Be a Supporter!

Crappy "Modern Art"

  • 2,365 Views
  • 85 Replies
New Topic
naronic
naronic
  • Member since: Sep. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:18:40

It's an amazing piece of literary masterwork.
Look at how the soft colors just blend right into to the wall giving it an organic look with the leaves placed at just the right point to give it the perfect contextualization.

Truly surpasses Picasso, Michelangelo, and Leonardo combined


BBS Signature
Xenomit
Xenomit
  • Member since: Jul. 13, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Audiophile
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:19:43

At 2/5/13 01:18 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:
At 2/5/13 01:16 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Though maybe you wouldn't count that kind of thing as "art" in the first place.
According to all his previous posts... "it's art because someone said so".

You got it wrong

"It's art because that was it's intended purpose"


TAB
"FUCKING LIKE A NINJAAAAAAAA" ~ Yinping
"xenomit is well... xenomit" ~ General consensus

BBS Signature
DelRio1991
DelRio1991
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Artist
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:20:20

You did use time factor to critize, though.

I already explained what I mean by saying it didn't take much time. It takes time to put a certain amount of effort into something, I amused you could think logically, I was obviously mistaken.

Do you think this took a lot of technical skill to do?
Most likely not.

Exactly my point


If this is art to you, then a child's book of basic shapes must amaze and astound you.
I actually like how kids express themselves without thinking too much about it or without the actual technical skills needed to realize a Picasso. It's raw production until they are thought to make circles, triangles, etc. It surely doesn't amaze me though.

OH WOW, LOOK, A CIRCLE!!!
)

And now it's all too clear to me...


I'm Del Rio
I like to draw comics and stuff
I also like watching Darkwing duck and eating burritos.

BBS Signature
HeavenDuff
HeavenDuff
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Melancholy
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:24:11

At 2/5/13 01:19 AM, Xenomit wrote: You got it wrong

"It's art because that was it's intended purpose"

I'm pretty sure T-Pain believes he's an artist.

At 2/5/13 01:20 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: I already explained what I mean by saying it didn't take much time. It takes time to put a certain amount of effort into something, I amused you could think logically, I was obviously mistaken.

I'm not the only one who pointed that mistake in your reflection. You posed time as a very specific criteria to quality. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's how it came out. No need to be rude.

Xenomit
Xenomit
  • Member since: Jul. 13, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Audiophile
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:27:48

At 2/5/13 01:24 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:
At 2/5/13 01:19 AM, Xenomit wrote: You got it wrong

"It's art because that was it's intended purpose"
I'm pretty sure T-Pain believes he's an artist.

Again, you can't compare art to music, especially if the musician is a rapper.


TAB
"FUCKING LIKE A NINJAAAAAAAA" ~ Yinping
"xenomit is well... xenomit" ~ General consensus

BBS Signature
DelRio1991
DelRio1991
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Artist
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:31:43

Time spent doesn't factor into the equation. You are not obligated to like something just because the artist spent 4000 hours on it, just as you are not obligated to dislike something because they spent 4 minutes on it.

I have already explained this once, but I obviously have to do it again, because people don't take the time to actually
think while they're reading.

Time is not just a unit of measure for how long it took someone to make something. I once took an hour to take a shit, but it was still a steaming pile of shit.

I'm talking about a certain amount of thought or effort. If you can make something incredible in just a few minutes, but you actually were thinking about what you were doing, then that's adding a bit more credibility to your art.

Random circles are not art.
Shit in a bottle is not art.
A photograph of a can of soup is not art.

If modern art makes you think then what do you call a piece that only makes you wonder why someone would frame their own semen?

Framed Semen, that's what you call it.


I'm Del Rio
I like to draw comics and stuff
I also like watching Darkwing duck and eating burritos.

BBS Signature
Lintire
Lintire
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:32:22

At 2/5/13 01:13 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Meaning art would be broken down to a kind of metaphysical democratic opinion ?

Always has been.

For example, on Newgrounds consensus is measured via votes, and the audience heavily favors sexual art. Therefore, on Newgrounds, an animu anthropomorphic pony is considered Good Art. If said art piece was submitted to an audience like cghub, it would be considered less then that.

Bias changes with audience, audience changes with location. What is considered "Good" is heavily fluid. But it still exists, and relies on collective opinion.

DelRio1991
DelRio1991
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Artist
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:39:13

At 2/5/13 01:13 AM, Xenomit wrote: Holy shit some of you are retarded when it comes to art

Because you're a great authority on the subject, right?

