Well, here's the thing: It's really easy to say "this stuff sucks." If you read the follow-ups, they're an art student saying "this stuff doesn't suck because X" and the guy saying "no it REALLY sucks because Y." One of the things I discovered as a screenwriter is that it's far more useful to watch a bad movie and figure out how you would make it good than to watch a good movie and figure out what was bad about it. More importantly, if there's a movie or genre or director that everybody else loves that you hate, don't sit there going "I'm so original" figure out what the audience is getting out of it that you aren't. So we see all this modern art, and it's all selling for shit-tons of money, and we all go "WTF was the point of that" and we presume that it's just bullshit and the people who like it are stupid. But are they really? The guys buying "modern art" are all richer than croesus and most of it isn't inherited money, so they're smart enough to get rich, at least. And they tend to buy the kind of consumer goods we wish we could, so they aren't totally tasteless, either. So to me, the observation isn't "I don't get Art" it's "Why don't I get art?" For me, the most transformative art experience I ever had was at the SF Moma. I was shooting a wedding and had a day to kill, so I rode the BART from Oakland to downtown and wandered around. One of the first things I saw was one of Yves Klein's monochromes (now you know where the name comes from). And this is a canvas, painted blue, sitting on a wall. And I stared at it, transfixed, for twenty minutes. Because it wasn't just blue - it was this amazing blue that can't really be described. It was an insane amount of pigment, painted in just such a way that it held my attention in a way that Guernica never did. I wandered through the entire bicentennial Van Gogh exhibit in Amsterdam and didn't really give the first shit - saw Starry Night in person and everything. But there was something about Yves Klein Blue that left me positively gobsmacked. So I "get" that. I get Klimt. I get Kandinsky. I get Mondrian. I get these guys that had an amazing amount of craft in what they did that renders something thought-provoking and new. But I don't "get" Warhol. I don't get Basquiat (but I totally get Banksy). I sure as fuck don't get Damien Hirst. Steina and Woody Vasulkaare good family friends. I have a framed poster from one of their exhibits at The Kitchen in '69. Helped them put up one of their exhibits a few years back. They're "artists." Make a good living at it. Saw some of their stuff at the Stedelijk But, I mean, some of it is just weird goofing around.
So, to me, "I don't get art" is an admission of failure, not a brag. If there's something that a whole bunch of people think is awesome, you owe it to yourself at least to figure out what they think is so cool. That's why I'm at peace with the fact that I f'ing hate Chris Nolan, but still uncomfortable over the fact that I f'ing hate Wes Anderson. I know exactly what people get out of Nolan films (and reject it) but Wes Anderson I haven't quite figured out yet. Make sense?
I so 100% disagree with you. Art in itself in a form of communication. "I don't get art" is not an admission of failure but only a personal opinion. Just because mass media loves a piece, it does not mean it is cool. One critic can just acclaim a piece for fun, and the rest follows. Art is so subjective. For instance you don't get Van Gogh even though I think he is a genius in color. I think his distorted realities are breathtaking and I would spend hours looking at his paintings. But I can never say you are a failure. Just Van Gogh's painting don't connect with you. Also what you like is modern art, not contemporary art. Modern art included the abstract expressionism movement which I assume you love. What the article is referring to is contemporary art. Many contemporary art pieces, in my opinion, are stuck in the abstract expressionism period. They never inherited the concept only the image. In other words, many works are vulgar for the sake or being vulgar. Many artists become artists for the idea of being an artist, the idea of being carefree. I remember when I was in CMU, a lot of the art students just love parties, drugs, and sex. The professor love works about vulgar sex. If you can somehow relate sex and drugs to your art work, then everyone loves it. I remember one girl did a whole show on blowjobs and it was a blast. And another girl painting two old women naked in the bathroom, one hold her hand in a hand job position, another one opening her mouth. She then cut a perfect round hole in the hand and the mouth area, essentially two glory holes. The professor loved it. The students loved it. It was displayed in the CMU hall way for weeks. This vulgar art movement is quite popular now days. Many many students just party all day and pile a bunch of trash together before review and bullshit about the work. And their review will go great. The entire school knows that if you can make something no one understands and write a 2 page essay explanation it, then your work is deep. If your project does not relate to the meaning of life in a form no one understands, then it must be shitty. When has art comes to reading pages of explanations? To me, an art piece is a failure when it cannot express its concept and when it is not aesthetically pleasing. Of course the second part is very subjective to personal taste. You know Van Gogh's point of perspective in art but you might not appreciate it. Perhaps because I went to a design school, took plenty of art studios, been through the importance of bullshitting, I sincerely believe that there are plenty of shit in contemporary art scene. Shit that barely have a concept and artist don't have ANY skills to carry out their concept. So they make very ugly, vulgar, disgusting, twisted pieces to bring a reaction from the viewer. Then they bullshit about their pieces because they are very good writers. For some reason I don't understand, it is much easier to succeed in NYC art world from creating something ugly and disgusting then creating an aesthetically pleasing art piece. I don't enjoy spending my time to figure out the bullshit behind the shit. Anyways my point is art is highly subjective. Something I might think is shit and cannot even be considered as art you might adore and hang it on your wall. And vice versa.
