Modern art

[HarryW]

Which do you think is more important: the meaning that the artist intended, the artist's ability to represent that meaning, or the meaning the observer figures out for themselves?

I'm asking because I've had some debate with people I know about modern art.

[Ianpbaker]

hell, if you can put two wire coat hangers together and sell them for 50k, get's my vote.

[Fllburt1]

posted by Ianpbaker
hell, if you can put two wire coat hangers together and sell them for 50k, get's my vote.

Which...to the artists represents something like the forming of two nations and peace and love throughout the world.

But....to me, represents two wire coat hangers together which looks like a pile of cr*p that a two year old could have done!

I voted for 3 btw..

[HarryW]

So Ian.... I take it you're just being cynical then

[kedaman]

You could see art in anything human made but only something that amazes me is worth anything so #3

[HarryW]

Seems a number of people have chosen #2 as well - anyone care to say why?

[kedaman]

I don't know, they weren't there when i voted.

[alex_read]

I love art myself - especially Japanese.

I'd say I look at :

• The meaning that the artist intended
• The artist's ability to represent that meaning
• If they've blatantly copied another artists style or ideas
• The chosen material / colour choice

There's a lot of aspects rather than just one particular point which I look for (not that Im any kind of expert on this, but that's my opinion).

If I had to choose 1 point, it'd probaby be one of the ones you suggested; the artist's ability to represent that meaning.

It's all well showing off a lump of mash potato and calling it a horse, but any idiot can do that, the style the mash is sculptured in and subtle hints within the pattern to portray a horse is clever.

[kedaman]

I think art is subjective

[HarryW]

So what do you think of so-called 'modern art'? Like a sheep in formaldehyde - is that art? What do you think of modern art in comparison to classical art?

[Ianpbaker]

Originally posted by HarryW
So Ian.... I take it you're just being cynical then

cynical, Moi ?

When it comes to art, I am more of an old school man. Although some modern art does impress me, there is a hell of alot which I just think is complete dire.

[kedaman]

yeah but probably not good art, most modern art is definitely out of my taste

[simonm]

the meaning that the artist intended, the artist's ability to represent that meaning, or the meaning the observer figures out for themselves?

I think that the first two options are b***ocks and really boil down to the third option: 'the meaning the observer figures out for themselves'.

All we ever do, when we look at art, is project our own interpretation of it and even if we think we have some idea about what the origian intention of the artist was, or how well he managed to convey it, we are still just projecting our own meaning and deriving all pleasure we may or may not glean, thereof.

[Ianpbaker]

I would slightly disagree with you there simon, although the end result of art is normally the third option, the artist has to have the other two to produce the work.

[kedaman]

I can value art but I don't give a damn about the artist unless he has spent efforts enough doing the art if you know what i mean, but that actually isn't about art anymore, it's about considering how good the artist is, not the art.

[HarryW]

I don't think you can dismiss the first two options quite like that, they are valid viewpoints. Some people place most of the value in the skills involved in the creation of the art. You can't just say that's bollocks, if that's what they find they can appreciate in it they're not necessarily wrong.

If you know what the artist was trying to convey, you're not just projecting your own meaning, you're appreciating the message as it was intended. Perhaps the art means something else to you, but there can be some value in what the intention was if you know about it and can see how it was being conveyed.

So, what do you think of modern art?

[simonm]

Ian

I would slightly disagree with you there simon, although the end result of art is normally the third option, the artist has to have the other two to produce the work.

Well, isn't the artist just employing the third option when we creates his art? The first two options are only applicable when someone else appraises their art.

[kedaman]

Music is art
Programming is art
Everything you do as art
but the value to it is your decision

btw do you value microsoft or do you value it's OS?

[simonm]

Harry

I don't think you can dismiss the first two options quite like that, they are valid viewpoints. Some people place most of the value in the skills involved in the creation of the art. You can't just say that's bollocks, if that's what they find they can appreciate in it they're not necessarily wrong.

Somehow, I didn't think you'd let me get away with it that easilly!

I dismiss the first two, not because they are not valid reasons for people to appreciate art, but because they are, I believe, mere rational explanations, retrospectively invoked, to justify their own emotional and non rational responses to the art in question.

Personally, I am a philistine when it comes to visual art, although I do enjoy some works. If I like them, I like them and if I don't, I don't. Pretty superficial really.

[HarryW]

Uhh... right.... no idea what you're on about to be honest

This thread is supposed to be about modern art anyway! So who likes/hates it?

[Bonker Gudd]

Modern Art, huh.

Most of it is pointless, although what is the point anyway?
It's just things thrown together you know, normally everyday things in slightly odd combinations/positions. Sometimes I see something and think That's quite clever, although it's probably something that has been made in about 5 minutes.

I should be an Artist.

[simonm]

Harry

Uhh... right.... no idea what you're on about to be honest

What I am trying to say, really, is that even when people say that they appreciate art because of the artists intention or method, they are really only projecting their feelings about the work in question.

I don't think people can evaluate art as objectively as some people might think they can.

I don't see any point in appreciating art if it does nothing for you anyway.

This thread is supposed to be about modern art anyway!

I don't make a distinction between so called "modern art" and traditional art. I just take each work at face value. Therefore I don't take a stand on modern art passe (as I do with, say, heavy metal ).

[HarryW]

Are you basically making the point that anything anybody ever perceives is totally subjective? If so, I don't think that's really very useful, going down that road ends up in saying things like "nothing really matters anyway" and "it's all an illusion" and "but what if you don't exist". It's reasonable, but it's just not... erm... interesting

[kedaman]

I've seen good modern art (but not much) but most is crap. Although i haven't good heavy metal and think it's all crap I generally dislike the idea of objective classification of any kind of art. Other might be more aligned to the more common classifications though

[simonm]

Are you basically making the point that anything anybody ever perceives is totally subjective?

Well, I do think that we only ever perceive the external world subjectively. I don't know how anybody could really argue against that (though someone will, I'm sure! )

I think appreciation of art is one of the things that are more easilly argued as being subjective although I have heard arguments that art has value in an objective sense and we need to be taught to appreciate it thus (C.S. Lewis).

You're probably right though, it doesn't make for as interesting a discussion!

[Cuallito]

I think art is anything that is pleasing to the sences. Also, putting some meaning into it gets an extra cookie!

[Stefan Raab]

Originally posted by kedaman
I can value art but I don't give a damn about the artist unless he has spent efforts enough doing the art if you know what i mean, but that actually isn't about art anymore, it's about considering how good the artist is, not the art.

that is so true.

[SjR]

I say... fair play to anyone who makes money out of it!!

Did anyone hear about the art expedition in th UK earlier this year I think, where the art wasn't present, but in their place was descriptions of what the art looked like and you had to imagine it!! Cost a tenner!! I say, turn up and say to the geezer on the door "Now, imagine I'm giving you a tenner..."

[parksie]

Hahaha