Are abstract art fans stupid?

[Marlat]

This conversation once again proves my point. "abstract" art is a crock

If this thread is all the evidence you need to "prove" a sweeping generalisation like that, you must be a pretty easy person to convince of anything. Did you know that gullible isn't listed in the dictionary?

The way I see it, abstract art isn't jazz. Its a false analogy. Absract art is, in many ways, like an obscure (in the publics perception) sub-genre of jazz. Its the avante-garde jazz of art. The further and further you get into the specifics of any large genre, like jazz, the more knowledge about your subject to understand the nuianances. If I play a John Zorn piece to someone who doesn't "get" jazz, they will probably hate it and not understand it. If I play it to a jazz fan who understands jazz, they might not like it either, but they may get what Zorn was trying to do (even if they don't like the execution). To say "its a crock" simply discloses your own lack of understanding. Its a very different proposition from "I don't like it".

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

John Zorn is actually one of the guys I always think of when it comes to abstract art. It probably comes from visiting a friend at the Chicago Art Institute and him playing one of the Masada albums about 5 times a day every day I was there. The abstract and abstract expressionist artists of the 30s-60s were actually more like bebop artists than avante-garde jazz musicians- it was very mainstream art at that time, a greater portion of the public was aware of it and understood it (this is before TV completely took over most people's spare time), and jazz musicians and ab-ex artists floated in the same social circles. A great number of jazz albums from this time period have ab and ab-ex art pictured on their album covers. Abstract art is as much a crock as bebop is.

 

[Kosko]

dali = favorite

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Abstract art is as much a crock as bebop is.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

LULZ at this thread.

 

[AlphaMale]

If someone creates something with a supposed function, it fulfills that function, it necessarily doesn't make it good art. I could intentionally make bad art, it fulfills its purpose; but that doesn't make it good. Even if the man was trying to create something for a cow related art show, he may have succeeded in making a cow but it doesn't mean it is a good sculpture, if it were good it wouldn't need to be explained away. The music on Blue train is good regardless of what its attempted genre classification. What if Da Vinci's Mona Lisa what created in an attempt to show his breakfast, would it be a bad painting? No, it wouldn't complete its function, but I hope you wouldn't say the painting is suddenly bad. Regarding Serra, you never answered the question, what is it you get about the piece that I don't? You completely ignored it and simply said "I know about this dude, we learned about him in class." What is this magic knowledge you have so you can enlighten me with?

And you should explain how I expect my opinion to mean anything to anyone besides myself.

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.

You just compared being an artist to being a doctor as far as expertise.
You just compared science to art.
Do you not see how silly that is?
You don't think you're being a bit elitist? You're comparing what you're into, to studying medicine, which is a science, for around 8 years to being an artist. That is a false analogy
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

Unless you are required by law in the US to have a Doctorate in a science in order to be an artist, thats a horrible analogy. Instead of comparing what you do to saving peoples lives, compare art to theater or acting. The studies Sciences based off facts, art isn't. Thats why a work of science (such as a theory) can be incorrect, but a work of art can't.

The difference between art and surgery is that bears and donkey's can't do it.

The silliest thing you've done so far was to make a correlation between age and credibility, this doesn't even need to be discussed really. It's really preposterous, but I should. You admitted this isn't always the case. But cause it's a hasty generalization and a stereotype and is in no way true.

Invalid Link Removed

why is it confusing you that they reside separately?

Because they don't coincide, art is good because it accomplishes something the artist intended, but then you claim that it can be good due to it's reception, such as the bear.

And I'm sure there's a couple typos in your last sentence because it doesn't make any sense as written.

Why do you seem to think there is something awesome about not communicating your message? Is it because you want to feel like some misunderstood artist like the legends were. I think I just figured out something very important about modern abstract art.

