Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Are abstract art fans stupid?
- Thread starter AlphaMale
- Start date
nothing would exist and be popular if there wasent some substance there.
anyone can think litterally, the abstract people are the ones above everyone else in my book.
but all the while im still not sure whats the hype about painting a canvas one soilid color (theres a blue painting like that, too..)
anyone can think litterally, the abstract people are the ones above everyone else in my book.
but all the while im still not sure whats the hype about painting a canvas one soilid color (theres a blue painting like that, too..)
It's all in the eye of the beholder. If you don't understand it, you won't like it. If you do, then it will be very meaningful to you.
For example, back when I first started getting into jazz, I couldn't stand John Coltrane. He sounded too abstract for me, I just couldn't get into it. I'm not even talking about his post-A Love Supreme avant-garde period, I mean plain old Giant Steps-era John Coltrane. I kept listening though, because I had heard a lot of people talking like he was the greatest thing on earth. Eventually something clicked, and now I understand his music and think he's one of the most beautiful musicians I've ever heard.
I have to admit, though, I don't understand abstract art at all. I went to an exhibit at the Hirshorn in D.C. that featured one guy who just painted horizontal, vertical, and diagonal stripes. I'm not going to pretend that any of that meant a thing to me, but I won't discount it as art because I don't understand it. Perhaps, to somebody else, that's the most beautiful painting in the world, and maybe someday I'll come to like it too. For now, though, I'll avoid criticizing others' assessments so that I don't make the mistake of ignoring something that I could someday derive much pleasure from.
For example, back when I first started getting into jazz, I couldn't stand John Coltrane. He sounded too abstract for me, I just couldn't get into it. I'm not even talking about his post-A Love Supreme avant-garde period, I mean plain old Giant Steps-era John Coltrane. I kept listening though, because I had heard a lot of people talking like he was the greatest thing on earth. Eventually something clicked, and now I understand his music and think he's one of the most beautiful musicians I've ever heard.
I have to admit, though, I don't understand abstract art at all. I went to an exhibit at the Hirshorn in D.C. that featured one guy who just painted horizontal, vertical, and diagonal stripes. I'm not going to pretend that any of that meant a thing to me, but I won't discount it as art because I don't understand it. Perhaps, to somebody else, that's the most beautiful painting in the world, and maybe someday I'll come to like it too. For now, though, I'll avoid criticizing others' assessments so that I don't make the mistake of ignoring something that I could someday derive much pleasure from.
This is what I was talking about.
"If you don't like it you just don't understand it." "I know something you don't, and you don't want to feel left out so you have to accept this as art." Why can't I just think something sucks without being considered closed minded.There are some thing that people can't understand yet, that is true. And I do believe that Abstract art can be somewhat comparable to jazz sometimes, but I know sometimes that it either no one or only the artist can understand the art. And I know someone is just making something just to be weird or wacky or pretentious just to make money because he knows people will just keep their mouth shut and because they don't want to feel stupid or left out or be told they can't understand it. I do love some abstract art, but even in rock music today some people are just making non-sense and pretending to be artistic or creative.
Because nothing sucks, you just "don't get" whatever you think sucks. For example: I really really hate Nickelback, and quite a few people would be behind me if I said, "Nickelback sucks!" But they are pretty popular, so they must be doing something right. It's all based on opinions, even though I will say a lot of artists are pretentious and snobby about the "You just don't get it" thing, but it's true. They are probably talking about the deep inner meaning and soforth, but what there really is to get (to me at least) is the appeal.
Frankly, I don't care about subject matter if what is created doesn't have visual appeal. I think I already told this story here, but not in this thread (at least I hope not). I was at an art opening on campus, I was mildly interested until I heard there was free food... then I was very interested. I walked around the gallery until I came upon a "work" that was insulation wrapped in barb wire... that's it. No interesting design, just a small roll of insulation held together in barb wire.
The thing is... I "get it," I get that insulation is made to protect and also to confine, and barb wire is a more brutal version of that. There is all sorts of bull **** you could read into that, but I was disgusted at the complete lack of design. They could have used the same media to create something worth looking at.
So, along with my friends, I found an empty pedestal in the gallery, we took our paper plates with food stains, used cups, etc and built a pretty lousy little sculpture. We backed off and a few moments later, a small crowd gathered around and spent a minute or so standing around it, inspecting it as art. They had the same paper plates and cups in their hands.
