At 2/5/13 12:03 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: If a baseball player is playing exceptionally poorly, even someone who has never played baseball in their live can tell that it's terrible.
Not all modern art is bad, true, but there are many pieces which are much to be desired. As someone who spends a lot of time drawing and creating, it pains me to just a blot of ink on a canvas selling for thousands of dollars, when the newest issue of Deadpool took more effort to do.

Baseball is technical, while art doesn't have to be. A lot of art theorist have debated over this, as well as artists. Very often in modern art will you find that the concept, the idea if you will, matters most than the actual physical skills involved in the realization of the painting or whatever the piece of art is.

Time is also irrelevant. A good idea doesn't have to be thought out for ages. Jackson Pollock's art was fast, dynamic and emotional. He couldn't work on a painting for months for his arts was about being spontaneous and filling the canvas with his emotions.

This is in no way taking anything from other art work that takes more time to realize.

Also, it's kind of a weak argument to say that someone cannot judge something because they are young or from a certain 'era'. OP has a valid point.

No he doesn't. And I didn't mean to say this was a matter of ages, but rather that some people just like to put very little reflection on things before criticizing. And that individuals can be formed to be very limited in their capabilities to understand a piece of art that is so simple it becomes complex.

At 2/5/13 12:05 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: Yes and I'm sure that someone who sits and plays call of duty all day has more of a say as to what art is than someone who has actually ventured into a museum?

Are you very poorly suggesting that I play videogames all the time and that I don't visit museums ? Wow... I sure hope you aren't, otherwise you suck!

Baseball is technical, while art doesn't have to be. A lot of art theorist have debated over this, as well as artists. Very often in modern art will you find that the concept, the idea if you will, matters most than the actual physical skills involved in the realization of the painting or whatever the piece of art is.

If art is not technical, at all, then why are there entire book series devoted to teach people how to draw?
Yes, Jackson Pollok's work is fantastic, but I doubt you can say the same about Diane Moore's "Circle Design".

Time is also irrelevant. A good idea doesn't have to be thought out for ages. Jackson Pollock's art was fast, dynamic and emotional. He couldn't work on a painting for months for his arts was about being spontaneous and filling the canvas with his emotions.

I'm talking about something deeper than time, I'm talking about putting in a certain amount of effort, sure the picture OP showed may have actually taken some thought to do, but really, how about this?

Do you think this took a lot of technical skill to do?

Are you saying we should praise this?

If this is art to you, then a child's book of basic shapes must amaze and astound you.

OH WOW, LOOK, A CIRCLE!!!

At 2/5/13 12:17 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 2/5/13 12:11 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Are you very poorly suggesting that I play videogames all the time and that I don't visit museums ? Wow... I sure hope you aren't, otherwise you suck!

You don't like modern art

That doesn't mean that it's not art

I like modern ART. Not simple shapes selling for thousands of dollars.

At 2/5/13 12:17 AM, Xenomit wrote: You don't like modern art

I have no clue how you came to that conclusion.

At 2/5/13 12:27 AM, DelRio1991 wrote:

Baseball is technical, while art doesn't have to be. A lot of art theorist have debated over this, as well as artists. Very often in modern art will you find that the concept, the idea if you will, matters most than the actual physical skills involved in the realization of the painting or whatever the piece of art is.

If art is not technical, at all, then why are there entire book series devoted to teach people how to draw?
Yes, Jackson Pollok's work is fantastic, but I doubt you can say the same about Diane Moore's "Circle Design".

I never said it was not technical at all. I said it doesn't necesseraly have to be. Yes, there are actual painting and drawing techniques. Judging an entire piece of art solely on the technical skills is wrong, though. Also, judging on a quick look that soemthing lacks technical skills is a common mistake people make when looking at abstract art. Diane Moore's Circle Design isn't a piece of art I would love though. Very geometric art like this, I find to rational, too cold and emotionless for my tastes. I wouldn't judge that it's bad too fast though.