1. The greats geniuses were ahead of their time.
2. The Great geniuses were misunderstood.
2. The great geniuses were misunderstood People did not understand their message (or it).
3. If an artist doesn't communicate his message he becomes misunderstood.
____________________________
.: The artist then becomes a great genius and ahead of his time if he understood.

This is the bad logic that has been embedded in the ideology of many artists.Thanks for helping me figure this art.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

You just compared being an artist to being a doctor as far as expertise.
You just compared science to art.
Do you not see how silly that is?
You don't think you're being a bit elitist? You're comparing what you're into, to studying medicine, which is a science, for around 8 years to being an artist. That is a false analogy
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

I'm no artist, but I think that when you grow a little older you'll realize that science and art are much closer than you realize.

Also, if you understood his point, you'd realize that he's not making a false analogy at all.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

If someone creates something with a supposed function, it fulfills that function, it necessarily doesn't make it good art. I could intentionally make bad art, it fulfills its purpose; but that doesn't make it good. Even if the man was trying to create something for a cow related art show, he may have succeeded in making a cow but it doesn't mean it is a good sculpture, if it were good it wouldn't need to be explained away. The music on Blue train is good regardless of what its attempted genre classification. What if Da Vinci's Mona Lisa what created in an attempt to show his breakfast, would it be a bad painting? No, it wouldn't complete its function, but I hope you wouldn't say the painting is suddenly bad.

Why would you think art is good if it failed at its goal? If Coltrane failed at every goal he made for the album, then how is it still good art? Just because you like it doesn't mean it's good. This has been the case with many pieces of music in the past- the Nutcracker Suite comes to mine- where the piece is very well liked, but it simply did not fulfill the artist's goals. You can't judge things objectively going on whether you like it or not. You have to have a set of rules as to what makes it a success or a failure. The music on Blue Train is very much unliked by people who don't like it. Does that mean it's bad? No, because you can't go on the opinions of folks that don't know about it.

Regarding Serra, you never answered the question, what is it you get about the piece that I don't? You completely ignored it and simply said "I know about this dude, we learned about him in class." What is this magic knowledge you have so you can enlighten me with?

There is no magic knowledge. As I said, it is very simple to obtain. The issue that has been pervasive throughout this thread is that you are unwilling to do the work to find out yourself.

And you should explain how I expect my opinion to mean anything to anyone besides myself.

How do you expect it? Well, you've mentioned multiple times that it upsets you and that you find it elitist when someone dismisses your opinion on the subject, even though you don't have knowledge of the subject.

You just compared being an artist to being a doctor as far as expertise.
You just compared science to art.
Do you not see how silly that is?

The fact that you don't realize the similarities simply shows how little you know about art.

You don't think you're being a bit elitist? You're comparing what you're into, to studying medicine, which is a science, for around 8 years to being an artist. That is a false analogy
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

I'm not being elitist in the least. If I was, I'd simply say you'rea dullard and you'll never understand anything as great and thought-provoking as art. I've done neither- I'm saying anyone can understand it if they take the time. Oh, and great link. Please point to where I made any analogy at all. I said they are very similar fields. They are. They intertwine quite a bit on the drawing/anatomy side as well. That does not create a false analogy. I never said science is like this so art is like this. By the way, where are you getting this 8 year figure for? I graduated art school over 8 years ago now- I've been into it for 16 years.

Unless you are required by law in the US to have a Doctorate in a science in order to be an artist, thats a horrible analogy.

You don't require a doctorate to be an artist. You also don't require a doctorate to be a scientist or a doctor. Do you think that before the colleges of Europe came to America, there simply were no doctors here? No. That's a pretty big fail for that attempt You ARE required to have a Master's Degree in art in order to teach at nearly any accredited art institute in the country though.

Instead of comparing what you do to saving peoples lives,

Which I never did There are a great number of similarities to the fields, as there are to many long-studied fields.

compare art to theater or acting. The studies Sciences based off facts, art isn't. Thats why a work of science (such as a theory) can be incorrect, but a work of art can't.

