Guest submarines Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Technical ability and art are not always one and the same. I could pretty easily reproduce my favorite piece of art in the world, by Peter Wileman: But that doesn't mean it's not art. :001_smile: I adore this piece. Something by Titian, though, while pretty, doesn't really make me feel anything the way this does. :iagree::iagree::iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) Oh yes! I was responding to the poster who suggested there was nothing new for western artists to do, so now they are doing work that really isn't art. (why can't I find that post now? lol) I was thinking she meant subject matter. I was conflating literature with art, and the idea that there are no new human stories, only re-tellings of ancient or universal themes. There are new ways to express via technology, no doubt, including buildings etc There are wonderfully interesting things being done with technology. ETA: Here are some interesting public art displays, an area of modern art that's currently rather dynamic. http://weburbanist.com/2009/03/07/nine-breathtaking-and-inspiring-pieces-of-public-art/ Edited November 6, 2011 by LibraryLover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFSinIL Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 While most of the posters are attractive in themselves, if an explanation is needed for the viewer to realize it is an Olympic poster then I'd say the poster is a FAIL as an image for the London Olympics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrissySC Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 If I could reproduce it then it is NOT art. I am sorry, I see no skill in the posters (see my first comment on this post) and if that is imagination than those guys are either insane or complete dullards. There comes a point when people need say that the Emperor is without clothes and in this case the posters are without artistic merit. Further, these are advertising pieces that are to "sell" the Olympics. As the average person could in no way intimate that a blotch on a piece of paper is supposed to represent the Olympics (hence the little explanatory passages that BBC had to add to each piece) these fail not only on an artistic level but also as pieces of advertisement. I do not think that it is a matter of if we can reproduce it. Consider that imitation or reproduction were/are tools used to teach art. Leonardo da Vinci is a well known example of that. I think it is whether or not we have the originality or the creativeness to invent on our own.:001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaners Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 One of those posters looked almost exactly like the art project my little girl brought home from her preschool class last week.:lol: My daughter is doing some watercolors that would fit in nicely. She is also experimenting with color and movement, but I think our fridge is the only venue she will be displayed in. (Stop by if you want to see material from her blue period.) Also. My kids are athletes. So maybe they could see things that a non-athlete couldn't? Pshh. I was a DI athlete and I couldn't see much. :tongue_smilie: I thought some of them were interesting to look at, but I didn't see much about the Olympics or athletic competition in most them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Laurie Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I agree that appreciation of different art forms and aesthetics is very personal. My quibble is that I fail to see any relation to the event in many of them, eg the stripes, or the "you inspire me". :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted November 6, 2011 Author Share Posted November 6, 2011 I do not think that it is a matter of if we can reproduce it. Consider that imitation or reproduction were/are tools used to teach art. Leonardo da Vinci is a well known example of that. I think it is whether or not we have the originality or the creativeness to invent on our own.:001_smile: ...and as we have seen by those who took the quiz (linked earlier) no one has yet been able to consistently tell the difference between "art" produced by a horse or an ape and that produced by a "modern artist". I would argue that this is most telling would you not agree? Or are we now arguing for the fact that a horse has "originality or creativeness" in producing "art"? Now I can give an absolute guarantee that I would be able to tell the difference, with a 100% certainty, between a Caravaggio and something produced by an ape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 If I could reproduce it then it is NOT art. That's a fairly ridiculous criteria for art. I didn't like many of the posters either, but I'm not going to say that something isn't art because it's too simple or too ugly or could have been made by a particular person who is not an artist in my opinion. :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeannpal Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 :iagree: I really liked some of them! I thought some were great. While I don't pretend to understand all modern art, I enjoyed reading the reasoning behind the posters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted November 6, 2011 Author Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) That's a fairly ridiculous criteria for art. I didn't like many of the posters either, but I'm not going to say that something isn't art because it's too simple or too ugly or could have been made by a particular person who is not an artist in my opinion. :p You completely miss the point. I do not have any artistic talent. I can not draw a straight line and have not progressed much beyond stick figures. If I could reproduce it then it is NOT art. This is not a comment on the ability of others, rather an acknowledgement that I have no artistic talent towards painting or drawing and that I could reproduce what was