A bunch of 4-yr old art prodigies
March 13, 2005 2:26 AM Subscribe
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder*
*Statement suspect for museum curators, "critics", "experts" and "connosieurs".
*Statement suspect for museum curators, "critics", "experts" and "connosieurs".
There's good art, and then there's famous art. Malevich's Black Circle is worth a lot of money not because it is good to look at, but rather because he is a famous painter. He became famous by painting things that were much more representational and pleasing to look at. Paintings like the Black Circle are only interesting if you know the painter's history and intent. In any case, the Black Circle is worth millions for the same reason that a bat owned by Babe Ruth might be worth millions. So showing it to random people and asking if it's art is kind of a silly exercise.
Also, I take issue with the author's implication that those paintings done by four year-olds are not art. They certainly are neither famous nor ingenious, but some of them are pretty good. In any case, I don't see how anyone can say "no" when shown those and asked without any further explanation "is this art?" Yeah, I know, he wants to say that those paintings look like they took more effort to make than some of the famous pieces, but that's not how the quiz was presented.
posted by epimorph at 4:24 AM on March 13, 2005
Also, I take issue with the author's implication that those paintings done by four year-olds are not art. They certainly are neither famous nor ingenious, but some of them are pretty good. In any case, I don't see how anyone can say "no" when shown those and asked without any further explanation "is this art?" Yeah, I know, he wants to say that those paintings look like they took more effort to make than some of the famous pieces, but that's not how the quiz was presented.
posted by epimorph at 4:24 AM on March 13, 2005
A very interesting, though not quite original, piece of stunt journalism. Interesting, but about as scientific as a telephone poll. Remember, journalistic polls, such as this, are entirely self selecting.
What self-respecting modern art lover would take part in such a survey? Stossel doesn't say how many people walked away, wry smile intact.
posted by MrMerlot at 4:38 AM on March 13, 2005
What self-respecting modern art lover would take part in such a survey? Stossel doesn't say how many people walked away, wry smile intact.
posted by MrMerlot at 4:38 AM on March 13, 2005
Didn't somebody do something similar to this before, using "works" produced by a painting elephant? No, seriously, I don't think I was tripping at the time... I have this recollection that somebody trained an elephant to hold brushes in its trunk and make rudimentary swipes on a canvas... and they got a number of famous artists to pontificate on the merits of the results and, inevitably, some said they were wonderful.
On the question of what makes something "art" as opposed to "a pointless mess" or "a piece of tacky crap", I've always taken the (possibly rather simplistic) view that the key factor is the intent to communicate ideas, concepts and emotions via an indirect means of expression: paint, prose, poetry, plays, sound, stone, whatever the medium might be. Now, what makes it good art is a much longer discussion. I agree with what epimorph said though.
posted by Decani at 5:10 AM on March 13, 2005
On the question of what makes something "art" as opposed to "a pointless mess" or "a piece of tacky crap", I've always taken the (possibly rather simplistic) view that the key factor is the intent to communicate ideas, concepts and emotions via an indirect means of expression: paint, prose, poetry, plays, sound, stone, whatever the medium might be. Now, what makes it good art is a much longer discussion. I agree with what epimorph said though.
posted by Decani at 5:10 AM on March 13, 2005
Let's do an informal survey where we take clips from John Stossel pieces, Entertainment Tonight, amateur wrestling and Frontline and ask people if it's journalism. I bet 3 out of 4 people would classify Stossel as a backyard wrestler.
posted by fleetmouse at 5:30 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by fleetmouse at 5:30 AM on March 13, 2005
Actually Decani, the elephants made a cameo on the show. They were from Thailand and looked to be directed by their jockeys, as to when to paint and when not to. The piece they showed was a landscape and not abstract, unlike these.
posted by jikel_morten at 5:35 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by jikel_morten at 5:35 AM on March 13, 2005
Yes, 4 year olds and elephants can make art.
What they can't do is develop a smooth line of sales patter to convince gallery owners, critics, art historians and wealthy art-buying patrons that their art is worth millions.
In short, 4 year olds and elephants can 'walk the walk,' but cannot 'talk the talk.'
And that's why 4 year olds and elephants need agents.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 5:40 AM on March 13, 2005
What they can't do is develop a smooth line of sales patter to convince gallery owners, critics, art historians and wealthy art-buying patrons that their art is worth millions.
In short, 4 year olds and elephants can 'walk the walk,' but cannot 'talk the talk.'
And that's why 4 year olds and elephants need agents.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 5:40 AM on March 13, 2005
The writer of that article is pretty stupid, but he's right that 'The Gates' are not art.
