Are abstract art fans stupid?

[Bryan R. Tyler]

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).

Actually they do. Very few forms of art lack a set of preknown functions and how they work together- how colors and shapes react to one another, which colors evoke which emotions, doing this or that on the picture plane will cause this, how close to their goal they've come compared to similar works by peers, etc.- it's been covered. There are many ways to measure how successful a piece is, whether it is abstract or not. The public is just far less knowledgeable about these sets of rules and guidelines than they were in the past.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

You guys are being sold snake oil.

Yes, I suppose you've managed to figure it all out at the old age of 18 with no amount of extensive art study. Good show, old bean. Next you should start a "Jaco sucks" thread.......

 

[AlphaMale]

You just don't get it.

Thanks for proving my point. You can't dislike any abstract art piece without having something wrong with you.
Sorry I don't get it.
I lose my art street cred now.
You know what else I don't get?
Pressured into liking stuff that I don't think is good.

If there really was something to get you wouldn't call it, "it" you would call it the real quality, but the amazing part is people aren't buying snake oil from a salesman, some dude is putting snake oil down and people are selling it to themselves.

All abstract art isn't bad, definitely not. But why can't someone just dislike a piece without being told something is wrong with them.

Yes, I suppose you've managed to figure it all out at the old age of 18 with no amount of extensive art study. Good show, old bean. Next you should start a "Jaco sucks" thread.......

I shouldn't. I should make 5,000 dollars from making a sculpture of a pink cow and selling it to the government to put in a park. And if you don't think there its worth 5,000 dollars you just dont' get what I'm trying to say. No you're right.
I'm wrong.

All Abstract art is great

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Thanks for proving my point. You can't dislike any abstract art piece without having something wrong with you.
Sorry I don't get it.
I lose my art street cred now.
You know what else I don't get?
Pressured into liking stuff that I don't think is good.

If there really was something to get you wouldn't call it, "it" you would call it the real quality, but the amazing part is people aren't buying snake oil from a salesman, some dude is putting snake oil down and people are selling it to themselves.

All abstract art isn't bad, definitely not. But why can't someone just dislike a piece without being told something is wrong with them.



I shouldn't. I should make 5,000 dollars from making a sculpture of a pink cow and selling it to the government to put in a park. And if you don't think there its worth 5,000 dollars you just dont' get what I'm trying to say. No you're right.
I'm wrong.

All Abstract art is great

There's nothing wrong with disliking a piece, it's how you articulate and formulate your stance on the piece that provides "rightness" and "wrongness."

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Thanks for proving my point. You can't dislike any abstract art piece without having something wrong with you.
Sorry I don't get it.
I lose my art street cred now.
You know what else I don't get?
Pressured into liking stuff that I don't think is good.

If there really was something to get you wouldn't call it, "it" you would call it the real quality, but the amazing part is people aren't buying snake oil from a salesman, some dude is putting snake oil down and people are selling it to themselves.

All abstract art isn't bad, definitely not. But why can't someone just dislike a piece without being told something is wrong with them.



I shouldn't. I should make 5,000 dollars from making a sculpture of a pink cow and selling it to the government to put in a park. And if you don't think there its worth 5,000 dollars you just dont' get what I'm trying to say. No you're right.
I'm wrong.

All Abstract art is great

The problem you're having is that you expect to have your opinion matter when you don't know anything about the subject. No artist is without knowledgeable critics. There are people well-versed in the genres that artists work in who have a valid standpoint as to why something is of poor quality. You're problem is that you literally don't get it because you are ignorant of the subject matter. There are plenty of vocal critics out there that do "get it" and still dislike particular artists or pieces. You saying you just don't like something without being able to articulate why it doesn't work in the genre they are working is fine for yourself, but it means nothing compared to someone who's opinion on the subject is based on a thorough study of it.

 

[AlphaMale]

The problem you're having is that you expect to have your opinion matter when you don't know anything about the subject. No artist is without knowledgeable critics. There are people well-versed in the genres that artists work in who have a valid standpoint as to why something is of poor quality. You're problem is that you literally don't get it because you are ignorant of the subject matter. There are plenty of vocal critics out there that do "get it" and still dislike particular artists or pieces. You saying you just don't like something without being able to articulate why it doesn't work in the genre they are working is fine for yourself, but it means nothing compared to someone who's opinion on the subject is based on a thorough study of it.