First of all, you can't compare art to music. Music has actual structure, and rules to follow by.

Well, by your logic, if you call something art, it's art, so you can do ANYTHING and call it music

Ugh. I had a massive amount to say, but it's just not worth it, because none of you are gonna give a shit either way, you're still just gonna hold on dearly to your stupid belief.

Yes, whine and leave now like the child you are.


Like I said, music has rules to follow, art doesn't. I can literally cut myself, rub the wound all over a canvas, and it would be art.

Once again, you forget that music falls into the same category as art, so it doesn't need any real rules to follow, either. People call putting rocks in a blender music, so I guess Dubstep must be music, then.

Sorry, honey, but you can't have certain standards for one part of art and a whole other set of standards for another.


I'm Del Rio
I like to draw comics and stuff
I also like watching Darkwing duck and eating burritos.

BBS Signature
Xenomit
Xenomit
  • Member since: Jul. 13, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Audiophile
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:39:58

At 2/5/13 01:32 AM, Lintire wrote: Bias changes with audience, audience changes with location. What is considered "Good" is heavily fluid. But it still exists, and relies on collective opinion.

But collective opinion itself is fluid, and since there has never been one steady opinion in the history of ever, you can't say that something isn't art just because it has no appeal to the masses, because the opinion of the masses changes.

In 100 years, our modern art could be considered to be far superior to Picasso and other great artists.


TAB
"FUCKING LIKE A NINJAAAAAAAA" ~ Yinping
"xenomit is well... xenomit" ~ General consensus

BBS Signature
DelRio1991
DelRio1991
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Artist
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:40:43

"It's art because that was it's intended purpose"

that's the exact thing as calling something art.

Do you read what you type before you post them?


I'm Del Rio
I like to draw comics and stuff
I also like watching Darkwing duck and eating burritos.

BBS Signature
HeavenDuff
HeavenDuff
  • Member since: Aug. 13, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Melancholy
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 01:42:56

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 ?

You also admitted earlier when DelRio used that example that somebody farting in a microphone would count as music. Start making sense or make-up your mind.

This is the same shit we are talking about. Cinema, theatre, music, painting, sculpture, dance. Those are all art forms, and there is a shitty commercial version of everysingle of these art forms. Visual art isn't any different then the others.

At 2/5/13 01:32 AM, Lintire wrote:
At 2/5/13 01:13 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Meaning art would be broken down to a kind of metaphysical democratic opinion ?
Always has been.

So popularity calculates quality ? Keep your calculative rationality out of arts will you ?

For example, on Newgrounds consensus is measured via votes, and the audience heavily favors sexual art. Therefore, on Newgrounds, an animu anthropomorphic pony is considered Good Art. If said art piece was submitted to an audience like cghub, it would be considered less then that.

So cultural relitivism. I disagree. Especially considering how new forms of art would always count as shit until people actually learn what it means and what is. According to your logic, you cannot educate a community to help them get the tools to appreciate a piece of art, for they are absolutely and definitively right with their own closed-minds.

Bias changes with audience, audience changes with location. What is considered "Good" is heavily fluid. But it still exists, and relies on collective opinion.

Then pop artists are better because they have more fans ? Can't you find a way to consider social reality and history and the impact these have on popularity ? You're approach isn't horrible, but it is very conservative.

Landing by Riopel (78.7 inches x 147.6 inches)

Crappy

Lintire
Lintire
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
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.

DelRio1991
DelRio1991
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
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
I also like watching Darkwing duck and eating burritos.

BBS Signature
DelRio1991
DelRio1991
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
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
I also like watching Darkwing duck and eating burritos.

BBS Signature
Xenomit
Xenomit
  • Member since: Jul. 13, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Audiophile
Response to Crappy "Modern Art" 2013-02-05 02:06:57

Look at these people

Look, they're calculating emotions and personal taste

Hey, hey, look

We've got a couple of robots talking about art

Crappy


TAB
"FUCKING LIKE A NINJAAAAAAAA" ~ Yinping
"xenomit is well... xenomit" ~ General consensus

BBS Signature
Lintire
Lintire
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
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?

DelRio1991
DelRio1991
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
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
I also like watching Darkwing duck and eating burritos.

BBS Signature
DelRio1991
DelRio1991
  • Member since: Sep. 23, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
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
I also like watching Darkwing duck and eating burritos.

BBS Signature
Lintire
Lintire
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
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