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.