This is again highlighting your lack of knowledge of art. The study of art IS based off of facts. How does this shape/color/symbol take up this space/move the viewer/represent this thing. It's covered. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean it's not real.

The difference between art and surgery is that bears and donkey's can't do it.

There are many differences between art and surgery- duh "Surgery" is a very, very specific area of medicine. That would be the same as requiring the donkey or bear to draw an anatomical diagram of the lower back. I can have a bear lick a person's would and it will help heal it- that doesn't take away from medicine any more that his splashing paint on a canvas takes away from art.

The silliest thing you've done so far was to make a correlation between age and credibility, this doesn't even need to be discussed really. It's really preposterous, but I should. You admitted this isn't always the case. But cause it's a hasty generalization and a stereotype and is in no way true.

Invalid Link Removed

It's a hasty generalization and in no way true? So people who are older haven't had more time to study a subject than a younger one? That's simple a math problem on your part. You don't even get the opportunity to study many of the topics that older people get to when you're in high school. Take a bite of reality- it's refreshing.

Because they don't coincide, art is good because it accomplishes something the artist intended, but then you claim that it can be good due to it's reception, such as the bear.

I didn't say that it is good due to its reception. I said it can be liked. Which is different from being good. Which you've had a hard time understanding, as I've had to repeat it several times now.

Why do you seem to think there is something awesome about not communicating your message? Is it because you want to feel like some misunderstood artist like the legends were.

When did I say it's cool to not communicate a message clearly? Artists DO communicate their messages. The fact that they may be communicating them only to folks who understand the language of art does not diminish this. I feel no need to be misunderstood, and there were very few "legends" that were- that's over-hyped TV nonsense.

I think I just figured out something very important about modern abstract art.

1. The greats geniuses were ahead of their time.
2. The Great geniuses were misunderstood.
2. The great geniuses were misunderstood People did not understand their message (or it).
3. If an artist doesn't communicate his message he becomes misunderstood.

You figured out all of these things that aren't true by yourself? Good job! They were understood by their peers and public, and were very much a part of their times. You can't make sweeping generalizations about art history without knowing about art history.

_________________________
.: The artist then becomes a great genius and ahead of his time if he understood.

This is the bad logic that has been embedded in the ideology of many artists.Thanks for helping me figure this art.

This "logic" isn't embedded in the ideology of any artist who has studied art. Only the ones that gain all their false knowledge of art through the false romanticisms of television and the movies. Apparently that's where you got your ideas from as well. Both come from a place of ignorance.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

If someone creates something with a supposed function, it fulfills that function, it necessarily doesn't make it good art. I could intentionally make bad art, it fulfills its purpose; but that doesn't make it good. Even if the man was trying to create something for a cow related art show, he may have succeeded in making a cow but it doesn't mean it is a good sculpture, if it were good it wouldn't need to be explained away. The music on Blue train is good regardless of what its attempted genre classification. What if Da Vinci's Mona Lisa what created in an attempt to show his breakfast, would it be a bad painting? No, it wouldn't complete its function, but I hope you wouldn't say the painting is suddenly bad. Regarding Serra, you never answered the question, what is it you get about the piece that I don't? You completely ignored it and simply said "I know about this dude, we learned about him in class." What is this magic knowledge you have so you can enlighten me with?

And you should explain how I expect my opinion to mean anything to anyone besides myself.




You just compared being an artist to being a doctor as far as expertise.
You just compared science to art.
Do you not see how silly that is?
You don't think you're being a bit elitist? You're comparing what you're into, to studying medicine, which is a science, for around 8 years to being an artist. That is a false analogy
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

Unless you are required by law in the US to have a Doctorate in a science in order to be an artist, thats a horrible analogy. Instead of comparing what you do to saving peoples lives, compare art to theater or acting. The studies Sciences based off facts, art isn't. Thats why a work of science (such as a theory) can be incorrect, but a work of art can't.

