Be a Supporter!

Crappy "Modern Art"

  • 4,121 Views
  • 67 Replies
New Topic
Lintire
Lintire
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 22
Blank Slate
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 02:02:50

It's not that I'm ignoring the rest of your argument, but since I'm tapping out this debate (it is quite interesting, by the way) on an iPad, it's infeasible to do a more traditional "point-by-point" deconstruction I would appreciate if you kept to more easily quoted prose.

At 2/5/13 01:42 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: So popularity calculates quality ? Keep your calculative rationality out of arts will you ?

Not directly. If the audience an artist has does consider his pieces to be superior in craftsmanship or whatever goal the pieces seek, then yes they are considered to be "Good". However, as always, if they don't conform to your ideals, or if you consider other artists to be superior, then you can easily say there are talented failures just as there are talentless successes. Remembering that your tastes are your own and that an artist being popular doesn't mean you are obligated to like that.

But since their audiences deem them superior, then for all intents and purposes thats what they are.

Yeah, calculating rationality is my approach to everything. If your point is that's an approach you don't agree with, then I can respect that and we can amicably end this right now.

DiggidyDelRio
DiggidyDelRio
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Artist
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 02:04:42

At 2/5/13 01:42 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:
At 2/5/13 01:27 AM, Xenomit wrote: Again, you can't compare art to music, especially if the musician is a rapper.
Yes you can. You tried to draw a line between music and visual art by saying there was "basic rules" to make music. Which is, by your logic false... since you said that if there is an artistical goal, than it is art de facto. And since when did visual art get the exclusivity on the word art ?

:Start making sense or make-up your mind.

All this time and I thought we would never agree on anything.

Meaning art would be broken down to a kind of metaphysical democratic opinion ?
Always has been.

Then pop artists are better because they have more fans ?

Jeez, twice in a row, I misjudged you.


I'm Del Rio
I like to draw comics and stuff
Click on that gaudy picture to see my webcomic. .My Art Thread
My Facebook

BBS Signature
DiggidyDelRio
DiggidyDelRio
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Artist
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 02:06:31

At 2/5/13 02:02 AM, Lintire wrote: It's not that I'm ignoring the rest of your argument, but since I'm tapping out this debate (it is quite interesting, by the way) on an iPad, it's infeasible to do a more traditional "point-by-point" deconstruction I would appreciate if you kept to more easily quoted prose.

That has to be the most lame-ass excuse I've ever heard.

So popularity calculates quality ? Keep your calculative rationality out of arts will you ?
But since their audiences deem them superior, then for all intents and purposes thats what they are.

Excuse me while I go laugh at how stupid that sounds.


I'm Del Rio
I like to draw comics and stuff
Click on that gaudy picture to see my webcomic. .My Art Thread
My Facebook

BBS Signature
Lintire
Lintire
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 22
Blank Slate
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 02:15:32

At 2/5/13 02:06 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: That has to be the most lame-ass excuse I've ever heard.

But since their audiences deem them superior, then for all intents and purposes thats what they are.
Excuse me while I go laugh at how stupid that sounds.

Care to actually offer supporting points for either of those statements? I'm being reasonable here.

Typing out responses on an iPad is a convoluted affair and having to continually copy paste the entire post while searching for evidence, as well as not being able to resize the comparatively small typing area leads to a major headache and confused statements. I was asking for a small consideration, not having them bend over backwards to suit some arbitrary demands.

As for how "lame-ass" (doesn't really make sense as for as ad hominem attacks go), I'm always open to the concept that I'm wrong. Want to explain why or are you just incapable of articulating a response that actually addresses any points?

DiggidyDelRio
DiggidyDelRio
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Artist
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 03:27:41


As for how "lame-ass" (doesn't really make sense as for as ad hominem attacks go), I'm always open to the concept that I'm wrong. Want to explain why or are you just incapable of articulating a response that actually addresses any points?

If you're open to the concept, allow me to educate you, just becasue something is popular and makes money, doesn't mean it's necessarily, worthwhile, at all.

For example, those "magnetic health bands" that were all over TV a few months ago, people claimed that wearing these things would increase balance, help you lose weight, ect. People believed this and started saying that the claims were true, these products made money, but actually did nothing to do any of these things (several studies confirmed this).