selected for those posters. Edited November 6, 2011 by pqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 You completely miss the point. I do not have any artistic talent. I can not draw a straight line and have not progressed much beyond stick figures. If I could reproduce it then it is NOT art. This is not a comment on the ability of others, rather an acknowledgement that I have no artistic talent towards painting or drawing and that I could reproduce what was selected for those posters. No, I get your point. You are not an artist in your opinion, so if you could do something, it must not be art. That's not the definition of what is art or not art. Yes, with contemporary art, technical difficulty is not the criteria for what qualifies as art. This is a fundamental misconception many people have about contemporary art. I say this as someone who is not generally a fan of this type of art. I may dislike it and think it's ugly or ridiculous but that doesn't mean that it's "not art". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) No, I get your point. You are not an artist in your opinion, so if you could do something, it must not be art. That's not the definition of what is art or not art. Yes, with contemporary art, technical difficulty is not the criteria for what qualifies as art. This is a fundamental misconception many people have about contemporary art. I say this as someone who is not generally a fan of this type of art. I may dislike it and think it's ugly or ridiculous but that doesn't mean that it's "not art". This is a fundamental issue that I have with much (but not all) "modern art" (beyond the fact that much of it is simply ugly). If technical difficulty is not a criteria and as the link, comparing "art" produced by a horse or ape to that produced by a "modern artist," demonstrated the idea or message behind such art is up to serious debate then what makes it art? What makes a great modern artist (if his work can be confused with that produced by an ape)? Is this a mass delusion? Are we as a society so inculcated to believe what the "experts" tell us that we will deny our own eyes? At what point does someone say that the images here http://reverent.org/bremen_artists.html are trash, pure and simple? Do I teach my child to see something in this or simply teach "believe your eyes"? How do I speak to a subliminal message when posters on this thread have demonstrated that it is not there? How do I teach artistic merit when this could be reproduced by an ape? Edited November 7, 2011 by pqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 This is a fundamental issue that I have with much (but not all) "modern art" (beyond the fact that much of it is simply ugly). If technical difficulty is not a criteria and as the link, comparing "art" produced by a horse or ape to that produced by a "modern artist," demonstrated the idea or message behind such art is up to serious debate then what makes it art? What makes a great modern artist (if his work can be confused with that produced by an ape)? Is this a mass delusion? Are we as a society so inculcated to believe what the "experts" tell us that we will deny our own eyes? At what point does someone say that the images here http://reverent.org/bremen_artists.html are trash, pure and simple? Art is about how a piece makes you feel, and that is such an individual experience that there simply cannot be any one-size-fits-all definition for art. You might get a thrill from studying something by Rembrandt; someone else might cry when they look at a red dot on a white canvas. Art isn't about being pretty. It's about making you feel something, for good or bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 Art is about how a piece makes you feel, and that is such an individual experience that there simply cannot be any one-size-fits-all definition for art. You might get a thrill from studying something by Rembrandt; someone else might cry when they look at a red dot on a white canvas. Art isn't about being pretty. It's about making you feel something, for good or bad. ...so an ape can produce art? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 ...so an ape can produce art? I agree there is some distinction though I cannot define exactly what it is. I can give an example, though. I was recently at an art gallery and saw a piece that was essentially a canvas with tire paint marks all over it. It was actually attractive to me, but very similar something that my preschooler has managed to make with a marble and paint. Contrast that to this http://thepirata.com/painting-of-lance-armstrong-using-a-tricycle/ Clearly the second one is art. The first? Is it decoration or art? What's the difference? If anything can be art, don't we devalue true art? Who ought to determine what is art? I don't know. Really, as long as it's private citizens buying and selling art with their own funds, I am fine with anyone deciding what they think is art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 ...so an ape can produce art? No. By definition, art is an expression of HUMAN creative skill and imagination. It is not a difficult concept to grasp, and again, I would highly suggest a study of art, including contemporary and modern art to expand your education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 ...so an ape can produce art? Sure. Apes have certainly been shown to have feelings. If an ape feels something when he is creating a piece of art, and that work evokes strong feelings in someone else, it's art. Art isn't some rarefied thing that only a select group can produce or understand. Its creation doesn't need to be restricted to the elite for it to have value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest submarines Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 No. By definition, art is an expression of HUMAN creative skill and imagination. It is not a difficult concept to grasp, and again, I would highly suggest a study of art, including contemporary and modern art to expand your education. Is it art if a tree paints it, but it was a human who conceived the project? http://www.timknowles.co.uk/Work/TreeDrawings/CircularWeepingWillow/tabid/266/Default.