The difference between art and surgery is that bears and donkey's can't do it.

The silliest thing you've done so far was to make a correlation between age and credibility, this doesn't even need to be discussed really. It's really preposterous, but I should. You admitted this isn't always the case. But cause it's a hasty generalization and a stereotype and is in no way true.

Invalid Link Removed


Because they don't coincide, art is good because it accomplishes something the artist intended, but then you claim that it can be good due to it's reception, such as the bear.



Why do you seem to think there is something awesome about not communicating your message? Is it because you want to feel like some misunderstood artist like the legends were. I think I just figured out something very important about modern abstract art.

1. The greats geniuses were ahead of their time.
2. The Great geniuses were misunderstood.
2. The great geniuses were misunderstood People did not understand their message (or it).
3. If an artist doesn't communicate his message he becomes misunderstood.
____________________________
.: The artist then becomes a great genius and ahead of his time if he understood.

This is the bad logic that has been embedded in the ideology of many artists.Thanks for helping me figure this art.

That's an awful lot of typing. Bottom line: if something doesn't speak to you, ignore it. If it does, enjoy it.

Art is subjective. I could find plenty of people who don't like "Blue Train"... which means absolutely nothing as far as my appreciation of it goes. All the rest of this noise that you continually claim "artists" are trying to perpetrate only works if you let it. Why let it? Trying to "win" an argument about a subjective topic is a waste of breath.

 

[Matt Till]

How can this thread have gone on this long?

Look, AlphaMale... if that is your real name, art is subjective: It's something for us to look at, to hear, to feel. You are either going to like it, or you're not going to like it. Obviously, someone likes Abstract Art, or people wouldn't keep making it. Or, maybe they would because they like it. I totally understand you not liking abstract art, it's not for everyone.

Myself being a "fan" I certainly don't get all of it, example:

Link Removed

This Piet Mondrian composition does nothing for me... I "don't get it," but on the basis of that, do I think abstract art sucks? No. I do think if you looked hard enough, you'd find some of it you like. Regardless, you don't like abstract art: And that's totally fine, you're not alone.

Actually, on second thought, I kind of do like this Piet Mondrian composition. There is a bit of spacial confusion/tension that is mildly interesting, my mind isn't blown or anything, but... eh, not too shabby.

 

[AlphaMale]

Matt and Chris I never claimed that I hated Abstract art, merely that community has seemed to make it impossible for someone to get it and it sucks. Basically you can think its good but if you think its bad you don't get it. That's silly.

 

[AlphaMale]

Why would you think art is good if it failed at its goal? If Coltrane failed at every goal he made for the album, then how is it still good art? Just because you like it doesn't mean it's good. This has been the case with many pieces of music in the past- the Nutcracker Suite comes to mine- where the piece is very well liked, but it simply did not fulfill the artist's goals. You can't judge things objectively going on whether you like it or not. You have to have a set of rules as to what makes it a success or a failure. The music on Blue Train is very much unliked by people who don't like it. Does that mean it's bad? No, because you can't go on the opinions of folks that don't know about it.



There is no magic knowledge. As I said, it is very simple to obtain. The issue that has been pervasive throughout this thread is that you are unwilling to do the work to find out yourself.



How do you expect it? Well, you've mentioned multiple times that it upsets you and that you find it elitist when someone dismisses your opinion on the subject, even though you don't have knowledge of the subject.



The fact that you don't realize the similarities simply shows how little you know about art.



I'm not being elitist in the least. If I was, I'd simply say you'rea dullard and you'll never understand anything as great and thought-provoking as art. I've done neither- I'm saying anyone can understand it if they take the time. Oh, and great link. Please point to where I made any analogy at all. I said they are very similar fields. They are. They intertwine quite a bit on the drawing/anatomy side as well. That does not create a false analogy. I never said science is like this so art is like this. By the way, where are you getting this 8 year figure for? I graduated art school over 8 years ago now- I've been into it for 16 years.