Anyway, if you liked The Gates, you'll love The Crackers.
posted by bingo at 6:02 AM on March 13, 2005
Anyway, if you liked The Gates, you'll love The Crackers.
posted by bingo at 6:02 AM on March 13, 2005
bingo: what is it about "The Gates" that makes it not art?
posted by Decani at 6:15 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by Decani at 6:15 AM on March 13, 2005
Shame they didn't link to the survey's pix. Daksya, I like your analogy with music. It does take exposure/education to better appreciate the finer points of a lot of 'art'. Then subjectivity fuels the arguments.
posted by peacay at 6:19 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by peacay at 6:19 AM on March 13, 2005
The politicians may say they're starved for funds, but they're still giving your hard-earned tax dollars to museums that exhibit these kinds of things.
Damn! Stossel figured it out. The politician/artist conspiracy has been uncovered....
posted by R. Mutt at 6:30 AM on March 13, 2005
Damn! Stossel figured it out. The politician/artist conspiracy has been uncovered....
posted by R. Mutt at 6:30 AM on March 13, 2005
Decani: It's a combination of its lack of aesthetic value and the fact that no talent or insight of any kind was necessary in its creation.
posted by bingo at 6:30 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by bingo at 6:30 AM on March 13, 2005
bingo: yet... many people found The Gates to be beautiful and striking. Were they simply wrong to do so?
And also: you believe that manifest skill (talent) is crucial if something is to be regarded as art? So how would you distinguish between a skilled craftsman who makes an aesthetically pleasing object, and a skilled artist who does the same thing?
posted by Decani at 6:37 AM on March 13, 2005
And also: you believe that manifest skill (talent) is crucial if something is to be regarded as art? So how would you distinguish between a skilled craftsman who makes an aesthetically pleasing object, and a skilled artist who does the same thing?
posted by Decani at 6:37 AM on March 13, 2005
When Stossel brings up government funding of "these kinds of things", he shows his true colors. This is a political agenda piece, pure and simple. The right would love to see the complete abolition of public funding of the arts.
posted by melt away at 6:38 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by melt away at 6:38 AM on March 13, 2005
bingo: yet... many people found The Gates to be beautiful and striking. Were they simply wrong to do so?
Yes. Though that doesn't make them bad people. And many of them were probably influenced by the publicity.
And also: you believe that manifest skill (talent) is crucial if something is to be regarded as art?
Skill and talent are not the same thing, so it's hard for me to answer that question.
posted by bingo at 6:47 AM on March 13, 2005
Yes. Though that doesn't make them bad people. And many of them were probably influenced by the publicity.
And also: you believe that manifest skill (talent) is crucial if something is to be regarded as art?
Skill and talent are not the same thing, so it's hard for me to answer that question.
posted by bingo at 6:47 AM on March 13, 2005
Bingo, many thanks! I may buy the postcards, at least.
As to subject at hand-
Much of the argument seems to settle on price and notoriety of the creator. A Twombly by any other name would not smell as sweet, or rank.
Which means we are frequently valuing material as artifacts rather than art. No harm in that, just let's be up front about it.
There are times I go through real deal museums (Metropolitan Museum of Art, not MOMA- well, okay, MOMA too) and look at name brand or nearly name brand pictures I'm not particularly familiar with and ask myself whether I would notice them at a flea market.
To be wholly honest, the answer is frequently, if painfully, no.
Which means, I guess, that I either have unreasonably rarified taste, or no taste at all.
posted by IndigoJones at 6:51 AM on March 13, 2005
As to subject at hand-
Much of the argument seems to settle on price and notoriety of the creator. A Twombly by any other name would not smell as sweet, or rank.
Which means we are frequently valuing material as artifacts rather than art. No harm in that, just let's be up front about it.
There are times I go through real deal museums (Metropolitan Museum of Art, not MOMA- well, okay, MOMA too) and look at name brand or nearly name brand pictures I'm not particularly familiar with and ask myself whether I would notice them at a flea market.
To be wholly honest, the answer is frequently, if painfully, no.
Which means, I guess, that I either have unreasonably rarified taste, or no taste at all.
posted by IndigoJones at 6:51 AM on March 13, 2005
I can't take Stossel too seriously, but I suppose a lot of this comes down to the (debatable) u-curve notion: that as young children, particularly pre-school aged ones, we have a better natural sense of composition than we do as older children or adolescents, much in the same way that very young children tend to have very correct, natural posture.
I took the "test" linked to in the article and got a perfect score, even though the painting by "4-year-olds Ben and Michael" was pretty good.
If the children had been 8 or 9, chances are that unless they were truly exceptional, their work wouldn't exhibit any of the "modern" (read: abstract expressionist an onward) sensibilities that are valued in current artmaking.
The real kicker in the article came at the end, though:
But you should know that you're contributing your money too. The politicians may say they're starved for funds, but they're still giving your hard-earned tax dollars to museums that exhibit these kinds of things.
Christ, have we not gotten past this yet? "Remember guys, those nasty politicians are wasting your hard-earned tax dollars on arts funding! Stop them before it's too late!"