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 No. By definition, art is an expression of HUMAN creative skill and imagination. It is not a difficult concept to grasp, and again, I would highly suggest a study of art, including contemporary and modern art to expand your education. But is that because only humans are capable of creating art, or because our close relatives in the animal kingdom have never really been given much of a chance to try? People have been creating art for many thousands of years. The idea of imposing an arbitrary intelligence cutoff irks me. I guess I just have a much broader definition of art than most people, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 No. By definition, art is an expression of HUMAN creative skill and imagination. It is not a difficult concept to grasp, and again, I would highly suggest a study of art, including contemporary and modern art to expand your education. I searched on art created by animals and came up with a huge number of images. I liked some of them more than the Olympics posters. ;) So, are these not art? No snark intended. Since animals made them, are they decorations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 No. By definition, art is an expression of HUMAN creative skill and imagination. It is not a difficult concept to grasp, and again, I would highly suggest a study of art, including contemporary and modern art to expand your education. Tsk tsk no need to get nasty, and yes I actually have a fair amount of study in art which is perhaps why I have such an issue with some of the modern stuff. The point of the question was to get another poster's opinion. Incidentally will you make the same comment to Mergath or is the vitriol simply reserved for me? I do put it to you, if on the link people could not tell the difference between "art" produced by a human and that produced by an ape is the work by the human still art? Sure. Apes have certainly been shown to have feelings. If an ape feels something when he is creating a piece of art, and that work evokes strong feelings in someone else, it's art. Art isn't some rarefied thing that only a select group can produce or understand. Its creation doesn't need to be restricted to the elite for it to have value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I searched on art created by animals and came up with a huge number of images. I liked some of them more than the Olympics posters. ;) So, are these not art? No snark intended. Since animals made them, are they decorations? I know someone was selling paintings made by an elephant a few years ago and donating the money to help the national park in Zimbabwe. They were really neat looking too!!! That looked like art to me. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 What makes something art isn't its technical status. It is art if it is done with intent - as a form of communication. Usually as a form of communication with others, though some people make art to please only themselves. What makes the art "good" or "bad" is whether the idea the artist wants to communicate is true or interesting or somehow worthwhile, and how well the artist succeeds in communicating the idea to the viewer. Really great artists are generally going to have technical proficiency, and will want to have it, because it is a tool to help them communicate. The more the artist can create whatever he imagines in his mind, the better off he will be. More technical skills means more options for communicating his ideas. That doesn't mean though that the most complicated art, or that which is the most technically demanding, is the most "artistic". Or that even a great technician will always choose to express an idea in a technically difficult way - he'll choose the way that best communicates his idea. In general, the very best artists of all have been people who have ideas that are meaningful and worth considering; are able to see how to present that in their chosen medium; and have the technical skills to do so. So they will likely have at least some works that use those technical skills. Most artists are probably more varied - some are technically great but will less vision, or vice versa. I find that although technical skills are often not as emphasised these days, really good artists have them. Many choose to present their ideas in other ways though, for a variety of reasons, and it seems that often they don't really connect with the average viewer. I think that sometimes it is because their ideas are simply banal - like much modern philosophy they don't think there are any really true things to talk about, so they don't. Some, of course, are poseurs. And others seem to have as their audience not average people, but a kind of elite art-savvy group who know enough to "get" their language. When I look at that picture of the stripes, it may be that the artist has technical skill, who can say. But I don't think she has communicated anything much to most viewers, and it is a poster meant for public consumption. And if she has been drawing stripes since 1967, I can't help but think her view of the world is a little flat and tired. So, not great art. But it is art. As for Bremen artists, I suppose some may be art. Why are the animals creating them? It may just be a fun activity, or maybe not. Since I can't easily discern their intent, it is difficult to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 My favorite is the abstract representation of Big Ben. Cool! Some of them I didn't like. My son and I are using a Teaching Company series on art; I think we'll look through these together and analyze them. The stripes didn't do much for me, which surprises me, because she's been painting stripes since I was born, so they