You must educate me on why the pink cow with sun glasases is art then. srsly.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

The problem you're having is that you expect to have your opinion matter when you don't know anything about the subject. No artist is without knowledgeable critics. There are people well-versed in the genres that artists work in who have a valid standpoint as to why something is of poor quality. You're problem is that you literally don't get it because you are ignorant of the subject matter. There are plenty of vocal critics out there that do "get it" and still dislike particular artists or pieces. You saying you just don't like something without being able to articulate why it doesn't work in the genre they are working is fine for yourself, but it means nothing compared to someone who's opinion on the subject is based on a thorough study of it.

How elite and wanky at the same time.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

You must educate me on why the pink cow with sun glasases is art then. srsly.

If you're talking about the cow shown in the 60 Minutes clip, it may have been one of the cows from Cow Parade. It was a project about a decade back where artists all over the country were given cows to decorate in any way they wish, and the cows were put out on the street as a way of entertainment and charity (most of the cows were auctioned after the parade and money given to charity). I was in Chicago at the time of the Chicago cow parade. It was awesome. I still have a picture of myself standing next to Picasso Cow. Art can simply be fun. If it's not from Cow Parade, then I'd have to look it up and see if it's in a movement I'm familiar with before I pass judgment.

I don't like to pass judgment on things before I really give it a good study. That's something you may want to try

How elite and wanky at the same time.

It's elite to find the opinons of someone who has expertise in an area more valuable than someone who doesn't? Geez, you must get ticked off when people shun your medical advise and go with the advise of their doctors instead. If you think that art does not require the same sort of extensive study that any other field such as science, law, medicine, history, etc., does in order to really know what you're talking about, then you're mistaken.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Here's something to think about for some people here. Take a famous and universally liked painter. Rembrandt for example. Pick any one of his paintings. Now imagine that he's painting it. Except this time, imagine every color on his palette is black. He still paints the same image, he still mixes the patches of paint in the exact same way he would if they were the colors that he would normally have on his palette instead of black, he still carefully applies each stroke the same way he did int he finished painting. Now, the painting and the work it took to create the painting is exactly the same, except the painting is all black. Is it still art? It still contains the same degree of workmanship, took the same length of time, still made by the same person with a vast skill set. It just doesn't look like something pretty anymore. You're not going to know how much work and effort went into it when you're looking at it in a gallery. So what are you left with? You''re going to have to get past the idea that it doesn't need to look like anything, and start thinking about WHY it's painted that way. Get past your preconceptions and instincts about what you may like. You have to think about what the artist is trying to do. If you don't know about a subject, then either learn about it or move on and save your criticism for something you have some knowledge of. It's far more difficult thing to get into that a lot of representational art, because the goal of a lot of representational art is to simply make something look like something else, but it's far from snake oil. If you haven't put in the work to learn about something, then you have no place dismissing it.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

How elite and wanky at the same time.

Well, I said it in two sentences a couple posts above, if you want something a little more digestible.


To be honest, though, I'm pretty sure you guys are just ignoring what Brian's saying. There is more to art than basic aesthetic appreciation, whether you stay blind to that is your own choice.

 

[Marlat]

Reading through this thread, it doesn't appear that its the abstract art fans that are stupid. Shrug.

 

[hbarcat]

At the risk of oversimplifying, (I'll usually take that risk ) art is fundamentally about producing something (whether through construction or performance) that intends to elicit a subjective emotional response. This is in contrast to non-art products or services which are supposed to be substantive in some objective manner.

If a musician creates a piece that critics consider to be brilliant, innovative and pioneering but the vast majority of those who listen to it can't understand it and are emotionally unmoved by it (except to be disgusted enought to leave the room) then its artistic value is limited to the handful of critics who get enjoyment from it as well as the artist himself, who probably listens to it all the time. Some of the music I listen to and enjoy falls into this category and many of my non-musician friends can't understand what I see in some of my favorite music.