Ugh.
on preview: looks like R. Mutt (hah!) and melt away uncovered the political conspiracy first.
posted by drumcorpse at 6:55 AM on March 13, 2005
I took the "test" linked to in the article and got a perfect score, even though the painting by "4-year-olds Ben and Michael" was pretty good.
If the children had been 8 or 9, chances are that unless they were truly exceptional, their work wouldn't exhibit any of the "modern" (read: abstract expressionist an onward) sensibilities that are valued in current artmaking.
The real kicker in the article came at the end, though:
But you should know that you're contributing your money too. The politicians may say they're starved for funds, but they're still giving your hard-earned tax dollars to museums that exhibit these kinds of things.
Christ, have we not gotten past this yet? "Remember guys, those nasty politicians are wasting your hard-earned tax dollars on arts funding! Stop them before it's too late!"
Ugh.
on preview: looks like R. Mutt (hah!) and melt away uncovered the political conspiracy first.
posted by drumcorpse at 6:55 AM on March 13, 2005
Seems like a pretty sleazy exercise.
Look at the way he moves smoothly between the "ugly nuisance" of The Gates in Central Park to complaining about how the government is giving away your "hard-earned tax dollars." Except that the Gates was privately funded by Christo himself, but is still a subject for complaint. It's clear from that that public spending is a smokescreen: the real hatred is against art itself, however it's funded.
Nor is it particularly convincing that if public funding was removed, art would become more populist. The private art market mostly sells to a tiny number of rich people: seems more likely to me that art would become even more elitist if that happened.
Also seems to be another example of attacking the enormously broad target of a category itself; rather like those people who say that the Internet is useless because it contains so much rubbish. The test isn't how much rubbish you can find, it's whether you can find anything that's worthwhile to you.
I think the next exercise should be to take some extracts from James Joyce and E.E. Cummings and compare them against schoolchildrens' writing. Then if most people can't tell the difference, start complaining about how the government wastes our hard-earned tax money on so-called "literacy"...
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:56 AM on March 13, 2005 [1 favorite]
Look at the way he moves smoothly between the "ugly nuisance" of The Gates in Central Park to complaining about how the government is giving away your "hard-earned tax dollars." Except that the Gates was privately funded by Christo himself, but is still a subject for complaint. It's clear from that that public spending is a smokescreen: the real hatred is against art itself, however it's funded.
Nor is it particularly convincing that if public funding was removed, art would become more populist. The private art market mostly sells to a tiny number of rich people: seems more likely to me that art would become even more elitist if that happened.
Also seems to be another example of attacking the enormously broad target of a category itself; rather like those people who say that the Internet is useless because it contains so much rubbish. The test isn't how much rubbish you can find, it's whether you can find anything that's worthwhile to you.
I think the next exercise should be to take some extracts from James Joyce and E.E. Cummings and compare them against schoolchildrens' writing. Then if most people can't tell the difference, start complaining about how the government wastes our hard-earned tax money on so-called "literacy"...
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:56 AM on March 13, 2005 [1 favorite]
From the article, one art critic says:
"I think you need to know the story behind the work to understand its full impact and meaning."
While the back-story may add to the experience it doesn't address what art is, and John Stossel was wrong to imply this quote was an elitist excuse for not picking out Great Art from a lineup.
I went to 'Sensation' in Brooklyn several years ago, one reason being to see the so-called 'Blessed Virgin smeared in elephant dung' for myself. As it turned out, the piece wasn't the desecration Giuliani and others decried (probably sold a ton of tickets tho). Every artwork was unforgettably evocative (except for Damien Hirst's, which seemed to me not much of anything).
Great art isn't something that a great artist did. If it does not speak for itself, no amount of explication by an authority figure (critic, conoisseur, etc) makes it so. Art is a personal experience that can't be uniformly measured. Stossel took what could have been an interesting topic and made it a lame 'damn snobs expose'. Not that we'll start seeing articles about 'degenerate art' anytime soon...but this article is not very encouraging.
daksyn, thanks for the post.
posted by nj_subgenius at 7:27 AM on March 13, 2005
"I think you need to know the story behind the work to understand its full impact and meaning."
While the back-story may add to the experience it doesn't address what art is, and John Stossel was wrong to imply this quote was an elitist excuse for not picking out Great Art from a lineup.
I went to 'Sensation' in Brooklyn several years ago, one reason being to see the so-called 'Blessed Virgin smeared in elephant dung' for myself. As it turned out, the piece wasn't the desecration Giuliani and others decried (probably sold a ton of tickets tho). Every artwork was unforgettably evocative (except for Damien Hirst's, which seemed to me not much of anything).
Great art isn't something that a great artist did. If it does not speak for itself, no amount of explication by an authority figure (critic, conoisseur, etc) makes it so. Art is a personal experience that can't be uniformly measured. Stossel took what could have been an interesting topic and made it a lame 'damn snobs expose'. Not that we'll start seeing articles about 'degenerate art' anytime soon...but this article is not very encouraging.
daksyn, thanks for the post.
posted by nj_subgenius at 7:27 AM on March 13, 2005
WHAT IS ART AND WHAT ISNT ART?
