?

[The Ü™]

If you want to write beat poetry instead of engage in a discussion then I guess I'm done here. But I can't leave without making plain that "entertainment" isn't pejorative and art can be found anywhere.

In the end, poetry just seems an awful lot like list making.

 

[Oberon]

?

!

 

[Recluse]

!

. . . .

 

[The Ü™]

. . . .

#%&$!!!

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I would just like to say that I have never met anyone that I agree with so strongly on some issues and disagree with equally strongly on other issues as Uberfuhrer. It's quite frustrating.

 

[wildcat]

Can somebody please interpret me the posts in this page?
I do not understand a toodle.

 

[The Ü™]

I've gone to a number of modern art shows, and much of what I see is junk.

Modern art shows are basically trips back to the stone age blanketed with the illusion of sophistication by having expensive wine and cheese appetizers.

That you can take a piece of clay and mold it into little more than a lump of asymmetrical rubble does not make you a skilled artist.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I've gone to a number of modern art shows, and much of what I see is junk.

Modern art shows are basically trips back to the stone age blanketed with the illusion of sophistication by having expensive wine and cheese appetizers.

That you can take a piece of clay and mold it into little more than a lump of asymmetrical rubble does not make you a skilled artist.

I think the popularity of modern art (which I'll call abstract art, it's basically the same thing) can be explained by the fact that you can interpret it yourself and no one can call bullshit on you. People love to be the one to have "figured it out" and to expound on it to impress a date or some friends. Abstract art appeals to our vanity.

A landscape or a bowl of apples, however skillfully executed, just isn't as much fun to deconstruct for this kind of person.

 

[wildcat]

I think the popularity of modern art (which I'll call abstract art, it's basically the same thing) can be explained by the fact that you can interpret it yourself and no one can call bullshit on you. People love to be the one to have "figured it out" and to expound on it to impress a date or some friends. Abstract art appeals to our vanity.

A landscape or a bowl of apples, however skillfully executed, just isn't as much fun to deconstruct for this kind of person.

Rot.

 

[CzeCze]

Modern art shows are basically trips back to the stone age blanketed with the illusion of sophistication by having expensive wine and cheese appetizers.

WTH, so now you have something against cheese too? What are you, an anti-lactate???

Oh Uber, you know Auntie Cze Cze loves you

 

[wildcat]

I've gone to a number of modern art shows, and much of what I see is junk.

Modern art shows are basically trips back to the stone age blanketed with the illusion of sophistication by having expensive wine and cheese appetizers.

That you can take a piece of clay and mold it into little more than a lump of asymmetrical rubble does not make you a skilled artist.

MODERN

recent
new
novel
fresh

does not apply as an art term. A confusion of semantics.

We passed the post-modern era fifty years ago.

The bounds of definition do not apply to art or science.

 

[CzeCze]

I think the popularity of modern art (which I'll call abstract art, it's basically the same thing) can be explained by the fact that you can interpret it yourself and no one can call bullshit on you. People love to be the one to have "figured it out" and to expound on it to impress a date or some friends. Abstract art appeals to our vanity.

A landscape or a bowl of apples, however skillfully executed, just isn't as much fun to deconstruct for this kind of person.

Modern art is accessible, more than just open to interpretation, people actually "get" it more than the classics.

Classics depict 'the classics' -- scenes from books (including the bible) that people don't read anymore and are not familiar with. Moreover, those 'classic' scenes were painted for contemporary audiences of those times -- meaning victorians or whatnot. Doesn't it crack you up when you see pictures of "Mary with Baby" and she's this voluptuous pale white woman with pink cheeks and a tumble of curly hair? 'Cause it kinda cracks me up. And women just can't seem to keep more than 1 breast unexposed.

But primary colors? I get that!

Garbage? Accessible!

Random installation of Ikea-like lights on the floor? Ditto! Shit, I have that same set up at home!