On the other hand, dance music practically writes and records itself but it can't be denied that millions of people dance to it and are about as emotionally invested in it as it's possible to be. This is the height of art for those people. I admit to sometimes getting into this "low" art myself and I can really enjoy it in spite of the voice in the back of my head that says, "This doesn't take a lot of talent to write." But so what? It's fun.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

At the risk of oversimplifying, (I'll usually take that risk ) art is fundamentally about producing something (whether through construction or performance) that intends to elicit a subjective emotional response. This is in contrast to non-art products or services which are supposed to be substantive in some objective manner.

The main goal of all of my paintings is to elicit an emotional response as well, but this is actually a very modern (and very over-romanticized) idea about art and was not the goal of the majority of artists throughout history, including most of the abstract painters up to the middle of the 19th century. Most of the well-known abstract artists were making art in extremely analytical ways- they were figuring out the science of shapes, colors, and space on the picture plane. One can look at a Pollock or a Hans Hoffman and get a deep emotional response, but nearly everything they did can be looked at from a purely analytical perspective, because they were created that way.

 

[AlphaMale]

The main goal of all of my paintings is to elicit an emotional response as well, but this is actually a very modern (and very over-romanticized) idea about art and was not the goal of the majority of artists throughout history, including most of the abstract painters up to the middle of the 19th century. Most of the well-known abstract artists were making art in extremely analytical ways- they were figuring out the science of shapes, colors, and space on the picture plane. One can look at a Pollock or a Hans Hoffman and get a deep emotional response, but nearly everything they did can be looked at from a purely analytical perspective, because they were created that way.

If it weren't for the cow parade. Which is more likely there are still tons of examples on the vids that couldn't have been for silly whacky contests. But the thing is you didn't even say why it was good art, only why it was reasonable for him to create it. The fact is a lot of the other things in that clip weren't all about animal contests. A giant Slab of rock? Maybe there is a message I don't get (but our tax dollars are paying for). But people assume there is a message, credibility and merit to every abstract art piece. And thats why you have bears winning art contests. I'm not saying the bear's art was bad. But people assumed there was a message and meaning behind it, they assume it about everything, and on top of it all the assumed it has merit. I think you're thinking too wishfully if you believe every artist that has made an abstract art piece had a message between every work and none of them were forcing their avant-garde, portraying a message that is not there or making their art like it has more substance and complexity in the message than there actually is. I can't say this about every artist nor do I believe that, but I don't believe every single artwork in that video had true merit. Oh ****, but I'm not allowed to think that because I don't have a degree. When people tell me jazz sucks, I honestly ignore them because I know it's amazing. But Abstract artists have to make you feel left out and act all elitist and debate with people. (Who they imply have no credibility because of their age) This whole assumption that all abstract art is amazing and actually has substance has brought people into think that it MUST have substance and that is why bears win art contests. But I use the bear as a bad example because the bear's art is aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. On a side note, I really like your art, But the idea that all abstract art is beyond criticism is silly and elitist. I don't have a degree in art, from the way you speak, I'm guessing you do; but I know that the more you act like something is beyond reproach by just being what it is takes away from its credibility.


I may have repeated myself a lot, sorry, I need to emphasize some facts because they're being ignored.

 

[AlphaMale]

At the risk of oversimplifying, (I'll usually take that risk ) art is fundamentally about producing something (whether through construction or performance) that intends to elicit a subjective emotional response. This is in contrast to non-art products or services which are supposed to be substantive in some objective manner.

If a musician creates a piece that critics consider to be brilliant, innovative and pioneering but the vast majority of those who listen to it can't understand it and are emotionally unmoved by it (except to be disgusted enought to leave the room) then its artistic value is limited to the handful of critics who get enjoyment from it as well as the artist himself, who probably listens to it all the time. Some of the music I listen to and enjoy falls into this category and many of my non-musician friends can't understand what I see in some of my favorite music.

On the other hand, dance music practically writes and records itself but it can't be denied that millions of people dance to it and are about as emotionally invested in it as it's possible to be. This is the height of art for those people. I admit to sometimes getting into this "low" art myself and I can really enjoy it in spite of the voice in the back of my head that says, "This doesn't take a lot of talent to write." But so what? It's fun.