LET THE TV PEOPLE DECIDE!
die scum.
posted by Satapher at 7:41 AM on March 13, 2005
LET THE TV PEOPLE DECIDE!
die scum.
posted by Satapher at 7:41 AM on March 13, 2005
children are stupid! adults are smart!
animals are souless! humans are advanced!
posted by Satapher at 7:45 AM on March 13, 2005
animals are souless! humans are advanced!
posted by Satapher at 7:45 AM on March 13, 2005
The one that received the most votes as a "real" artwork was a piece of framed fabric "20/20" bought at a thrift store for $5
exactly.
posted by Satapher at 7:50 AM on March 13, 2005
exactly.
posted by Satapher at 7:50 AM on March 13, 2005
If only someone had killed Duchamp before he signed a urinal, none of this ever would have happened.
posted by sachinag at 7:53 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by sachinag at 7:53 AM on March 13, 2005
daksya, sorry, this isn't an interesting subject. On the whole it's pretty silly. All this guy has established is that people prefer children's art to many modern masterpieces. This isn't surprising. People prefer your basic paint-by-numbers to most of the art, modern or not, that sits in museums. What would've been interesting is if he'd asked these people to defend their choices and their rankings. If there was some sort of critical foundation for ranking the children's art over the curator's art then I'd be interested. But that would probably never happen.
posted by nixerman at 8:01 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by nixerman at 8:01 AM on March 13, 2005
In related news, 96% of people surveyed could not tell the difference between real scientific formulae and fictional ones, and 99% of people surveyed could not tell the difference between Christian Fundamentalists and those posing as fundies.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:33 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:33 AM on March 13, 2005
Bottom line, the indictment is really against abstract and found art as opposed to made from scratch representational art. The man on the street instinctively agrees with Seneca:
That which achieves its effect by accident is not art
I happen to like a lot of abstract art. I also find a lot of it rubbish. I also find the prices- interesting. And frequently distracting and beside the point (assuming there is a point, which is not always a given).
The question for the man in the street is, at what point is he being conned. Or at what point is the artist just nuts. Say what you like about, say, A Friend in Need, at least you know that some skill went into the making. Which is not the case with some of the more egregious works Mr Stossel sites.
But what do I know? I'm seriously considering buying a poster of The Crackers.
posted by IndigoJones at 8:48 AM on March 13, 2005
That which achieves its effect by accident is not art
I happen to like a lot of abstract art. I also find a lot of it rubbish. I also find the prices- interesting. And frequently distracting and beside the point (assuming there is a point, which is not always a given).
The question for the man in the street is, at what point is he being conned. Or at what point is the artist just nuts. Say what you like about, say, A Friend in Need, at least you know that some skill went into the making. Which is not the case with some of the more egregious works Mr Stossel sites.
But what do I know? I'm seriously considering buying a poster of The Crackers.
posted by IndigoJones at 8:48 AM on March 13, 2005
Why do people who don't really like art, make art, or pay attention attention to art feel so completely comfortable passing judgment? It's only easy if you don't think about it.
I try to step away from the question of what is art, and even what is good art. Picasso's Bull (made from a bicycle seat and handle-bars) could have been purchased at the Salvation Army. Picasso painted mass-produced plates and vases and sold them to raise funds for a pottery studio. According to Stossel's logic neither of these art because they are mass-produced. Personally, I find the Bull interesting, and don't care for the plates, but I don't see how anyone could argue that either or both are or are not art.
The hideous fabric and ugly glasses are both products of design, they're just not unique. And those kids were being creative with their finger prints. Argh, why I am thinking about what John Stossel says? He's an asshole.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:57 AM on March 13, 2005
I try to step away from the question of what is art, and even what is good art. Picasso's Bull (made from a bicycle seat and handle-bars) could have been purchased at the Salvation Army. Picasso painted mass-produced plates and vases and sold them to raise funds for a pottery studio. According to Stossel's logic neither of these art because they are mass-produced. Personally, I find the Bull interesting, and don't care for the plates, but I don't see how anyone could argue that either or both are or are not art.
The hideous fabric and ugly glasses are both products of design, they're just not unique. And those kids were being creative with their finger prints. Argh, why I am thinking about what John Stossel says? He's an asshole.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:57 AM on March 13, 2005
Ladies and Gentlemen, John Stossel!