should be some awesome stripes by now! :D Wendi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Tsk tsk no need to get nasty, and yes I actually have a fair amount of study in art which is perhaps why I have such an issue with some of the modern stuff. The point of the question was to get another poster's opinion. Incidentally will you make the same comment to Mergath or is the vitriol simply reserved for me? I do put it to you, if on the link people could not tell the difference between "art" produced by a human and that produced by an ape is the work by the human still art? The difference is that if she made a comment like that to me, I wouldn't take it as vitriolic, simply as disagreement. Art is different for everyone. I think the reason you're having such a problem wrapping your mind around this is because you seem to need a standard definition when there just isn't one. Something that is art to me might not be art to you or to the next person. Some splashes of paint are nothing to you; to me they're an entire universe of beauty. You're never going to be able to squash this into a narrow set of parameters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 Art is different for everyone. I think the reason you're having such a problem wrapping your mind around this is because you seem to need a standard definition when there just isn't one. . Perhaps, but if you can not define it then what is it....or are we now down to using the famous definition of p@rnography? I suppose I simply need a level of skill, something that allows a great artist to stand out from the masses. The Olympic posters that started this interesting discussion simply did not exhibit that skill, that spark of something, that..... Another poster looked at the difference between art and decoration and perhaps that is the crux. They may be decoration but I would argue that they are not art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) What makes something art isn't its technical status. It is art if it is done with intent - as a form of communication. Usually as a form of communication with others, though some people make art to please only themselves. What makes the art "good" or "bad" is whether the idea the artist wants to communicate is true or interesting or somehow worthwhile, and how well the artist succeeds in communicating the idea to the viewer. Really great artists are generally going to have technical proficiency, and will want to have it, because it is a tool to help them communicate. The more the artist can create whatever he imagines in his mind, the better off he will be. More technical skills means more options for communicating his ideas. That doesn't mean though that the most complicated art, or that which is the most technically demanding, is the most "artistic". Or that even a great technician will always choose to express an idea in a technically difficult way - he'll choose the way that best communicates his idea. In general, the very best artists of all have been people who have ideas that are meaningful and worth considering; are able to see how to present that in their chosen medium; and have the technical skills to do so. So they will likely have at least some works that use those technical skills. Most artists are probably more varied - some are technically great but will less vision, or vice versa. I find that although technical skills are often not as emphasised these days, really good artists have them. Many choose to present their ideas in other ways though, for a variety of reasons, and it seems that often they don't really connect with the average viewer. I think that sometimes it is because their ideas are simply banal - like much modern philosophy they don't think there are any really true things to talk about, so they don't. Some, of course, are poseurs. And others seem to have as their audience not average people, but a kind of elite art-savvy group who know enough to "get" their language. When I look at that picture of the stripes, it may be that the artist has technical skill, who can say. But I don't think she has communicated anything much to most viewers, and it is a poster meant for public consumption. And if she has been drawing stripes since 1967, I can't help but think her view of the world is a little flat and tired. So, not great art. But it is art. As for Bremen artists, I suppose some may be art. Why are the animals creating them? It may just be a fun activity, or maybe not. Since I can't easily discern their intent, it is difficult to say. Thanks for this post. What you said makes a lot of sense. (Though I still don't know see that striped poster as being art. It looks more like fun wrapping paper to me. But I loved your analysis of it) Edited November 7, 2011 by MSNative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Perhaps, but if you can not define it then what is it....or are we now down to using the famous definition of p@rnography? I suppose I simply need a level of skill, something that allows a great artist to stand out from the masses. The Olympic posters that started this interesting discussion simply did not exhibit that skill, that spark of something, that..... Another poster looked at the difference between art and decoration and perhaps that is the crux. They may be decoration but I would argue that they are not art. The idea of art can be broadly defined, just not according to skill level. I would probably just say it is "a visual representation that evokes strong feeling in another individual." And that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaichiki Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 If I could reproduce it then it is NOT art. ??? Seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 ??? Seriously? Seriously, I do not have an artistic bone in my body when it comes to drawing or painting and anyone who saw my poor attempts and declared them to be art would be blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RegGuheert Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Seriously, I do not have an artistic bone in my body when it comes to drawing or painting and anyone who saw my poor attempts and declared them to be art would be blind.Then I see no reason why you should not be commissioned to make a poster for the 2012 Olympic Games in London! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiguirre Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I suppose I simply need a level of skill, something that allows a great artist to stand out from the masses. The invention of photography forever changed the way in which a painter stands out from the masses. Painting no longer needs to accurately record what we see, it needs to record what we're feeling when we see it in order to interest an audience that could just look at a photograph. Here's a link to David's Death of Marat from 1793: http://www.abcgallery.com/D/david/david7.html Here's a link to Monet's Impression: Sunrise from 1873: http://www.webexhibits.org/colorart/monet.html In between, Daguerre started producing daguerrotypes and the purpose of painting changed irrevocably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest submarines Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Bridged Riley (The artist who painted the stripes poster). I think most of us are more familiar with her art than we realise. At the very bottom there are some of the covers of her books--I've certainly seen these images. Anyone else? ETA: Certainly not a "flat and tired" view of the world, eh? ;-) Edited November 7, 2011 by sunflowers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 If I could reproduce it then it is NOT art. I once heard a sort of joke along these lines. Two people are looking at some modern art. Imagine it's Jasper Johns or Albers or something. Person One: Oh come on. I could do *that.* Person Two: But you didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Bridged Riley (The artist who painted the stripes poster). I think most of us are more familiar with her art than we realise. At the very bottom there are some of the covers of her books--I've certainly seen these images. Anyone else? I did recognize some of her stuff. It reminds me of the Washington Color School, especially Gene Davis, which I mostly know because it's a bit local and there's a nice room of them in the SAAM. We saw a great exhibit of the works from that group last year at the Corcoran here and it was just lovely. The kids were really into it. And they went home and began painting stripes. So, modern artists, I guess. I recognized almost everything on that quiz that pqr posted earlier, but I hang out in galleries. This is an interesting discussion, but I have to admit it makes me a bit tired when I hear people going out of their way to complain about modern art. It's just an old conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaichiki Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Person One: Oh come on. I could do *that.* Person Two: But you didn't. :lol: I've heard SO many people say stuff like this! Just LOVE the reply! I'm gonna USE that! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I'm thinking that the message is getting lost in the medium. Not a fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Bridged Riley (The artist who painted the stripes poster). I think most of us are more familiar with her art than we realise. At the very bottom there are some of the covers of her books--I've certainly seen these images. Anyone else? ETA: Certainly not a "flat and tired" view of the world, eh? ;-) And even the ones that are "just stripes" are painted completely by hand, with no masking tape or anything. Not many of us could do that, I have to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCB Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Then I see no reason why you should not be commissioned to make a poster for the 2012 Olympic Games in London! :D :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhotoGal Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I don't know. They don't look well done to me. They look like a middle school poster contest. Sorry! I think what makes something considered "art" is often how famous the artist is. Once you are known in the art world, you can make whatever. I actually really love the art made by trees (linked to earlier). There is also one in the slideshow where the artist sent a pen in the mail. The result looks really cool. In my mind, this is art because the artist had an original concept that hadn't been done before. I find it more interesting than stripes or preschool finger painting, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtroad Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 If I could reproduce it then it is NOT art. ....... Further, these are advertising pieces that are to "sell" the Olympics. As the average person could in no way intimate that a blotch on a piece of paper is supposed to represent the Olympics (hence the little explanatory passages that BBC had to add to each piece) these fail not only on an artistic level but also as pieces of advertisement. :lol: Anything is called art today..... it no longer takes a gift & years of practice/struggles... just splash, smash, splatter and give it cool name. As for "selling the Olympics"..... :iagree:..... Where was anything to make me think OLYMPICS... in LONDON.... WOW!.... GOT TO GO! :confused: It didn't! How hilarious! and Sad! Maybe they will go back to the "drawing board".;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 But is that because only humans are capable of creating art, or because our close relatives in the animal kingdom have never really been given much of a chance to try? People have been creating art for many thousands of years. The idea of imposing an arbitrary intelligence cutoff irks me. I guess I just have a much broader definition of art than most people, lol. Yes. Only humans are