But the difference of how abstract art is judged, it's first of all, all assumed to be good as long as you can't tell what was going on in the guys head, and has moved away from being aesthetically pleasing or the emotional response. "It looks pretty deep so it must be good." Not to say that there is no good abstract art at all.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

If it weren't for the cow parade. Which is more likely there are still tons of examples on the vids that couldn't have been for silly whacky contests. But the thing is you didn't even say why it was good art, only why it was reasonable for him to create it.

If it was for the Cow Parade, then it was probably good art- the purpose of the cow parade was to get art put in the public's view with an emphasis on entertainment and originality and to garner attention to the cause, which that cow certainly would have. If it wasn't Cow Parade, then I wouldn't pass judgment on it because I don't know anything about it. I already said that.

The fact is a lot of the other things in that clip weren't all about animal contests. A giant Slab of rock? Maybe there is a message I don't get (but our tax dollars are paying for). But people assume there is a message, credibility and merit to every abstract art piece. And thats why you have bears winning art contests.

Who's this "everyone" you're speaking of? It certainly isn't true in the art world. And if you're speaking of people outside of it, then you're just getting more opinions from people who don't know, so you shouldn't take them seriously. Richard Serra (creator of the Tilted Arc) is a very respected sculptor- there indeed would be a message you don't get if that's what you're speaking of. We spent a whole class in Art Criticism discussing that piece and its removal.

I'm not saying the bear's art was bad. But people assumed there was a message and meaning behind it, they assume it about everything, and on top of it all the assumed it has merit.

If they saw meaning and merit in it, then for them, it had meaning and merit, plain and simple. It doesn't mean it was the artist's intent (the bear). That again enforces my stance that you need to learn about the artist and his work before judging it.

I think you're thinking too wishfully if you believe every artist that has made an abstract art piece had a message between every work and none of them were forcing their avant-garde, portraying a message that is not there or making their art like it has more substance and complexity in the message than there actually is. I can't say this about every artist nor do I believe that, but I don't believe every single artwork in that video had true merit.

Oh, there are plenty of BS artists out there. There are in every field in the world.

Oh ****, but I'm not allowed to think that because I don't have a degree.

Really? That's funny, because you were repeatedly told it was fine for you to think that.

When people tell me jazz sucks, I honestly ignore them because I know it's amazing. But Abstract artists have to make you feel left out and act all elitist and debate with people.

Is that what abstract artists do? That's what Kandinsky, Diebenkorn, those guys did? No. You may meet people who claim false depth to their work. This is no different from the guitarists we meet who play a million random notes and claim a purpose to them when there is none. Does that mean that guitarists act elitist? No, just people. And there may be many artists who do have depth to their work that you simply don't get.

(Who they imply have no credibility because of their age)

Age is a credibility factor. Like it or not, it's true.

This whole assumption that all abstract art is amazing and actually has substance has brought people into think that it MUST have substance and that is why bears win art contests.

Actually, it's because of people who think like you that bears win art contests. Think about it. What have I been saying all along? Don't judge something without learning about it. People finding false depth to a piece because they haven't researched what the artist was trying to accomplish is exactly the same as saying a piece of art is crap without having researched what the artist was trying to accomplish. Point come from a standpoint of ignorance. Now, if the judging was done strictly on an aesthetic scale, then there's no problem with a bear winning. Animals, or people with no skill, are fully capable of making art that is very visually appealing.

But I use the bear as a bad example because the bear's art is aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. On a side note, I really like your art, But the idea that all abstract art is beyond criticism is silly and elitist.

You are the only person in this thread who has claimed that. I certainly never would, nor would any of the many artists, curators, and gallery owners I've known.

I don't have a degree in art, from the way you speak, I'm guessing you do; but I know that the more you act like something is beyond reproach by just being what it is takes away from its credibility.

Again, who said it was beyond reproach? What it is is beyond criticisms by people who don't really know how to properly criticize it.

I may have repeated myself a lot, sorry, I need to emphasize some facts because they're being ignored.

Nothing was ignored- it's all been answered already.