So, maybe abstract art fans are stupid, or maybe they are just more prone to accept art as a broader term than just the Mona Lisa.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong!
What if that sucks? If it can't convey that deeper meaning then in my opinion then it sucks. I thought that was what good art supposed to be about? Sometimes a song is only good because of it's able to communicate emotions, and because some guy can't do that, we have to put his art in an elite level?
Or maybe some guy just made something that seemed weird so people could extract meaning from it, or extract a better meaning from it.
Dude write a poem, make it very vague and artsy and give it no meaning, read it to people and ask what meaning they got form it.
I don't think all abstract art is bad, I just think some of it is full of hot air and it is presented in a way to where people have to believe if you don't like it you're stupid.
Why can't I hate an abstract art piece?
Link Removed
How come I can't hate that without being closed minded?
Bryan R. Tyler
TalkBass: Usurping My Practice Time Since 2002
Staff member
Administrator
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
- May 3, 2002
- 28,948
- 20,935
- Disclosures
- Reviewer: Bass Player Magazine
You can hate it all you want. That doesn't explain whether it's good or bad though. I hate nearly every Thomas Kincaid piece I've ever seen. To me they're nothing more than overly-detailed, falsely sentimental schlock that ignores the viewer's ability to interpret. But that's kind of the point of his pieces- he's creating "easy" art that can appeal to the masses who don't have any knowledge on how to view or interpret art. So for the goal he's setting for himself, he is successful. So it can be seen as "good" from a certain viewpoint. In the overall though, I think it's bad art.
The thing is, if you don't have the knowledge to explain why it doesn't work and all you can say is that you don't like it, then don't expect your opinion to mean anything. Unless you have the knowledge required to explain WHY something is bad, then you are in fact being close-minded.....close-minded to the study required to honestly critique something from this field. I can look at an engineer's blueprint of a proposed sewer system and say that I don't like it, but my opinion means nothing unless I have some engineering knowledge to back up my claims.
Even a child will know that a harmony of two notes a semi tone apart will not sound nice purely by hearing it and that harmony of two notes a major third apart will sound much better. They don't have the knowledge of connosance and dissonance or the wave nature of sound or the interference between waves or harmonics or any of the other physical and theoretical properties of a harmony that come into play.
An opinion based on instinct above knowledge can still be right or at least valid.
Bryan R. Tyler
TalkBass: Usurping My Practice Time Since 2002
Staff member
Administrator
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
- May 3, 2002
- 28,948
- 20,935
- Disclosures
- Reviewer: Bass Player Magazine
Go on that instinct and nearly half of the solos Herbie Hancock ever did should be considered "bad." Instinct alone without knowledge to back it up is not valid at all when it comes to interpretation. There are a great number of reasons to do things that may seem to be "wrong" to someone who doesn't know any better.
I don't have the first notion on how to get my head around jazz theory let alone play it. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate it. In fact I do, and have enjoyed Hancocks music.
My previous post was a simple example of instinct above knowledge, not an all encompassing method. It doesn't discount the fact that you can form an instinctive opinion on subjects much more complex than a simple two part harmony.
It's an art when people communicate through their work (abstract or otherwise).
It's also an art when people find interesting things to look at.
Even though they can look identical, they're different types of art.
Miro once traded one of his paintings for an artwork painted by a chimp named Congo. Picasso also owned one. I have a painting of trees painted by an elephant. It ticks all of the necessary boxes for me to call it art. Anyone want to see it?
Bryan R. Tyler
TalkBass: Usurping My Practice Time Since 2002
Staff member
Administrator
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
- May 3, 2002
- 28,948
- 20,935
- Disclosures
- Reviewer: Bass Player Magazine
Instinct is a fine method to determine whether or not you like something. But it is a meaningless way of measuring the quality of something if there is no knowledge to back it up, and it can certainly hinder someone from gaining knowledge about a subject if they begin to think their instinct is a valid qualifier.
Measure and art are two words that don't really go too well together. Especially when it comes to abstract art, you could say the measurement of it's quality is just as abstract as the artistry itself. Unlike your sewer system analogy the quality of which can easily be measured since its something which is very much defined and outlined regulated and controlled. Which is also why that analogy doesn't hold much water with me (pardon the pun).
That child never grew up to be Thelonious Monk, or a fan of his music, either. Art isn't just about the raw materials; it's more about what the artist is able to say with them.