You don't require a doctorate to be an artist. You also don't require a doctorate to be a scientist or a doctor. Do you think that before the colleges of Europe came to America, there simply were no doctors here? No. That's a pretty big fail for that attempt You ARE required to have a Master's Degree in art in order to teach at nearly any accredited art institute in the country though.



Which I never did There are a great number of similarities to the fields, as there are to many long-studied fields.



This is again highlighting your lack of knowledge of art. The study of art IS based off of facts. How does this shape/color/symbol take up this space/move the viewer/represent this thing. It's covered. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean it's not real.



There are many differences between art and surgery- duh "Surgery" is a very, very specific area of medicine. That would be the same as requiring the donkey or bear to draw an anatomical diagram of the lower back. I can have a bear lick a person's would and it will help heal it- that doesn't take away from medicine any more that his splashing paint on a canvas takes away from art.



It's a hasty generalization and in no way true? So people who are older haven't had more time to study a subject than a younger one? That's simple a math problem on your part. You don't even get the opportunity to study many of the topics that older people get to when you're in high school. Take a bite of reality- it's refreshing.



I didn't say that it is good due to its reception. I said it can be liked. Which is different from being good. Which you've had a hard time understanding, as I've had to repeat it several times now.



When did I say it's cool to not communicate a message clearly? Artists DO communicate their messages. The fact that they may be communicating them only to folks who understand the language of art does not diminish this. I feel no need to be misunderstood, and there were very few "legends" that were- that's over-hyped TV nonsense.



You figured out all of these things that aren't true by yourself? Good job! They were understood by their peers and public, and were very much a part of their times. You can't make sweeping generalizations about art history without knowing about art history.




This "logic" isn't embedded in the ideology of any artist who has studied art. Only the ones that gain all their false knowledge of art through the false romanticisms of television and the movies. Apparently that's where you got your ideas from as well. Both come from a place of ignorance.

Pooh-Pooh

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

If this thread is all the evidence you need to "prove" a sweeping generalisation like that, you must be a pretty easy person to convince of anything. Did you know that gullible isn't listed in the dictionary?

I don't claimed to have seen all abstract art. Or be a particular knowledge powerhouse, but from what I've seen it's not my bag. Though I'm far from an art buff.

The way I see it, abstract art isn't jazz. Its a false analogy. Absract art is, in many ways, like an obscure (in the publics perception) sub-genre of jazz. Its the avante-garde jazz of art.

Funnily enough avant garde is, to me, a sham. People can enjoy it if they want. I'll stay over here with my real music though.

To say "its a crock" simply discloses your own lack of understanding. Its a very different proposition from "I don't like it".

Apologies. I'm happy not understanding it. If someone paints a picture of a solid colour and the description tells a tale of them weeping, I'm happy staying voer here in normal human ville thanks.

Prehaps I'm being difficult. The art work itself doesn't really bother me at all. But, as with anything, I cannot stand the pretencious concepts behind it that are (in my view) used to detract from the piece. Whether it be a painting, a song or a skyscraper personally I prefer to view it as a standalone entity. If someone needs to go into much depth an explanation and add a whole bunch of pretence to it a work I consider it less relevant than something that doesn't require that depth.

An example? John Cage made all his money off making "music" based on pretence. It will never be as powerful as Beethoven who didn't (as far as I'm aware, at least to the same degree)

 

[Marlat]

I don't claimed to have seen all abstract art. Or be a particular knowledge powerhouse, but from what I've seen it's not my bag. Though I'm far from an art buff.

Again, there's a difference between "not my bad" and calling a whole genre "a crock". Perhaps your ability to convey what you really mean is not showing through here (see below).

Funnily enough avant garde is, to me, a sham. People can enjoy it if they want. I'll stay over here with my real music though.