About fifteen years ago, ArtForum declared the Bic pen the greatest work of art in history and made a pretty great case for it. Stossel might be catching up by ranking a manufactured item number on in his poll.
posted by 3.2.3 at 9:44 AM on March 13, 2005
About fifteen years ago, ArtForum declared the Bic pen the greatest work of art in history and made a pretty great case for it. Stossel might be catching up by ranking a manufactured item number on in his poll.
posted by 3.2.3 at 9:44 AM on March 13, 2005
Ugh, thanks for warning me the linked article is by Stoessel. Knowing that, I'll just skip it. He's such an idjit, he belongs on Faux.
posted by NorthernLite at 9:49 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by NorthernLite at 9:49 AM on March 13, 2005
If only someone had killed Duchamp before he signed a urinal
He may have actually made that urinal and all of his other readymades. As this link says, it'd indeed redefine art history.
posted by NickDouglas at 10:23 AM on March 13, 2005
He may have actually made that urinal and all of his other readymades. As this link says, it'd indeed redefine art history.
posted by NickDouglas at 10:23 AM on March 13, 2005
I see, it's an update on the Boronali prank, organised by writer Roland Dorgeles in 1910 to make fun of Picasso and Juan Gris: Boronali was the name of the mascot of the famous Cabaret "Le Lapin Agile", and Dorgeles and his friends made it paint a picture with its tail. The painting, called "Sunset on the Adriatic", was shown (and sold) at the Salon des Independants. Everyone had a good laugh. Picasso, however, is still Picasso.
And it's still the same silly arguments that we've been hearing for more than a century: modern art is a big fraud, the art world is full of snobs and art costs taxpayers way too much money, blah blah blah. I heard that from my grandfather, who lived in Paris in the 20-30s and still hated "modern" art with a passion because it was made by "madmen". As a result, I inherited a bunch of sorry paintings and not a single Chagall, unlike a colleague of mine whose grandfather was a little more open-minded and befriended the interesting people of that time and place.
There are interesting, challenging things to say about contemporary art, but they're not in that crap article. And I got the kids' paintings right in the test, it wasn't that difficult.
Btw, was this image created by a 4-year old?
posted by elgilito at 10:26 AM on March 13, 2005
And it's still the same silly arguments that we've been hearing for more than a century: modern art is a big fraud, the art world is full of snobs and art costs taxpayers way too much money, blah blah blah. I heard that from my grandfather, who lived in Paris in the 20-30s and still hated "modern" art with a passion because it was made by "madmen". As a result, I inherited a bunch of sorry paintings and not a single Chagall, unlike a colleague of mine whose grandfather was a little more open-minded and befriended the interesting people of that time and place.
There are interesting, challenging things to say about contemporary art, but they're not in that crap article. And I got the kids' paintings right in the test, it wasn't that difficult.
Btw, was this image created by a 4-year old?
posted by elgilito at 10:26 AM on March 13, 2005
Looks like Turner to me.
One of the most misplaced fears of our culture is that of being duped into giving adult legitimacy to the actions of children. All the while, we endorse the most outrageously immature actions of authoritative adults.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:38 AM on March 13, 2005
One of the most misplaced fears of our culture is that of being duped into giving adult legitimacy to the actions of children. All the while, we endorse the most outrageously immature actions of authoritative adults.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:38 AM on March 13, 2005
"Do I have to remind he reader that form as such is a neutral element as far as artistic quality is concerned?" -Clement Greenberg
posted by jjray at 10:51 AM on March 13, 2005
posted by jjray at 10:51 AM on March 13, 2005
Man, lots of fulminating against this article in here. I didn't see too much in it that I found objectionable. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... so what? You really can't appreciate a lot of modern art pieces unless you know the history and context behind them, and to expect everyone to know the history and context really is pure elitism.
I like Turner. Other people don't. I recognize that I know things about impressionism that they don't and that's why I like it and they don't. I certainly don't expect them to have to read up on impressionism. There are plenty of perfectly good ways to live lives and to be moved; everyone can have his or her own conception is what is aesthetically beautiful, and museums will cater to the select few who have background knowledge about art history. Why is this objectionable? Why should I care that most perfectly good, intelligent people aren't moved by modern art?
posted by painquale at 1:09 PM on March 13, 2005
I like Turner. Other people don't. I recognize that I know things about impressionism that they don't and that's why I like it and they don't. I certainly don't expect them to have to read up on impressionism. There are plenty of perfectly good ways to live lives and to be moved; everyone can have his or her own conception is what is aesthetically beautiful, and museums will cater to the select few who have background knowledge about art history. Why is this objectionable? Why should I care that most perfectly good, intelligent people aren't moved by modern art?
posted by painquale at 1:09 PM on March 13, 2005
bingo: so... if these misguided people who thought The Gates was art happen to see another work they like, and also think is art... how will they know if they're right or not? What criteria can they use to help them make a sound judgement on artistic merit? Should they ask you, perhaps? Or any other person who disliked The Gates? What if one of those other people dislikes something you think is great art? Or vice versa? Who should our poor, artistically-clueless media coat tail rider ask then? How will they know whose judgement is at fault?
I trust you see where my flippancy is leading here.
