In light of the recent discussions we had about modern art, I felt compelled to share this
- So you look at a work of art and think to yourself, I could have done that. And maybe you really could have, but the issue here is more complex than that -- why didn't you? Why did the artist? And why does it have an audience? We delve into it by looking at work by artists like Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Piet
I think this is an excellent explanation of how to look at modern art, especially the work that lands in museums. The thing is that to me, this kind of art is academic art. Meaning, you often have to have education and understanding of historic art, and context to appreciate it. This is a great kind of art, but it does generally limit the audience. This doesn't make it any less amazing, but it does make it less accessible. I think truly epic works of art often transcend their audiences to reach the general population. It's like any other form of creativity. For example, "Grapes of Wrath" by Steinbeck is a brilliant literary work that is generally broader read than another brilliant work by James Joyce "Ulysses". There is a good reason for this; Ulysses is much less accessible to the general reader. Additionallly, epic works transcend the time and place they were created to resonate with people regardless of the era in which they are viewed. That said, I think the world needs both kinds of art, both the academic and the accessible. There's a time and place for both.
It might be a little cold, but when I hear the "I could do that" argument I don't disagree, I just ask if they think they could get it in a museum after they made it. That's the impressive part to me, there's enough of a story around the work to merit a stay in a museum. But, I'm not an art guy.
I really agree with how the woman in the video described the creative and decision making process for art which is not about form, but instead requires a deeper understanding of circumstances and context in order to make sense. I'm not a huge modern art guy because I believe that if art fails to convey the artist's intention then it has failed in the goal of art, and I don't believe most modern art does that for the reasons in the video. Two clocks next to each other makes a lot of sense as a metaphor for love, but I don't think most people would understand that they will fall out of synch, or die. If they were in synch when viewed then they are in synch 'forever' to the viewer. If they had changed then the viewer doesn't know they were in synch. The context is missing. If they were dead when viewed then you don't think of them as alive, and worse if they weren't in synch when they died (though that message is beautiful). That context is completely necessary and not possible for most, but when viewed within that context through someone explaining it to you it makes a lot more sense and becomes something greater. Modern art does not come with an interpreter, but needs one, or someone extremely dedicated to the puzzle, to shine brightest.
Another aspect is: the medium itself is not so easy. Permanent vs temporary, to use a gloss finish or not, what type of brush to use, what type of paint, acrylic resin?, gold leaf?, what works with what, what causes art to crack and yellow, how do you frame canvas, how long does it take to dry, how do you put layer on top of layer without it getting muddy, and so forth. Looking at one of those stupidly simplistic paintings hanging in a modern art museum, part of me is saddened by the current state of modern art (so much focus on controversy, little focus on actual skill), but looking at the painting, sculpture, mixed media piece, what have you, I recognize the craftsmanship and technical skill.
Your analysis is vastly closer to the truth than the video's. That pile of candy? Yeah. Sold for $750k, if I recall correctly. About 10 years after Torres died. So who's the artist? 'cuz Torres didn't make the candy, wrap the candy or pile the candy, and he sure didn't sell the candy. So what aspect of that is the part that ended up in a gallery? But that doesn't fit in a jump-cutty little video.
Yeah, when she was talking about the "deskillinization" of art all I could think about is the fact that these people don't have less skills, they have different skill. Technical skill might not be huge, but social skill seems to be much bigger. It's an interesting little dynamic.
From the video: So it looks like you guys agree :) I liked this video because it gave many different reasons to dismiss comments like " I could have done that". Some reasons I agree with, other not really but it gives a bunch to think about I find.It's not that these things don't take skill, it's just that they take different kinds of skill
Yeah, I actually don't agree at all. Torres's shit was deliberately skill-free. Mondrian's skill was entirely separate from what the video highlights - "look! He painted straight lines!" The video is pretty much a pat, self-assured straw-man argument wrapped up in cheerful "look, youtubers!" livery. The debate, if the other side is allowed to speak, goes like this: "I could have made that." "But you didn't!" "But I COULD have." "Are you sure? Straight lines are hard! Let's go shopping!" "Almost positive he used masks like everybody else. Wonder if there's any evidence of that on the Internet." "Artists use a different kind of skill! It's still skill!" "Show me the skill in putting two clocks on a wall." "Okay, why don't you put two clocks on a wall! Maybe you'll learn something about art!" "Yeah, I'll learn that a pair of walmart clocks won't get me into the MoMa." "You see? It's about context! Art is context!" "Torres did context like a madlib. Every work he did is about dying or aids. They're all called "untitled" (non sequitor)". I could point to two throw pillows on my couch and say it's about dying of AIDS and people would think I was crazy. Torres would do the same thing and the Saatchi brothers would buy it for $400k. The context is 'fuck you, I'm rich.'" "There, see? You learned something about art!" continues hating modern art because the apologizer doesn't understand it either
I used to do freelance web design. Can't tell you how many times someone would say, "why can't you just do it already, I could do this in my sleep, my kid could do this, I could install the software, etc, etc." And all I can think when looking at them is, "So why don't you just do it? Why did you come to me?" When I first started out, and hadn't yet learned the importance of explaining all the steps of the project completion process to the client from the start, I once had a client walk into the workshop where I was working, ask to see her website, I pulled up the photoshop comp I'd created and was just about to finish (less than a week after agreeing to do her website), she looked at it and said, "that's it, that's all you did? Why did you waste my time creating this when you could've just spent the time getting my website done?" And promptly walked out, saying all sorts of not nice things to me. Some things you only learn from experience.