>Just because mass media loves a piece, it does not mean it is cool. Nowhere did I say otherwise. >Also what you like is modern art, not contemporary art. And nowhere did I say this. > Modern art included the abstract expressionism movement which I assume you love. And nowhere did I give you the first reason to assume this. >Many contemporary art pieces, in my opinion, are stuck in the abstract expressionism period. And nowhere did I even use the term "contemporary." You 100% disagree with something. It sure isn't me.
Sorry I meant I 99.9% disagree with you, specifically on
"So, to me, "I don't get art" is an admission of failure, not a brag. If there's something that a whole bunch of people think is awesome, you owe it to yourself at least to figure out what they think is so cool." Just because everyone else loves a piece, it does not mean it is cool. I assumed that include mass media, but my mistake. When you say "I don't get art", I assumed the phrase came from the article, which is referring to Contemporary Art. So when you refer to "I don't get art", I assume you mean Contemporary Art. However, I apologize for assuming you are referring to the article when you left your comment under the article using the exact same words. I assumed you like Modern Art because you named a bunch of artists you like under the Modern Art era, mostly Abstract Expressionism period, but none under Contemporary Art. What I am saying is "I don't get art" in not an admission of failure, just a personal opinion. The rest is just an explanation.
Once more, with feeling: >If there's something that a whole bunch of people think is awesome, you owe it to yourself at least to figure out what they think is so cool. I think it's telling that I wrote Twelve.Fucking.Paragraphs (at thenewgreen's invitation, despite my suspicion that this detroit-area circlejerk would come apart at the seams - last fucking time he talks me into this shit) that were essentially a plea for empathy, for understanding, for analysis (self and otherwise) and got no less than four responses that boil down to "no fuck you if I don't like art it's because it sucks and it's my right to say that it sucks so fuck you." Yeah. It is. Hate the fuck out of art. See if I give a shit. But since we all live on this planet, it's worth spending a little time trying to wear someone else's skin for a minute to determine if you can figure out what they see that you don't. The article is a typical Vice take on "everything sucks except the things we think are cool which, by the way, are too cool for you." I do not find this sort of analysis illuminating. I tried to say so, in as polite a form as possible, and got A) a rant about how apple and rich people suck B) grief for not fellating Van Gogh C) a gonzo-ass condemnation of art students for not studying enough D) grief for not fellating Wes Anderson "I don't get art" is an admission of failure. "I don't LIKE art" is a personal opinion. And that's the last I have to say about the subject.