Skill and talent are not the same thing, so it's hard for me to answer that question.
Fair enough. Let me rephrase it then.
"And also: you believe that manifest talent is crucial if something is to be regarded as art?"
posted by Decani at 1:31 PM on March 13, 2005
I trust you see where my flippancy is leading here.
Skill and talent are not the same thing, so it's hard for me to answer that question.
Fair enough. Let me rephrase it then.
"And also: you believe that manifest talent is crucial if something is to be regarded as art?"
posted by Decani at 1:31 PM on March 13, 2005
If you take the quiz and say that the stuff the four-year-olds made is art, it says "Wrong" in big bold letters. Apparently John Stossel knows what art is.
posted by mai at 1:47 PM on March 13, 2005
posted by mai at 1:47 PM on March 13, 2005
You really can't appreciate a lot of modern art pieces unless you know the history and context behind them, and to expect everyone to know the history and context really is pure elitism.
It's true that contemporary art is often self-referential and may need a decoder of some sort. The art world (artists, critics, patrons) just love that and do play the elite card. But then the people who appreciated and bought the "academic" art of the previous centuries used to judge it by even stricter criteria. Religious art was also constrained by complex sets of rules.
However, the fact that the discourse about art is invasive doesn't prevent most of contemporary art to be perfectly enjoyable at a very emotional level, by anyone. What Stossel says about Pollock really pisses me off. I was a young teen when I first saw a Pollock painting, and it was the real thing, not a reproduction (The Deep). I rushed to buy the poster without knowing anything about the painter. I just found it to be a tremendous, hauting image. I also remember having as similar experience with Soulages, cutting the tiny little picture from a magazine. Contemporary art often speaks directly to the senses. Need some comfort? Go to the Pompidou Centre and take refuge in Beuys's Plight installation. The idea that there are only a few limited, traditional ways to convey emotions and that everything else is snobbish crap is just maddening. There's snobbish crap in art, contemporary or not, and then there are gazillions of pics that are also called art because there show kittens and kittens are cute.
It took the curious minds of the Surrealists to understand that "primitive" art was real art, not the pagan byproduct of the lesser minds of the colonised. I believe that what many people lack is exposure to contemporary art, to its emotional variety and sheer inventiveness, at a very young age. After that, the sensitivity channels dry up, all receptivity is lost, the opinion of one's peers take over and people start claiming that anything they can't appreciate is worthless (also valid for music, movies, books, food...).
posted by elgilito at 4:09 PM on March 13, 2005
It's true that contemporary art is often self-referential and may need a decoder of some sort. The art world (artists, critics, patrons) just love that and do play the elite card. But then the people who appreciated and bought the "academic" art of the previous centuries used to judge it by even stricter criteria. Religious art was also constrained by complex sets of rules.
However, the fact that the discourse about art is invasive doesn't prevent most of contemporary art to be perfectly enjoyable at a very emotional level, by anyone. What Stossel says about Pollock really pisses me off. I was a young teen when I first saw a Pollock painting, and it was the real thing, not a reproduction (The Deep). I rushed to buy the poster without knowing anything about the painter. I just found it to be a tremendous, hauting image. I also remember having as similar experience with Soulages, cutting the tiny little picture from a magazine. Contemporary art often speaks directly to the senses. Need some comfort? Go to the Pompidou Centre and take refuge in Beuys's Plight installation. The idea that there are only a few limited, traditional ways to convey emotions and that everything else is snobbish crap is just maddening. There's snobbish crap in art, contemporary or not, and then there are gazillions of pics that are also called art because there show kittens and kittens are cute.
It took the curious minds of the Surrealists to understand that "primitive" art was real art, not the pagan byproduct of the lesser minds of the colonised. I believe that what many people lack is exposure to contemporary art, to its emotional variety and sheer inventiveness, at a very young age. After that, the sensitivity channels dry up, all receptivity is lost, the opinion of one's peers take over and people start claiming that anything they can't appreciate is worthless (also valid for music, movies, books, food...).
posted by elgilito at 4:09 PM on March 13, 2005
Is journalism in the eye of the beholder?
I don't understand the point the online quiz's results are supposed to make. So what if a lot of people think paintings by toddlers and elephants is art? What's to say it isn't? If there's a problem here, it's what the "free market" does to warp people's concept of value. The art market behaves like any other market; that is, it squishes everything to the flatness of money.
My 18-month old son can do some mad doodles with a pen these days. They get hung on the fridge. Hanging on the wall, next to the fridge is a calendar, which is illustrated with various works by Pablo Picasso.
It is true that all Pollock did was spill paint on big canvasses. But when I look at Pollack paintings in person, my heart beats faster. So perhaps something else makes Stossell's dark heart beat faster - sloppy journalism, perhaps. Or maybe the man has no heart.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:13 PM on March 13, 2005
I don't understand the point the online quiz's results are supposed to make. So what if a lot of people think paintings by toddlers and elephants is art? What's to say it isn't? If there's a problem here, it's what the "free market" does to warp people's concept of value. The art market behaves like any other market; that is, it squishes everything to the flatness of money.