capable of producing art. There must be intention. A non-human animal cannot intentionally produce art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Tsk tsk no need to get nasty, and yes I actually have a fair amount of study in art which is perhaps why I have such an issue with some of the modern stuff. The point of the question was to get another poster's opinion. Incidentally will you make the same comment to Mergath or is the vitriol simply reserved for me? I do put it to you, if on the link people could not tell the difference between "art" produced by a human and that produced by an ape is the work by the human still art? I treat all asinine statements similarly. It is asinine, and ignorant, for you to mock these people's artwork. They are not even random people asked to create a poster. They are actually established artists. So, no. It's not just for you. You're not that special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I once heard a sort of joke along these lines. Two people are looking at some modern art. Imagine it's Jasper Johns or Albers or something. Person One: Oh come on. I could do *that.* Person Two: But you didn't. Exactly. And FTR, most modern art is not my preference, but I can still appreciate it for the art it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Of course Adolf Hitler loved the 1936 Olympic Poster. His own art was "pure kitsch" and he was famously not admitted to art school. Hitler also lampooned Modern Art and organized the famous "Degenerate Art Show" (Entartete Kunst) which was designed to mock Modernism, but proved to be (unintentionally) one of the greatest art shows ever. Of course Hitler was a Philistine. Phil/is/tine definition: 1) a person who is lacking in or hostile or smugly indifferent to cultural values, intellectual pursuits, aesthetic refinement, etc., or is contentedly commonplace in ideas and tastes. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 IMHO Olympic posters should accomplish one or all of three objectives. Convey the spirit of Olympic competition, convey the intersection of the games and the host nation's culture, serve as an advertisement inducing people to attend or watch. On the whole, I think these posters have failed in their mission. In 100 years few will make people immediately say "2012 London Olympics" unless they have some prior knowledge. This form of public art isn't intended to serve merely as decoration -- it has a purpose. I think they fail in their purpose. However, I thoroughly disagree with Bill on his definition of philistine. Disliking a particular work of art, style of art, or artist doesn't make one a philistine. It doesn't display a lack of education or lack of sensitivity. It is a matter of personal taste. What a horrible world it would be if we had to like everything or be considered uncultured. Dislike doesn't equal insensitivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrissySC Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 ...and as we have seen by those who took the quiz (linked earlier) no one has yet been able to consistently tell the difference between "art" produced by a horse or an ape and that produced by a "modern artist". I would argue that this is most telling would you not agree? Or are we now arguing for the fact that a horse has "originality or creativeness" in producing "art"? Now I can give an absolute guarantee that I would be able to tell the difference, with a 100% certainty, between a Caravaggio and something produced by an ape. With this added to the conversation, I must say that, while I try and respect the art shown, your comments make it very hard to convince myself that my own statements have some truth. :lol: I cannot find much more defense for their "art", but I did try my best to appreciate their attempt. Even that has a ring of condescension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 ...so an ape can produce art? Actually countless animals produce what I call art. Have you ever taken the time to really look at a bird's nest, or a spider's web? Both are amazing works of art, so much so that human artists often reproduce them in their works. Taste is all together another question. So, you dislike modern art, cool... but isn't it really the $$$ that has gone to pay for the posters, that's got you all hot and bothered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I like the Big Ben one. I also thought the first one was okay- not great and also the one with olympic rings from bottles. DIdn't like any of the others. I didn't do well on the quizzes= 33% on the first one ( I only recognized one and thought another one might be something) and I tended to vote artist for the ones I liked better and the article writer was more to my taste. THen I got 44% on the animal one. I didn;t do that by liking but I have to say that I liked something by one of the animals much better than the human ones. Oh, and I do like some more current art= just not most of these posters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 I treat all asinine statements similarly. It is asinine, and ignorant, for you to mock these people's artwork. They are not even random people asked to create a poster. They are actually established artists. So, no. It's not just for you. You're not that special. Why? Explain, but not with some comment about them being established because this guy is too and I will mock his "art" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ Simply because someone is established does not mean that he is talented or good. Look to modern music for scores of examples of this. Arguing that established equates to anything these days is actually short sighted and rather....what was your word...ignorant. Further, is Mergath now ignorant because she stated that an ape can produce art? How about Jenny in Atlanta? Are the numerous posters who stated that the Olympic posters were .... also asinine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.