1. Just thought you would enjoy the read, will cease to "shout-out". 2. Pretty sure b_b is the only Detroiter in this thread and I can safely say that prior to Hubski, I didn't know a single soul in this thread, including him. You may call it a "Circle-jerk", but it's not a regionally specific one. I did enjoy your primary 12 paragraph response -it made sense to me. The Wes Anderson comment was in reference to a conversation months ago that we had here. I'll try to dig it up but right now I have a baby with the flu on my hands, time is short and I am exhausted. I'm guessing you can empathize. IMO, you make a valid point that if the masses see some appeal in something and you at first don't, it's worth asking the question, "what, if anything, did I miss"?I think it's telling that I wrote Twelve.Fucking.Paragraphs (at thenewgreen's invitation, despite my suspicion that this detroit-area circlejerk would come apart at the seams - last fucking time he talks me into this shit)
That is precisely why I made a clear distinction between Modern art and Contemporary art. How do I get it through your head that the article is referring to CONTEMPORARY ART, what the author really means is "I don't get Contemporary art". It is similar to you not getting Van Gogh's Post Impressionism, but getting Klein's Abstract Expressionism. You are taking this one phrase way out of its context and writing a whole argument about it. I am trying to put that phrase into its context. I am saying specifically "I don't get art" in the Contemporary art scene is not an admission of failure. Hence why I wrote about the art schools. Again you are putting my explanations way out of context. (Also just FYI, you don't study in art school, you draw, you paint, you create. It's not called studying. My parents keep asking me hows studying, and I can't get through their head either that I don't study) I'm trying to explain why people don't get Contemporary art. That is because there's nothing to get. It is taught in schools to make something vulgar enough to cause an reaction from the public or make something no one understands. It is the current trend. Exhibitions that either disgust the viewers or make people wonder why is this cool attract the public. The article is a take on," just because everyone thinks staring at woman screaming at the screen for an hour is cool, it doesn't mean I have to think it is deep" Here is the scenario in a lot of cases. An artist create a piece that no one understands, including the artist himself. A gallery hangs up the piece on the wall. One person comes over and look at it, doesn't get it. So he stands there and wonder what does it mean. Another person sees the first person so concentrated on this painting and think there must be something deep to this painting. So more and more people follows, thinking this piece I don't understand so there must be something deep and cool. This is the "whole bunch of people think is awesome", do you owe it to yourself to join the crowd? How is it a failure when there's is nothing to get? When the piece is shit to begin with? Do you want to follow the crowd and try to understand the meaning of life behind the shit? And I know this because I know people who create this kind of shit in studio and talks about it, and people like you who thinks you owe it to yourself to understand the concept behind the shit because people around you are doing the same thing. (Again I am referring to CONTEMPORARY ART, just like the article IS)
Re: the ref to modern vs contemporary, perhaps zomberry meant "Modern", not "modern", the movement, not the time period, which Kandinsky, and Klimt all fall under. The capital makes all the difference, although I'm not sure about the ref to abstract expressionism, which I think perhaps is a little later movement than Klimt and Kandinsky.
I didn't know there's a difference between Modern Art and modern art. I think both refers to the the time period. Modern art is not really a movement. I remember taking an art history class called modern art, which basically covers art work from 1800 until 1970s. Abstract expressionism is included in the modern art period, which originated with Kandinsky. The idea got introduced in the USA, and started the New York School of Art. The imagery associated with abstract expressionism basically continues until now, but I think in a degenerative way. Klimt is just from a whole different movement apart from all the obsession with abstraction. Everything after 1970s is called Contemporary Art or Post Modern Art. I think Contemporary Art is not a movement either, it is more of a time period. What I have against is Contemporary Art, which I think most of them have nothing to get.
Yes, it all makes sense to me except for the part where you don't like Wes Anderson films. I kid, we've had this discussion before I believe.
It follows from what you say later about Nolan/Anderson that this means you understand what people see in Van Gogh but don't see it yourself? So since you understand it but don't agree with it, that's not an admission of failure? I see. This seems to me to bring up this difference: often, when people say they "don't get modern art," it actually means they "don't get the appeal of modern art." Which is like you saying you didn't give a shit about Van Gogh. So is that excusable?I wandered through the entire bicentennial Van Gogh exhibit in Amsterdam and didn't really give the first shit - saw Starry Night in person and everything. But there was something about Yves Klein Blue that left me positively gobsmacked.
>It follows from what you say later about Nolan/Anderson that this means you understand what people see in Van Gogh but don't see it yourself? Why does that follow? There's a remarkable amount of technique to Van Gogh's work. The passion in his output is evident. It does not, however, "turn my crank." I look at "Sunflowers" and see sloppiness; I look at "Starry Night" and I see a distorted view of the sky. When I wanna see a landscape, I'm more of a Bierstadt guy; when I wanna see still life I'll go with Rembrandt. I would not consider Van Gogh to be a "bad painter" just like I wouldn't consider Tom Waits to be a "bad singer." Doesn't mean I'm going to listen to him. I have assessed Chris Nolan as a dishonest storyteller and most audiences not refined enough to notice. Wes Anderson, I suspect, has a way of displaying "quirky" to people who have no basis in quirkyness; I grew up with more weird than I can handle so it mostly strikes me as superficial, tedious bullshit. I really fuckin' hate Neill LaBute but he's an honest filmmaker. >This seems to me to bring up this difference: often, when people say they "don't get modern art," it actually means they "don't get the appeal of modern art." Which is like you saying you didn't give a shit about Van Gogh. So is that excusable? It is inexcusable to argue that me saying "I don't give a shit about Van Gogh" is equivalent to someone saying "I don't get the appeal of modern art." You're putting words in my mouth to try and win an argument I didn't know we were having. If you care to ask, rather than tell, we can continue.