My 18-month old son can do some mad doodles with a pen these days. They get hung on the fridge. Hanging on the wall, next to the fridge is a calendar, which is illustrated with various works by Pablo Picasso.
It is true that all Pollock did was spill paint on big canvasses. But when I look at Pollack paintings in person, my heart beats faster. So perhaps something else makes Stossell's dark heart beat faster - sloppy journalism, perhaps. Or maybe the man has no heart.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:13 PM on March 13, 2005
Decani:
so... if these misguided people who thought The Gates was art happen to see another work they like, and also think is art... how will they know if they're right or not?
Precedent suggests that they won't.
What criteria can they use to help them make a sound judgement on artistic merit?
As discussed above, they might begin by considering whether there is any aesthetic value, or any indication that some modicum of talent was involved.
Should they ask you, perhaps?
Did I say somewhere that it should be a national priority to raise the general level of aesthetic discretion, or that I was volunteering to be the chairman of said effort?
Or any other person who disliked The Gates?
That would be setting the bar pretty low.
What if one of those other people dislikes something you think is great art?
Then I expect that one of us would be right, and the other wrong.
Or vice versa?
In that case, it would be the other one right, and the first one wrong.
Who should our poor, artistically-clueless media coat tail rider ask then? How will they know whose judgement is at fault?
I really don't know. This is not a problem that I really see an easy solution to, nor was I volunteering one.
"And also: you believe that manifest talent is crucial if something is to be regarded as art?"
Of course not. Lots of bad art is devoid of any manifestation of talent.
posted by bingo at 6:17 PM on March 13, 2005
so... if these misguided people who thought The Gates was art happen to see another work they like, and also think is art... how will they know if they're right or not?
Precedent suggests that they won't.
What criteria can they use to help them make a sound judgement on artistic merit?
As discussed above, they might begin by considering whether there is any aesthetic value, or any indication that some modicum of talent was involved.
Should they ask you, perhaps?
Did I say somewhere that it should be a national priority to raise the general level of aesthetic discretion, or that I was volunteering to be the chairman of said effort?
Or any other person who disliked The Gates?
That would be setting the bar pretty low.
What if one of those other people dislikes something you think is great art?
Then I expect that one of us would be right, and the other wrong.
Or vice versa?
In that case, it would be the other one right, and the first one wrong.
Who should our poor, artistically-clueless media coat tail rider ask then? How will they know whose judgement is at fault?
I really don't know. This is not a problem that I really see an easy solution to, nor was I volunteering one.
"And also: you believe that manifest talent is crucial if something is to be regarded as art?"
Of course not. Lots of bad art is devoid of any manifestation of talent.
posted by bingo at 6:17 PM on March 13, 2005
If only someone had killed Duchamp before he signed a urinal, none of this ever would have happened.
Isn't that blaming the messenger?
posted by R. Mutt at 7:12 PM on March 13, 2005
Isn't that blaming the messenger?
posted by R. Mutt at 7:12 PM on March 13, 2005
Give me a break. It is well established that John Stossel is a tool. Search for more examples.
posted by intermod at 7:46 PM on March 13, 2005
posted by intermod at 7:46 PM on March 13, 2005
I was mislead a bit while reading the article. If the selection of art they showed people is the same or similar as in the quiz, shit, I'm guilty: I liked most of the stuff done by four-year-olds as well.
Originally when I read the story, I imagined they were showing off lousy random finger painting smears vs. some more mature works. I, too, rattled on in IRC about how stupid people are and this was some pretty damning proof...except when you see the art in question...
Hell, most of the 'professional art' they used in the quiz could easily be simulated in Microsoft Paint in seconds. A black circle. Five solid rectangles in rainbow shades from left to right. A bunch of scribbling. Sure there's probably meaning in those simple things that the artist was inspired by which might help one appreciate those specific instances of simplicity. But as far as holding my interest, I found the kids work far more compelling, in this series of pics at least.
Although I guess if he actually put the examples along side the story it would have ruined all the cynicism he was trying to build up rather quickly. Assface.
posted by Fortyseven at 7:50 PM on March 13, 2005
Originally when I read the story, I imagined they were showing off lousy random finger painting smears vs. some more mature works. I, too, rattled on in IRC about how stupid people are and this was some pretty damning proof...except when you see the art in question...
Hell, most of the 'professional art' they used in the quiz could easily be simulated in Microsoft Paint in seconds. A black circle. Five solid rectangles in rainbow shades from left to right. A bunch of scribbling. Sure there's probably meaning in those simple things that the artist was inspired by which might help one appreciate those specific instances of simplicity. But as far as holding my interest, I found the kids work far more compelling, in this series of pics at least.