 

[AlphaMale]

If it was for the Cow Parade, then it was probably good art- the purpose of the cow parade was to get art put in the public's view with an emphasis on entertainment and originality and to garner attention to the cause, which that cow certainly would have. If it wasn't Cow Parade, then I wouldn't pass judgment on it because I don't know anything about it. I already said that.

Funny, you can't tell art is good just by looking at it. Seems like a good artist would be able to communicate whatever is needed for the art to be good by putting it in the piece, rather than depending on an explanation (or excuses). I think masterpiece's like Coltrane's "Blue Train" album shouldn't rely on an explanation. What about when you review your pedals? Do you need an explanation on those before you review them?

Who's this "everyone" you're speaking of? It certainly isn't true in the art world. And if you're speaking of people outside of it, then you're just getting more opinions from people who don't know, so you shouldn't take them seriously. Richard Serra (creator of the Tilted Arc) is a very respected sculptor- there indeed would be a message you don't get if that's what you're speaking of. We spent a whole class in Art Criticism discussing that piece and its removal.

You know the guy who made the Tilted Arc, and he has a reputation. I ask you what was his message, and you reply I just don't get it. So what is this message you get and I don't. (you're probably now going to say "when did I say that I got the message" but you're not saying "we don't get" you're saying "you don't get")

If they saw meaning and merit in it, then for them, it had meaning and merit, plain and simple. It doesn't mean it was the artist's intent (the bear). That again enforces my stance that you need to learn about the artist and his work before judging it.

Hm... This is funny then. It's not about what the artists put into it, it's about what the person gets out of it. And if the bear is getting the same effect a good artist with. I think we could replace all artists with bears, save tax payer money, and still have great art. =] (someone sig that lol)

You keep placing a lot of importance on the artist's intent (Like the cow for instance, because if I don't tell you this you will say "when did I say that") but then you say it's not really important as long as people like it. But then you say again that it is important. You're contradicting yourself.

Really? That's funny, because you were repeatedly told it was fine for you to think that.

By two guys on here and five other guys are saying the exact opposite. If it were perfectly fine for me to think so, why are we having this discussion? You're contradicting again yourself man.

Is that what abstract artists do? That's what Kandinsky, Diebenkorn, those guys did? No. You may meet people who claim false depth to their work. This is no different from the guitarists we meet who play a million random notes and claim a purpose to them when there is none. Does that mean that guitarists act elitist? No, just people. And there may be many artists who do have depth to their work that you simply don't get.

The guitarist don't act elitist by claiming depth, they act elitist by saying someone needs expertise before they can even say they don't like something without being told they can't comprehend it.

Age is a credibility factor. Like it or not, it's true.

Age does not correlate to credibility.
A young man can be wrong, so can an old man, don't be silly.

Actually, it's because of people who think like you that bears win art contests. Think about it. What have I been saying all along? Don't judge something without learning about it. People finding false depth to a piece because they haven't researched what the artist was trying to accomplish is exactly the same as saying a piece of art is crap without having researched what the artist was trying to accomplish. Point come from a standpoint of ignorance. Now, if the judging was done strictly on an aesthetic scale, then there's no problem with a bear winning. Animals, or people with no skill, are fully capable of making art that is very visually appealing.

I thought the bear's art was good because it appealed to the audience well. Here you go again saying that there has to be knowledge of whats being done, when you said the intent doesn't matter as much as the person's reaction. And with the last sentence being said, I have to ask why you when to study art.

You are the only person in this thread who has claimed that. I certainly never would, nor would any of the many artists, curators, and gallery owners I've known.

You're implying it, this whole discussion implies it, and the fact that you're defending pieces you don't admit you don't even know about other than the look. (and I guess it takes more than that right?) I've admitted that there is good abstract art, yet you haven't claimed that there is any abstract art, merely bad artists. I think this is enough to get the implication. You don't always have to say something. (Neither should a good artist right?)

Again, who said it was beyond reproach? What it is is beyond criticisms by people who don't really know how to properly criticize it.

Read this over and over again so you can realize you are almost making two opposite claims.

Art isn't beyond criticism, then Art is beyond criticism but only to certain people. (These people being people who don't know what the artist is going for, i.e. everyone except for the artist)

Nothing was ignored- it's all been answered already.

