if you think about it, if a bunch of rotten bananas on the floor insults you, then maybe the artist succeeded in making you feel something with their performance. Art will always be subjective, to both the creator and the spectator.
@@raymondmeyers5974 how could a banana on the floor insult you? If you show me a glass of water on a table and say it's art, I might think you're crazy, trying to be funny or a clown, but I don't think you're an asshole....
@@raymondmeyers5974 You're not entitled to art of any kind. Besides who are to judge what others consider art or not? If you don't like the bananas on the floor, or you don't think it's art, fine, keep walking until you find what you enjoy. It's that simple.
There is a difference between abstract and mimicry of abstract to extract value that they otherwise couldn’t have. It’s an vengeful assault against the creative process to the artists initiated by losers. And the uneducated public like me, will fail to differentiate. Simple example: We all “love” the transformer movies according to the box office, but the reality is that it takes no effort to consume, the same way a piece of rock untouched can be called art because it takes no effort for us to brand ourselves “appreciator of art”, the path is plowed, then we took the path of least resistance.
Theres abstract art that I see and think "huh, I don't understand that but I really like it, it has a feel." There's also work that I see and go"nope, that's a bunch of nonsense masquerading as art"I think this is the strength and weakness of art. Enough freedom to allow revolutions and hardly any restrictions that allow mediocrity.
This is a real representation of corruption of the arts and is originated for a drive for MONEY, its called decadence, its characterized by excessive indulgence. Its also the fast way for laundry...that undermines what real art is.
I do this too but while listening to podcasts or video essays and it's funny because years later I can still remember snippets of what was being talked about (though not usually the specific video/creator) just by looking at the picture.
9:58 “Don’t believe what you read about art. Believe what you see and what you feel. When you look at it. That’s the truth. The truth is in the world and if you don’t see it. Then find another work where you do see. You don’t pay attention to what other say or think or is high or low or in the middle or expensive or famous. Just find something you like” (Michael Findlay)