WARNING the following post is extreamly opinionated and might offend you. Sensitive readers should refrain from reading the following post. I could do that and your counter argument "why didn't you?" is pointless. I don't say "I could do that" out of jealousy for a missed opportunity of income. I say it because I really could do that but chose not to, because it is pointless. Of course hipsters/cultural elite try to see some hidden meaning in art like that to appear better and above the mob of uneducated pesants. My daughter made a painting (that I have saved), when she was 10 months old, that would probably get raving reviews among people that claim crap like this is art (as long as they don't know it's made by an infant). I save that painting and hang it on the wall, because it is my daughters first painting. Not because it has some form of intristic artistic value or deep hidden meaning with deep emotions behind each stroke of paint. BTW wasn't it some guy that not long ago was hailed as a genius for hos abstract paintings just to fall from grace a couple of months later when it turned out all of hos work was made by his 4 year old daughter/nice. Suddenly all the paintings went from being haild as genious to worthless doodles by a child. Gives so much respect for the people that "understand" this type of art... So yes, I can do that. What I can't do is a still of a banana that remotley resembels a banana. /rant
Recently I've gotten to know a few artists, and I get the feeling pathos is vastly more important than the actual mechanics in art. But then there's also some artists using things like Arduinos to control mechanical or electronic amalgamations (locally: a pile of old CRT televisions), so maybe the "my kid could paint that" is more indicative of a move away from canvas? Maybe someone in the art world can shed some light on this I also spy a bottle of O.P. Anderson in the background
So, I have an honest question here. When did the term "Modern Art" take on this narrow definition? From what I remember from my art history class (which isn't much to be honest), modern art is anything from the 19th century onward that eschewed traditional styles and techniques in the spirit of trying something new and compelling. So the term includes works such as murals by Thomas Hart Benton to the surrealist paintings of Salvador Dali to the pop art of Andy Warhol. Heck, I'd probably even categorize Bansky as modern art. Wouldn't it be more accurate to call this stuff abstract art or avant garde?
Sometimes I think "I could do that" when looking at some forms of modern art. But I soon realize, I didn't do that. And they did. That tends to satisfy me most of the time. Sometimes I do wonder though, that if I had created such a piece of art (let's say a red square on a white canvas), people wouldn't have really considered it art and they probably would have made fun of it. But because a famous artist did it, it's worth thousands of dollars and considered not only art, but good art. I think that if that starts to be the case, then there is a problem.
The artist has a concept in mind that becomes fleshed out in physical form, whether through performance or painting or sculpture or song. Mimicking that manifested form alone doesn't replicate the same process of materializing that exact concept the artist had in mind. You can certainly have artists who create near-identical pieces of work and yet hold completely different ideas behind the creation of the pieces.
It really does come down to context, and the perspective of the viewer. I have no education in dance, and watching it and appreciating it for me is very much an outsider's viewpoint. I can appreciate dances that include feats of physical strength and skill, but other more "conceptual" dance just looks to me like people wiggling their elbows. Because I've had these discussions ("Is this art?") so many times throughout my education, I understand that there's a huge amount of fundamental information I'm missing to "appreciate" the pieces that go over my head. It's the same with people who argue (one way or another) that representational painting is "good art" and abstract is "bad." They are lacking the foundation to understand why others might say the opposite, or that both are equally "good." And frankly, that's ok. If we were all on the same page, how boring would that be? If that were the case, modernism wouldn't even exist, as it really began as a rejection of the academic system of art. In the end, I usually fall back on John Cleese's line in the Monty Python Last Supper sketch; "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like."
Very much so. Especially when talking about abstract painting. To me, it mostly looks like random splashes of paint which anyone can do. Although that's not saying that I don't appreciate its beauty, but I don't think it takes a great level of skill to be an abstract painter. Modern sculptures however are a different story. Some are very abstract with no real shape you but it still requires some level of technical skill to create it, whether its working with wood or metals.
And it's true that some forms of art aren't difficult in terms of technical skill. The part that gets glossed over often is the much more laborious conceptualization of abstract ideas into the physical forms you see, even for visually simple paintings.