I don't disagree with critics of 'modern art'. Frankly I feel bad for trained artists, modern art is such a genre to get lumped with But, if you like punk music or any other anti-authoritarian 'new' genre, how can you dislike modern art? Further, 'modern art' is an umbrella term that encompasses anything and everything and suffers from trouble trying to categorize it. There's some really thought provoking and just interesting stuff out there under 'modern'. Then there's pretentious, unskilled, aesthetically wrong and

For me, if you don't know what the rules are, you cannot break them. Therefore, I barely consider many 'modern artists' to be actual artists. Aesthetes, provocateurs, visionaries maybe but...artist? Hmm... Basically, I'm not buying what they're selling. And video game producers as artists? Ummm, do you mean the storyboarders, the 3D modelers, what? Video games are being constructed more like movies these days, so I would agree there is a degree of artistry involved. You are creating a product.

Media and distribution have just gotten much more diversified, egalitarian and democractic, the world's gotten bigger with crazy people from different cultural and aesthetic backgrounds diluting strict standards, and the old guard who have to define and uphold the standards have been dropping off left and right, let's in say this century So now anyone can be a [modern] artist.

Let's all jump on the bandwagon!

I wanna be an pomo feminist installationist who works with charcoal, copper wire, found objects, and domestic items.

 

[wildcat]

No... What was meant was that this section was suitable to display either art and/or entertainment, not that the two were in fact the same thing.

Notice it said Art & Entertainment, and not Art = Entertainment.

& -------- and

= ------- is/equals

Indeed?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Modern art is accessible, more than just open to interpretation, people actually "get" it more than the classics.

Classics depict 'the classics' -- scenes from books (including the bible) that people don't read anymore and are not familiar with. Moreover, those 'classic' scenes were painted for contemporary audiences of those times -- meaning victorians or whatnot. Doesn't it crack you up when you see pictures of "Mary with Baby" and she's this voluptuous pale white woman with pink cheeks and a tumble of curly hair? 'Cause it kinda cracks me up. And women just can't seem to keep more than 1 breast unexposed.

But primary colors? I get that!

Garbage? Accessible!

Random installation of Ikea-like lights on the floor? Ditto! Shit, I have that same set up at home!

Hm. I can see the point you're trying to make, that modern art appeals to people because they're more familiar with its forms. But the work is more than its materials. There's also the meaning. I have a very liberal definition of what art is, but one thing I think it requires is a point of view. And when I see a Jackson Pollock or an installation like you describe, I feel a point of view is impossible to discern. Leaving issues of skilled craftsmanship aside, this kind of art doesn't mean anything if the meaning has to be explained by a museum guide, instead of by the art itself. The guide is doing the artist's job. Art is about emotion, not academia, and it needs to hit you in the gut as well as the brain.

Also, I can't tell EXACTLY what parts of your post were sarcastic, so I may look the fool right now

 

[wildcat]

Hm. I can see the point you're trying to make, that modern art appeals to people because they're more familiar with its forms. But the work is more than its materials. There's also the meaning. I have a very liberal definition of what art is, but one thing I think it requires is a point of view. And when I see a Jackson Pollock or an installation like you describe, I feel a point of view is impossible to discern. Leaving issues of skilled craftsmanship aside, this kind of art doesn't mean anything if the meaning has to be explained by a museum guide, instead of by the art itself. The guide is doing the artist's job. Art is about emotion, not academia, and it needs to hit you in the gut as well as the brain.

Also, I can't tell EXACTLY what parts of your post were sarcastic, so I may look the fool right now

Regicide.

 

[CzeCze]

Regicide.

Wow...are you calling FM the king??

That's quite a compliment.

FM, you should feel flattered.

 

[wildcat]

Wow...are you calling FM the king??

That's quite a compliment.

FM, you should feel flattered.

Ha ha.

Boothes was Lincoln?

Jesus.

 

[CzeCze]

Ha ha.

Boothes was Lincoln?

Jesus.

Now you're calling him Jesus!

Wow, FM, you must have done something really nice to get on his good side.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Wow...are you calling FM the king??

That's quite a compliment.

FM, you should feel flattered.

I think Wildcat meant I was killing the king. In this case, the king being some kind of undetermined artistic philosophy. Trust me, if you're interpreting a compliment, I'm pretty sure you're wrong

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Now you're calling him Jesus!

Wow, FM, you must have done something really nice to get on his good side.

Well it's about time SOMEONE thought I was Jesusy!