The irony is that you ignored this

But the difference of how abstract art is judged, it's first of all, all assumed to be good as long as you can't tell what was going on in the guys head, and has moved away from being aesthetically pleasing or the emotional response. "It looks pretty deep so it must be good." Not to say that there is no good abstract art at all.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Funny, you can't tell art is good just by looking at it. Seems like a good artist would be able to communicate whatever is needed for the art to be good by putting it in the piece, rather than depending on an explanation (or excuses). I think masterpiece's like Coltrane's "Blue Train" album shouldn't rely on an explanation. What about when you review your pedals? Do you need an explanation on those before you review them?

Are you serious???

So everyone should instantly recognize Blue Train as amazing, regardless of their musical appreciation and knowledge???

I want to be part of your wild fantasy life, where everyone is grooving to Blue Train all the time, you know, because everyone knows its a masterwork, and abstract art fans are just telling you "you don't get it." Because that's not happening here, man.

It's like trying to read a language you don't have any proficiency in, and then getting mad when the people who speak it well are able to converse.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Funny, you can't tell art is good just by looking at it. Seems like a good artist would be able to communicate whatever is needed for the art to be good by putting it in the piece, rather than depending on an explanation (or excuses). I think masterpiece's like Coltrane's "Blue Train" album shouldn't rely on an explanation. What about when you review your pedals? Do you need an explanation on those before you review them?

When it comes to things beyond representation, then you're very mistaken. All you can determine without knowledge of the artist's intent is whether you like something or not, not whether it is good or not. If Coltrane's intent with "Blue Train" was to make a pop album that received lots of airplay beyond the jazz scene, then his album would have been a failure. Play any of Coltrane's later works for the average teenage rock fan and he'll say that Coltrane is just playing random notes. It probably won't sound good to him. Does that mean Coltrane isn't a good artist because it takes some knowledge to realize what he's doing? Of course not. And of course I need an explanation on pedals before I review them. If I don't know that a Micro POG is a polyphonic digital octaver before I review it, and go into it think it should sound like an analog octaver because I haven't done my research, then my critique will be ill-informed and meaningless.

You know the guy who made the Tilted Arc, and he has a reputation. I ask you what was his message, and you reply I just don't get it. So what is this message you get and I don't. (you're probably now going to say "when did I say that I got the message" but you're not saying "we don't get" you're saying "you don't get")

I wish I knew the guy- I'd ask to borrow a few million bucks. If you're interested in learning more on Serra, there's ample information on him readily available on the internet. I did my work to learn about him- if you're honestly interested, then go do yours.

Hm... This is funny then. It's not about what the artists put into it, it's about what the person gets out of it. And if the bear is getting the same effect a good artist with. I think we could replace all artists with bears, save tax payer money, and still have great art. =] (someone sig that sentence lol)

You keep placing a lot of importance on the artist's intent (Like the cow for instance, because if I don't tell you this you will say "when did I say that") but then you say it's not really important as long as people like it. But then you say again that it is important. You're contradicting yourself.

No, you're just skipping some important parts of my posts. If people like something, then that's all that needs to matter to them. That doesn't make the piece good. As I stated earlier, I think Thomas Kincaid is a terrible artist. But he is achieving one of his goals and lots of people like him, so that's all they need. If they want to get further into it to find out if his paintings really are good, then they're going to have to put some study in that goes well beyond their own personal likes and dislikes. If pieces are being judged solely on their aesthetic values, then the judge doesn't need to go any further than what he sees. Very few pieces are judged this way anymore though. Which is why you need to know what you're dealing with before opening your mouth.

By two guys on here and five other guys are saying the exact opposite. If it were perfectly fine for me to think so, why are we having this discussion? You're contradicting again yourself man.

It is perfectly fine for you to think so. That does not mean that your opinion should count for anything. Do you know what a contradiction is? Because you've repeatedly claimed I've made them when I haven't even come close to it. We're having this discussion because beyond you not liking something, you expect that your opinion should mean something and that you shouldn't be brushed off by people saying "you don't get it," while the fact that you don't have knowledge of the subject directly means that you DON'T get it. That shouldn't stop you from liking or disliking a piece for yourself, but again, stop expecting your opinion to mean anything to anyone other than yourself.