I think it hinges on the fact that you can "get" modern art without getting the appeal of modern art. I understand the complexity of the pigments used in monochromatic art but I don't understand why anyone would look at it for 20 minutes. There's a difference in there, I think. You were, I believe, saying essentially this except about Van Gogh. My point was that "I don't get art" is an admission of failure or ignorance or lack of trying or what have you but "I don't get the appeal of art" is not. I place myself in the latter category when it comes to some art, be it modern. classical or anything in between, so I wanted to point out what I thought was a difference.
I get were you are coming from but I just don't buy the idea that rich people are smart. There is a lot of noise and randomness in making wealth. My very rich (fortune 500 executive) uncle said that wealth is a roulette wheel and he built a company from the ground up. second point of disagreement that the selection of consumer goods is not largely bullshit. Point of evidence Apple. The greatest American philosopher Phineas Taylor Barnum was not just whistling Dixie. With all this said I think art can be transcendent. but just like most things in life a lot of it (97%) is bullshit.
1) "Luck" is being in the right place at the right time. The more skillful you are, the more likely you are to find the right place. The more driven you are, the more time you spend there. Sure - maybe it's a roulette wheel, like your uncle says. If you don't think there's strategy to roulette you've never gambled. 2) Apple has the highest market cap in the world because they sell products that people want and buy. We should table that discussion - I'm plenty pissed at apple for a number of reasons - but I have three Mac laptops, two mac desktops, a hackintosh, three iPhones and a 1st gen iPod in this house. I built my first PC at the age of ten. My father built the first network at the Department of Energy, about the same time as ARPANET, and had, at one point, 6,500 PCs under his control. I know macs. I know PCs. When you say "point of evidence Apple" all you do is appear ignorant. 3) "A fool and his money are soon parted" yet the people who buy overpriced artwork STAY RICH. Again - you're not looking clever here. 4) The department of fabricated statistics is not welcome, nor applicable in this debate.
1) none of this equals taste and not falling for shit outside of ones expertise.
like for instance in roulette (one of my degrees in applied mathematics) there is no strategy. The house has about 5.26% edge on everything except betting on First five in which case it has an even bigger edge 7.89% on single zero wheels betting on green gives the house 2.70% (is this the strategy you are talking about) 2) apple sells a line of proprietary products that deliver less function for the dollar than stuff made by less flashy folks. this is my definition of bullshit or if you prefer flimflam. People buy more MacDonalds than Cook-out I hardly think that makes Micky-dees better. Your list is not an argument. But here is one Donald Trump. 3) I was referring to "a sucker is born every minute". 4) pleaase we are having a debate? About what whether or not life has a high variance? However will we do the double blind experiments. Please don't tell me rich folks are not tacky boring morons who don't know the difference between chicken shit and chicken salad when I just spent the whole night being reminded that this is indeed the case. I sold 4 pieces was invited to two galleries and was called a genius no less than 5 times.
I could argue with you but there would be no point. The fact that you think I don't recognize a PT Barnum reference (particularly when he has pretty much one reference) simply illustrates how much smarter you think you are than the rest of the world. So I won't tell you anything any longer and suggest you do the same for me.
cool :) Actually not cool at all.
You seem to be projecting motives and intent onto me that I do not have. I used a Barnum because I assumed everyone would get it. Although the situation in which I am smarter than the folks I am talking to is not uncommon it is not the preferred case or even the assumed one. So if you will stop assigning evil motives to me when I am just expressing my opinions and experiences with art and rich folks (subjects I have intimately involved in since my nativity) I will not assume you project your own intentions on others.
I think it's the lack of substance combined with the precious insistence that oddity is its own reward. I dunno. I've only seen Bottle Rocket and Tennenbaums in their entirety but there was nothing in them that made the slightest bit interested in seeing anything else. If he were more successful I'd study him harder.