Now, on the topic at hand, while some pieces of commercial "art" may be very successful , that does not make it necessarily good, or even art by definition.

If we judge something creative by how well it fares in the market, we've now put crap on a pedestal and said that it's the next big thing.

Consider this, if person A just scribble on a block of wood and try to sell it and it does well, that is considered very well done art, by your logic.
Now, if person B uses all their effort to make something worthwhile and fantastic, but makes no monetary gain or gets no fanbase, then it's not even worth your time.

So, have fun looking at overrated shit, because it's made money.


I'm Del Rio
I like to draw comics and stuff
Click on that gaudy picture to see my webcomic. .My Art Thread
My Facebook

BBS Signature
DiggidyDelRio
DiggidyDelRio
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Artist
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 03:31:10

What I've learned from this thread
You can fart into a microphone to make music
It's okay to make total shit, as long as it's done well

and
Random shit is considered art

I never knew I could find so many idiots in one thread.

Crappy


I'm Del Rio
I like to draw comics and stuff
Click on that gaudy picture to see my webcomic. .My Art Thread
My Facebook

BBS Signature
Lintire
Lintire
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 22
Blank Slate
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 04:02:23

At 2/5/13 03:27 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: If you're open to the concept, allow me to educate you, just becasue something is popular and makes money, doesn't mean it's necessarily, worthwhile, at all.

For example, those "magnetic health bands" that were all over TV a few months ago, people claimed that wearing these things would increase balance, help you lose weight, ect. People believed this and started saying that the claims were true, these products made money, but actually did nothing to do any of these things (several studies confirmed this).

Now, on the topic at hand, while some pieces of commercial "art" may be very successful , that does not make it necessarily good, or even art by definition.

If we judge something creative by how well it fares in the market, we've now put crap on a pedestal and said that it's the next big thing.

Consider this, if person A just scribble on a block of wood and try to sell it and it does well, that is considered very well done art, by your logic.
Now, if person B uses all their effort to make something worthwhile and fantastic, but makes no monetary gain or gets no fanbase, then it's not even worth your time.

So, have fun looking at overrated shit, because it's made money.

You've put a lot of words in my mouth and ignored a large portion of my arguments in favour of trying to "win" the debate. Please refrain from commenting without at least proofreading.

You didn't define what was "worthwhile". In this case I'm assuming it means spending money on a product you're not sure you enjoy. In which case I never said that people outside an artist's audience would enjoy his works. It's a bit of a given that since you're not already part of their audience, it's not completely adamant as to whether or not you'd enjoy their craftmanship. This doesn't make sense, and doesn't address the argument, which was whether or not a piece of art that achieved its goals as a piece of art was Good, not whether or not one that performed well on the market.

Magnetic bands weren't marketed as art, they were a health product. A faulty one. Why did you include this?

It's good to the people who deem it good, which is precisely what I said. I never said you had to like it. Also, art's definition.

According to the audience that experienced the product (we're now talking about consumer goods and capitalism compared to whether or not people liking something means it deserves to be liked?) it is indeed the next big thing.

I never said that. I said that if the people who looked at the block of wood and thought it great, then it was indeed a success at appealing to its target, and in achieving its goals was Good. I never accounted for commercial success. Why did you bring that into this.

What a confusing response. Let me restate my point so you can attempt to address it;

If people like your art for whatever reason you were trying to convey, then it is Good. I never said anything about commercial success. I never said anything about popularity. And I never said about the people who don't like it having to like it.

Dry-Ice
Dry-Ice
  • Member since: Apr. 9, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 04:28:14

Right. I'm gonna kill this thread now, you guys will argue about anything.

Art IS subjective. No single person is allowed to claim any single piece of art or music is bad or good, you can only have an opinion on the subject. If you think a piece of art is bad, you don't have to buy it, hell you don't even have to look at it. Arguing your opinions as if they are anything more is a big waste of time.

Also, Xenomit is right in this case. The premise of this topic is "I think [some pieces] of modern art are bad, I don't like them. Does anyone agree with me?"

If you're gonna reply, tone down your sense of authority and state whether or not you agree, and explain why. All you have is an opinion, nothing more.


BBS Mod, PM me if you have something to report.

BBS Signature