The guitarist don't act elitist by claiming depth, they act elitist by saying someone needs expertise before they can even say they don't like something without being told they can't comprehend it.

Again, how is it elitist to expect someone to have knowledge of a subject before they can criticize it? You really must think it is elitist for surgeons to shun medical advise from those with no experience in the medical field. Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't mean you have any qualification for your opinion to mean anything.

Age does not correlate to credibility.
A young man can be wrong, so can an old man, don't be silly.

You've been repeatedly proving how a young man can be wrong in this thread How much opportunity to study a subject does a young person have compared to an older one? Not that this is always the case- I know far more about art than some of the posters in this thread that are many years older than I. But given the idea that I and someone older than I who has also studied art, I will give the advantage to him as he's had much longer to study it. In this thread you have the unfortunate disadvantage of not only being young but also having very little knowledge of the subject. That's not meant as an insult. It's just been made very apparent through your posts.

I thought the bear's art was good because it appealed to the audience well. Here you go again saying that there has to be knowledge of whats being done, when you said the intent doesn't matter as much as the person's reaction. And with the last sentence being said, I have to ask why you when to study art.

For a person's own judgment, they can observe a piece and like or dislike it without knowing about it. This is not a qualifier as to whether or not a piece is good or not. This explains the sheer quantity of bad paintings over sofas and bad music in CD players. There has to be knowledge of what's being done if you want to be able to look at something objectively, and this will lead you down a path of greater discovery. It's fine to like something, but you can't claim it to be great or bad without knowing WHY it is so. These are two different things- why is it confusing you that they reside separately?

And I'm sure there's a couple typos in your last sentence because it doesn't make any sense as written. If you meant to ask where I went to study art, it was the Lyme Academy College of Fine Art. If you meant to ask why I went to study art, it is because I began drawing comics, moved up to drawing and painting realistic subjects while in high school (we had one of the nation's best art programs), and then to college because painting took hold of me and I wanted to immerse myself in it. I have very formal classical fine art training behind me- not what most of my paintings suggest. I also have a great love for early abstract and abstract expressionist painters, and a lot of people really don't get it. They'd rather call it snake oil than put in the work to learn about it.

You're implying it, this whole discussion implies it, and the fact that you're defending pieces you don't admit you don't even know about other than the look. (and I guess it takes more than that right?)

I'm implying it? I've repeatedly said that criticizing a piece of artwork is fine so long as you know what you're speaking of. I have not however said anything remotely close to "abstract art is beyond criticism." I also have not defended any artwork at all. I've said what the point of the cow was if it was part of Cow Parade, and also said that if it wasn't part of it then I'll reserve judgment because I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. You are reading a lot of words that were neither written nor implied at this point.

I've admitted that there is good abstract art, yet you haven't claimed that there is any abstract art, merely bad artists. I think this is enough to get the implication. You don't always have to say something.

I haven't "admitted" that there is any abstract art? I'm guessing you meant to write "any bad abstract art." I haven't written that there is any bad representational art, any bad jazz music, or any bad sushi in this thread either. Is that enough to give you the implication that I don't think these things exist, or would you rather calm down, think, and realize that when I've previously said that pieces can be judged by knowledgeable critics as good or bad, that the "bad" means........bad!

(Neither should a good artist right?)

There's one big chip on your shoulder, eh?

Read this over and over again so you can realize you are almost making two opposite claims.

Art isn't beyond criticism, then Art is beyond criticism but only to certain people. (These people being people who don't know what the artist is going for, i.e. everyone except for the artist)

"except for the artist".....is that said shoulder chip again? My "claim" is not two different ones at all. Art can very much be criticized. It just takes knowledge to criticize it. Not to like it.

The irony is that you ignored this

No, I have already said that it's silly of you to think that people in the know think that abstract art is initially assumed to be good.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

This conversation once again proves my point. "abstract" art is a crock, it involves high levels of wankage that result in below average works as far as I can see. I've never heard more elitist statements (in what is a relatively subjective field, compared with say, medicine) before. Even in jazz discussions.