See, you've done the same thing here. You have taken your subjective opinion and then made a generalisation about the existence of the genre. Why is avante garde (music / art whatever) any less "real" than what you like? Why is it that rather than simply say "i don't enjoy it" or "I don't understand it" that you have to write off the whole genre as "not real"?

I don't enjoy golf. Yet it would seem rather off for me to say "golf is a sham". The sentence makes no sense and only serves to make me look ignorant.

Apologies. I'm happy not understanding it. If someone paints a picture of a solid colour and the description tells a tale of them weeping, I'm happy staying voer here in normal human ville thanks.

Why do you assume you are normal because you don't understand something?

Prehaps I'm being difficult.

That wasn't the adjective that jumped to my mind.

The art work itself doesn't really bother me at all. But, as with anything, I cannot stand the pretencious concepts behind it that are (in my view) used to detract from the piece. Whether it be a painting, a song or a skyscraper personally I prefer to view it as a standalone entity. If someone needs to go into much depth an explanation and add a whole bunch of pretence to it a work I consider it less relevant than something that doesn't require that depth.

So, for example, a childrens picture book is a better piece of literature, in your view, than say, The Brothers Karamazov?

I think this whole thraed can be summed up by everyone remembering that "some things arn't meant for me". I am completely comfortable with the fact that I don't get most visual arts. Painting does very little for me (in any form). I don't understand it and I don't really try to. I know that I am ignorant about it, but that's okay. Its not for me. Trying to pretend that all painting is worthless because I don't get it though? Come on, that's just pathetic.

 

[ehque]

Matt and Chris I never claimed that I hated Abstract art, merely that community has seemed to make it impossible for someone to get it and it sucks. Basically you can think its good but if you think its bad you don't get it. That's silly.

Well, if you get it (ie. studied art), and then say it's bad, i think people will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say.

In any field (medicine, MUSIC, theater) there is expertise and there are experts. assuming that " abstract art" can be critisised by anyone demeans it below these other fields and is very ignorant.

Why do you think people have to study so much to be a curator? Random splashings of paint may appeal to the abstract art fan, like random music may appeal to a tone deaf person, but it is the curator and the music critic who understand what about the randomness is bad or good.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

On the lighter side, my wife knows how to let an artist who doesn't move her roll off her back without getting upset. A few years back, we were in D.C. and went to a modern art exhibit at the Smithsonian. The featured artist was Mark Rothko, and the exhibit consisted of four rooms full of paintings, all consisting of three thick horizontal stripes of color layered heavily onto the canvas. By the time I got to the third room, I was kind of biting my tongue but didn't want to spoil anything for her in case she was digging them, so I asked her very neutrally what she thought. Her deadpan reply: "I think these paintings display a remarkable economy of effort."

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

On the lighter side, my wife knows how to let an artist who doesn't move her roll off her back without getting upset. A few years back, we were in D.C. and went to a modern art exhibit at the Smithsonian. The featured artist was Mark Rothko, and the exhibit consisted of four rooms full of paintings, all consisting of three thick horizontal stripes of color layered heavily onto the canvas. By the time I got to the third room, I was kind of biting my tongue but didn't want to spoil anything for her in case she was digging them, so I asked her very neutrally what she thought. Her deadpan reply: "I think these paintings display a remarkable economy of effort."

I actually knew a guy who started crying after viewing a bunch of Rothkos. They're basically studies in how color works, but they can appear very somber as well.

 

[GregC]

You guys are being sold snake oil.

Thanks for proving my point. You can't dislike any abstract art piece without having something wrong with you.

But people assume there is a message, credibility and merit to every abstract art piece. 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. .

"abstract" art is a crock

Funnily enough avant garde is, to me, a sham. People can enjoy it if they want. I'll stay over here with my real music though.

I'm happy staying voer here in normal human ville thanks

Comedy gold.

 

[hbarcat]

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.

Good analogy.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Comedy gold.

I'm enjoying most of the blanket "all Abstracked art is teh suXX0rz" type of posts in exactly this way.