I got 6 out of 11.
You?
The thing I don't like about this, as was also vocalized in the comments, is that they frame these paintings as "Modern art", in which in reality these are a only a subsection of Abstract Expressionism which embodies the ideological framework for returning to the deeply native, unrestricted forms of expression. So what you get is artwork akin to artwork done by a toddler, and that was on purpose. As well, this only accomplishes to only further develop the public's ignorance on contemporary art by giving it a blanket description of "Modern Art". Thus, it may stipulate confirmation bias to those who reject "Modern art" (when they are really referring to specific types of Contemporary art) and it may prevent them from supporting the arts, seeking out the arts, cutting funding, or making statements such as "My kid could paint that."
After I got the first 4 wrong, it became quite clear how biased this was framed. The photos who made the painting look good were toddler art framed in a good light and the poorly photographed snippets of art were 'modern' art. Nobody's learning anything from this article except that Buzzfeed sells itself out for pageviews by misusing sterotypes. Shame on them.
This doesn't demonstrate anything. This is an absolutely ignorant 'buzz' quiz indeed... This just perpetuates the stigma that: Art is all about 'talent' and technique; you can sum up the quality of art exclusively by its physical appearance, looking at it almost like a scientist dissecting a rat - the idea, the context, and how it functions in culture at the time it was created versus now doesn't matter or isn't present. I really can't stand the "My kid can paint that" stereotype. Here's why it doesn't matter why your kid can paint that: 1) Your kid can paint that because they don't have motor control and perception like an adult - it's impossible for them to paint anything else because they just can`t. Some kids develop faster in certain areas than others. 2) Your kid is barely aware of what they're creating. They think their brown potato-like scribble looks like Dad... An artist is fully aware of what they are doing and they have a preconceived intention to their work based on their background in the arts (even if they deny it) and that is what makes an artist an artist. This is also why, just because your middle-aged friend Margaret had a good day and drew one really great drawing, it doesn`t suddenly elevate her to the level of a skilled artist with years of practice... it is similar to, if you fixed your car successfully once, it doesn`t make you a mechanic. When a young child makes striking artwork, it`s more coincidence and their creative potential showing itself, but it`s really apples and oranges if you try compare what is going when a child makes art versus an adult. 3) Having fully developed motor skills, perception, and a lot of life experience and knowledge to inform your artwork makes creating work like that, as an adult artist, really challenging - it's very hard to just let go like that. It`s hard to go back to that way of thinking as well. This also isn't the same as an average adult with completely undeveloped artistic skills doing something like this, because they're working from basically where they left off as a child. 4) There`s a lot of research out there now showing we lose a lot of our imagination as we grow up. Having an imagination after high school pretty much is a gift in itself. Having an imagination as fresh as a child`s is special. 5) Art isn`t quantitative. You can`t measure it in a beaker, you can`t give it a fair mark out of 10, you can`t really compare two pieces of art. There`s no wrong answers, like there are in math.
This just perpetuates the stigma that: Art is all about 'talent' and technique;
My point exactly. Art can be about mastery of technique but it can also be about so much more. I find myself connecting in a more emotive way to abstraction in art than realism. I will often finger-paint with my daughter and the results are cool. It can be difficult to tell where my fingers did the work and where hers did. Does it matter?
8 of 11. Despite the popular opinion of the internet, there is a recognizable difference between toddler art and abstract expressionism. And I have yet to see a toddler with enough restraint to paint something similar to a Rothko, or even a Pollock for that matter. Usually its always just big smears.
Yes, but a lot of Abstract Expressionists (and artists since then) have created things to deliberately look like they were "painted by a toddler" to react to this rather common complaint/comment. Definitely, no toddler is going to create something like a Rothko or a Newman (both require some technical preparation no toddler is going to come up with) but it's not always so easy to distinguish. Not that it matters one bit. Place them in the right place or context or even consider them in the right way and the pieces created by toddlers can be art, too.
Normally I'd be really happy to agree with this (and I do agree that in the right context toddler can make serious art too). But the article has the obvious agenda of trying to "prove" that critical art of the last decade shouldn't be taken seriously because "hey my toddler can do that". So I agree with you, but as a response to the article I'd disagree.Not that it matters one bit. Place them in the right place or context or even consider them in the right way and the pieces created by toddlers can be art, too.
Oh, yes, naturally, that article is full of it. Just because a piece created by a toddler can be considered art no lessens critical theory and art of the last few decades (or any art at all).
I got 8 out of 11. Number three and number nine I thought were modern art. Number three in particular is actually really beautiful. Does it matter if it was done by a toddler or an adult? If it resonates with me and makes me feel or think something, why should I care?
Well art isn't just the artifact but is also the context that artifact is in. Certainly King Tut's sarcophagus is a great work of art (in a sort of ceremonial, religious way) and a perfect replica would also be very impressive, but would not mean the same thing as the actual place where Tut's body was actually placed. The Mona Lisa is an example of this, one of the reasons for it's incredible fame is that it was stolen from the Louve, supposedly by Picasso. Certainly there are other works by De Vinci that are greater works of art but the fact that it was stolen from the most famous art museum in the world adds to it's significance and it's lore. This is why people want originals and not perfect forgeries. They want the context that comes with the art and not just a perfect visual representation of the thing. That being said there is something to gain from both a famous artists abstract renderings and a child's playtime. What those thing are is very different and that is why it matters, because art is more than the artifact.
6/11 I think it's interesting to have a discussion on the nature of art and how observers relate to it, but I think that this article is just another in a series of attempts to ridicule art that the presenter "just doesn't get". Perhaps ridicule is a strong word, but I'm out of better words (it's late). It's the journalistic equivalent of "DAE hate modern art?" It doesn't invalidate the work that the artists are doing to anyone except those who are already biased against it, and it rarely sparks positive conversation about the nature of art in those who are already biased for it.
Well, I wouldn't consider myself an art critic, but i got 9/11. I guessed on a couple though. None of it necessarily makes me feel anything, but its interesting to see how basic paintings can be considered beautiful