Time is also irrelevant. A good idea doesn't have to be thought out for ages. Jackson Pollock's art was fast, dynamic and emotional. He couldn't work on a painting for months for his arts was about being spontaneous and filling the canvas with his emotions.

I'm talking about something deeper than time, I'm talking about putting in a certain amount of effort, sure the picture OP showed may have actually taken some thought to do, but really, how about this?

You did use time factor to critize, though.

Do you think this took a lot of technical skill to do?

Most likely not.

Are you saying we should praise this?

Not a piece of art I particularly like. Can you tell me more about who made it and what was the goal of the said piece of art ?

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!!!

:)

At 2/5/13 12:35 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 2/5/13 12:30 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: I like modern ART. Not simple shapes selling for thousands of dollars.

Art is subjective. Who are you to say that a few shapes arranged in random patterns isn't art? What kind of authority do you have to say what's art and what's not art?

It's not about authority. However, a lot of art theorists and art historicians would firmly disagree with you there. There are ways to analyze, judge and criticize art that are very legitimate. Plus, you are presenting your point as an objective view on art. Which is kind of funny. You think that it is objective that art is subjective. Ironical if you ask me.

At 2/5/13 12:35 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 2/5/13 12:30 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: I like modern ART. Not simple shapes selling for thousands of dollars.

Art is subjective. Who are you to say that a few shapes arranged in random patterns isn't art? What kind of authority do you have to say what's art and what's not art?

I'm not claiming authority, I'm saying that it's hard to call a bunch of randomly placed circles art when compared to something that actually takes skill?

That's like saying that I can fart into a microphone and call it music because it's subjective.

At 2/5/13 12:38 AM, Xenomit wrote: "Modern art isn't art"

I never said that.

At 2/5/13 12:42 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: I'm not claiming authority, I'm saying that it's hard to call a bunch of randomly placed circles art when compared to something that actually takes skill?

Well now you are comparing something that is figurative to something that isn't. Kind of hard to do if you ask me.

That's like saying that I can fart into a microphone and call it music because it's subjective.

Simplistic way to present it, but kind of true. Art isn't just about technical skills, but you need to have skills.

At 2/5/13 12:47 AM, Xenomit wrote: And it disgusts me that there are people who believe they can say for a fact what's good art and what's bad art.

Yes, obviously there is pretty shitty art in the world, but it's not because it's factually terrible, it's just because it doesn't fit with what you consider to be good art.

And what would make a piece of art revolutionary then ?

Debating whether or not something is "art" is a waste of fucking time. Just... don't bother.

Hating Modern Art isn't a new stance, either, even at the time of pop art's conception there was quite a vocal outcry that it looked dumb and classical art looked way better. Just that, after the media stopped telling everyone that pop/modern art was good and whatever, everyone reverted back to preferring aesthetics in their art.

Nothing wrong with that, and in fact brings up a solid question; how do you measure modern art if not in aesthetics?

You can cry that art is subjective, but it really isn't. We measure more traditional art using a consensus on what looks good, apply that to existing pieces. We change those ideals over time as public opinion shifts. 250 years ago anime wouldn't be considered as looking good, but now it does. Which is the purpose of traditional art. The purpose of modern art to be interpreted. Make you think, and wonder.

Does it achieve that? No. People actively hate it for looking dumb. They don't see the throes of communism and the death of self in a consumerist environment, they see a bunch of shapes someone crapped on a canvas. It fails from the outset. By its own goals it is shitty art.

If you want to interpret abstract shapes, go look at some clouds. Point out how one kind of looks like a boot. The layman doesn't like modern art for a good reason.

If the farts replicate actual notes, and are played out in a rhythmic sequence, then yes, it can be called music.

And it disgusts me that there are people who believe they can say for a fact what's good art and what's bad art.
Yes, obviously there is pretty shitty art in the world, but it's not because it's factually terrible, it's just because it doesn't fit with what you consider to be good art.

