Ironic postneoshit as the dominating trend in contemporary art

Like I said, it's about context and the information the artwork itself provides. It's up to the artist to make their work speak for itself. That shouldn't require a block of text next to it at an art gallery or a working knowledge of art philosophy.

And again, other forms of art work hard to establish context for themselves. Works that don't are heavily criticised because they fail at effective communication, and I don't see a reason to think differently of any art, irrespective of its medium.

You can see it in the consumer bases for different mediums. Literature, cinema, music and games are experienced and enjoyed by billions of people. Over the last decades, exhibition art has been steadily losing favour, and during the same time period, it's become more erudite and cryptic. It's locked the majority of its potential audience out of itself.

The concept of nonstandard artwork is just fine, but I find the execution lacking because the artists seldom provide enough information to bring a layman audience into the desired experience.

There's a lot to be said of clarity and simplicity. Artwork — no matter what medium — that expresses a simple idea with clarity, grace and cleverness is generally the artwork that is remembered as eras pass away. This really has less to do with aesthetic quality and more to do with its relevance towards its audience.

A few years ago I went to an art gallery, and there were three pieces that stuck with me.

The first, called Suspense was a empty white room. As you walked through, this Scare Chord picked up before a crescendo right before you got to the door out.

The second was two shoulder high replicas of the sphinx with a pillow and a floodlight attached to their faces in two seemingly random parts of the exhibit.

The last was a stuffed bird which, according to the plaque, contained within about $10,000 in precious stones.

I wouldn't say any of them had deep meaning, but they all were great art.

Also: WHOO I'M POSTING IN AN ANTI-INTELECTUAL THREAD!!!!!

edited 10th Feb '12 9:48:36 PM by inane242

Alright, I understand suspense, but the sphinxes seem like they're saying something that goes over my head.

Art is not the world! Art is in our hearts! Art is not the world! Art is in our hearts! Stab art to death!

I'm glad someone can appreciate art for art's sake

edited 10th Feb '12 10:12:16 PM by joeyjojo

That Suspense one sounds creepy as fuck.

I think it sounds fun. Interesting that it kind of flirts with virtual reality in terms of being a simple simulation. It's good in terms of driving home the point that art's goal is to provide an experience. Suspense does that in a very simple, "cheap" way that could serve as a pretty good wakeup call for artists of all disciplines.

It was really unnerving.

Another highlights was a mirror with the reflection of the artist's name carved into it so, if you thought about it a bit, if you could look into the mirror from the other side he had signed a portrait of you.

I love art, and the way it is treated on this site in general in favor of superficial pop culture distresses me.

The best definition of art I can think of is something that makes people voluntarily think, and come away enriched.

Given that definition, some of the best art I've ever come across has been mathematical in nature.

The only part that bothers me is how a can full of poop sells for thousands of dollars, but some of the most technically talented artists I've ever seen have to churn out superhero comics or fanservice commissions just to find any work.

edited 10th Feb '12 11:25:32 PM by Wheezy

Eh, sometimes people pay surprisingly much for pointless, fairly stupid in-jokes. See The Million Dollar Homepage, for example.

I will start on my latest art project tomorrow. It's a mixed media/found-art piece that I'm going to wear for a convention costume.

It's certainly not a pretty picture, but I still think the concept I have in my head looks cool.

edited 11th Feb '12 12:25:25 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

'Art' in Latin is 'ars'.

There's a moral in there somewhere.

edited 11th Feb '12 1:21:38 PM by InverurieJones

Y'know, for a site supposedly dedicated to analysis of art, there seems to be a lot of dislike of / not understanding art.

Seriously people? Some of the opinions expressed on this thread show an alarming inability to perform any sort of in-depth thought on a work.

If I don't like a work I'm not going to waste time trying to understand the wretched thing, am I?

That'd be like repeatedly listening to a song you don't like.

I saw a canvas, portrait, about 500 mm by 100 mm, which was black. The entire thing was black.

And I thought... why is it black? I can see into it... and I can see empty. But I don't want it to be empty. I looked at it for a while, and pondered for a while. It was a black canvas mounted on a white wall. Maybe it was showing contrast. I was confused about what it meant, but I'm guessing that the artist wanted me to think.

Not exactly, with a song you get what you hear. (*Apart from lyrics, those ay require somw thought*)

Chord changes, Uncommon Time, ect. are all readily identified.

With, say, a sculpture or a painting (*Or a book for that matter*) there are a lot more levels. Something you don't like, given some time and careful thought, may suddenly gain a new level of meaning or understanding.

You don't just walk through a museum gallery at a brisk pace going "Like, Don't Like, Like, Like..." you examine each piece and ask yourself things like, say "Why did the artist chose this medium?" "What is her intent with the work?" "Are there other ways to interpret this?" "How does this relate to other pieces in the gallery?"

Ad Reinhardt is interesting. He worked almost entirely with canvases covered in black paint, (*Sometimes In Different Shades Of Black On The Same Painting*) and repainted his canvases, bringing up questions of how to differentiate pieces of art.

edited 11th Feb '12 3:11:41 PM by inane242

No, sometimes I look at things and think 'What a lot of pretentious shit' and walk on.

I have little to no interest in modern art. Ancient art is what I'm interested in. Modern art has its head too firmly up its own arse for my liking.

edited 11th Feb '12 3:14:34 PM by InverurieJones

I used to be annoyed by incomprehensible postmodern art, but then I spent a while at an art museum and realized the modern gallery was much more fun because they presented riddles of what the artist meant or were just silly, whereas the 1800s gallery was "ah. That's what that street looked like. I'm sure the technique is impressive. Ah. That's definitely a rich dude."

Your loss.

EXACTLY! (*High Five*)

Anyone else here like Ad's stuff?

Here.◊

Here.◊

Here.◊

edited 11th Feb '12 3:15:27 PM by inane242

No; my gain. It means I can make better use of the time I saved.

There is no better use of time than art.

Hahahahahahaha.

No.

I can think of several.

edited 11th Feb '12 3:19:32 PM by InverurieJones

I wonder why. Never how. Why is that like that? I can always work out how. To work out why, is a different matter.

It may sound a little pretentious and wishy-washy, but the purpose of any of the Arts is for expression and symbolism. When someone in my class suggested that "modern art is all bullshit because it's all about symbolism", he was wrong. Why is the toilet thing there? Why is that block placed like that? Why? Why? Why? It's never the how, it's the why.

There may be some pieces that you won't like, but there's a reason it's hanging in a gallery. It's an exercise of one's mind to look at art, not just an exercise of one's eyes.

@ Nane. I liked that last Reinhart one. It was an interesting exercise of my visual perception.

edited 11th Feb '12 3:22:01 PM by Inhopelessguy

That series of edits was comic gold.