OH OKAY, SO THAT MEANS THAT I CAN JUST TAKE MY OWN SHIT AND SMEAR IT ON A CANVAS!!!!!
IT'S ART BECAUSE I SAY IT'S ART, NOT BECAUSE IT TOOK ANY EFFORT
NOOOOOOALL I HAVE TO DO IS SAY IT'S ART
WITH THAT LINE OF LOGIC, I THINK THAT I'LL CALL BANANAS TRAFFIC CONES FROM NOW ON!
NOW THAT I CALLEDIT A TRAFFIC CONE, THAT MAKES IT A TRAFFIC CONE!!!
NOT BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY IS A TRAFFIC CONE, BUT BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!!

THAT'S JUST GREAT!

If you want to interpret abstract shapes, go look at some clouds. Point out how one kind of looks like a boot. The layman doesn't like modern art for a good reason.

I like interpreting abstract shapes, it's what makes visiting the museum fun, but, really, do we excuse someone just putting a circle in the middle of a white space art?

Art has to be created, not just lazily applied together.

That is probably the worst fucking analogy I've ever seen in my entire life

Your analogy is so terrible, I think it just gave me testicular cancer

Good, then maybe you'll expire and then we'll have less shit in our museums and more pieces that take effort.

The defense of art being subjective makes sense up to an extent but you really look foolish by saying that I can just do whatever and call it art or music.

Saying that a bunch of haphazard circles on a piece of paper is art because you said so means that anyone can call anything whatever they want because they said so.

At 2/5/13 12:54 AM, Xenomit wrote: Anything that unveils a new artistic technique.

But I don't expect any piece of art to be revolutionary, just pleasing to my senses. If shapes please my senses, then I consider that good. That's an opinion. Someone els might look at a bunch of shapes and say it looks terrible and displeasing, that is also an opinion.

When it comes to art, there is no real way to say what is and isn't art.

You do understand that your belief that art is subjective is subjective in itself. You aren't defending a neutral position here. This is an ideology. And ideology you will need much more arguments to defend, since I firmly disagree with you. Art isn't anything and everything just because someone claimed so.

At 2/5/13 01:04 AM, DelRio1991 wrote:

If you want to interpret abstract shapes, go look at some clouds. Point out how one kind of looks like a boot. The layman doesn't like modern art for a good reason.

I like interpreting abstract shapes, it's what makes visiting the museum fun, but, really, do we excuse someone just putting a circle in the middle of a white space art?

Art has to be created, not just lazily applied together.

I agree.

At 2/5/13 01:04 AM, DelRio1991 wrote: I like interpreting abstract shapes, it's what makes visiting the museum fun, but, really, do we excuse someone just putting a circle in the middle of a white space art?

You obviously thought it was too simplistic to interpret meaningfully.

Therefore it failed in its goal and you don't consider it good. And if everyone (using that loosely) thought it kind of sucked, then it's bad art.

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. You don't owe anyone shit.

At 2/5/13 01:11 AM, Lintire wrote: Therefore it failed in its goal and you don't consider it good. And if everyone (using that loosely) thought it kind of sucked, then it's bad art.

Meaning art would be broken down to a kind of metaphysical democratic opinion ?

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. You don't owe anyone shit.

This, I firmly agree with.

At 2/5/13 12:47 AM, Xenomit wrote: Yes, obviously there is pretty shitty art in the world, but it's not because it's factually terrible, it's just because it doesn't fit with what you consider to be good art.

No, I think some art can essentially be considered objectively shitty if there's a clear consensus that A: it fails to cross the low threshold for basic competence in its chosen medium (though there are a few interesting counterexamples of works that transcend this more or less by accident, like The Room), and/or B: it's a purely calculated and cynical commercial product with no evidence of any artistic aims whatsoever (like the Transformers movies or a Thomas Kinkade painting).

Though maybe you wouldn't count that kind of thing as "art" in the first place.

At 2/5/13 01:16 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: and/or B: it's a purely calculated and cynical commercial product with no evidence of any artistic aims whatsoever (like the Transformers movies or a Thomas Kinkade painting).

I particularly like that part.

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".

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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)

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.

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.

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.

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?