Although I guess if he actually put the examples along side the story it would have ruined all the cynicism he was trying to build up rather quickly. Assface.
posted by Fortyseven at 7:50 PM on March 13, 2005
More on Stossel's toolage here. His career as a high-profile media figure has followed his commitment to work as a shill for whatever right-wing meme has money attached.
TheophileEscargot's note about the rhetorical shift in the linked article is particularly spot-on. The conclusion has to do with neither The Gates nor the "poll" done by ABC. Instead it's just a rather pure example of a favorite faux-populist right-wing refrain -- there's a conspiracy to take your money, spend it on meaningless art, and laugh at you. Distrust intellectuals and creative types, and assume that they are part of an organized plot to swindle you.
Oh, and nearly three years ago on MeFi: "Why Doesn't the US Value Art?".
posted by BT at 8:19 PM on March 13, 2005
TheophileEscargot's note about the rhetorical shift in the linked article is particularly spot-on. The conclusion has to do with neither The Gates nor the "poll" done by ABC. Instead it's just a rather pure example of a favorite faux-populist right-wing refrain -- there's a conspiracy to take your money, spend it on meaningless art, and laugh at you. Distrust intellectuals and creative types, and assume that they are part of an organized plot to swindle you.
Oh, and nearly three years ago on MeFi: "Why Doesn't the US Value Art?".
posted by BT at 8:19 PM on March 13, 2005
So they picked and chose pieces where the four-year-olds filled the entire sheet of paper? That is not that common at that age.
Anyway the correct answers to the quiz are obviously "yes" to all of them.
Also in the quiz you're left to evaluate art (more like "is this worth a lot of money") based on paintings converted into 250-pixel-square jpegs, which is just gonna screw all sorts of things up.
This is... about as smart as I'd expect from the union of John Stossel and 20th century art, pretty much.
posted by furiousthought at 10:48 PM on March 13, 2005
Anyway the correct answers to the quiz are obviously "yes" to all of them.
Also in the quiz you're left to evaluate art (more like "is this worth a lot of money") based on paintings converted into 250-pixel-square jpegs, which is just gonna screw all sorts of things up.
This is... about as smart as I'd expect from the union of John Stossel and 20th century art, pretty much.
posted by furiousthought at 10:48 PM on March 13, 2005
Those kids are pretty good.
Until you find out they were trying to paint a monkey. But I guess, for some people, that would make it even better.
posted by unsupervised at 10:56 PM on March 13, 2005
Until you find out they were trying to paint a monkey. But I guess, for some people, that would make it even better.
posted by unsupervised at 10:56 PM on March 13, 2005
elgilito : " However, the fact that the discourse about art is invasive doesn't prevent most of contemporary art to be perfectly enjoyable at a very emotional level, by anyone."
See, that seems to me to be a perfecly empirical claim, and I don't buy it. If it were true, then I'd expect that you'd see a lot less hostility toward the art world. I know plenty of smart, educated, well-adjusted people who just are not moved by modern art. Of course, some people (like you) are going to find themselves in a state to be instantly moved by a Jackson Pollock piece. But not most people. I'd imagine that a certain amount of certain training is needed to foster an appreciation of art in most people (including me; I didn't immediately like most contemporary art). If this turns out to be the case, why should we hold it against those people who aren't moved?
This is just a sociological point we're debating at this point, right? How could it be anything else?
posted by painquale at 11:05 PM on March 13, 2005
See, that seems to me to be a perfecly empirical claim, and I don't buy it. If it were true, then I'd expect that you'd see a lot less hostility toward the art world. I know plenty of smart, educated, well-adjusted people who just are not moved by modern art. Of course, some people (like you) are going to find themselves in a state to be instantly moved by a Jackson Pollock piece. But not most people. I'd imagine that a certain amount of certain training is needed to foster an appreciation of art in most people (including me; I didn't immediately like most contemporary art). If this turns out to be the case, why should we hold it against those people who aren't moved?
This is just a sociological point we're debating at this point, right? How could it be anything else?
posted by painquale at 11:05 PM on March 13, 2005
Wow, I must actually have learned something in art class.... I nailed every Is It Art -- or Not? question correctly.
posted by dabitch at 1:25 AM on March 14, 2005
posted by dabitch at 1:25 AM on March 14, 2005
Way late on this discussion, but thanks both to NickDouglas and egalito.
I'd never heard of the made-to-measure pre-made theory and I'd never seen a Pollock I really liked. Both of them have changed my opinions on art far more than the subject of the link.
Although, having said that, these two are really good - I want a 4 year old of my own!
posted by NinjaPirate at 2:11 AM on March 14, 2005
I'd never heard of the made-to-measure pre-made theory and I'd never seen a Pollock I really liked. Both of them have changed my opinions on art far more than the subject of the link.
Although, having said that, these two are really good - I want a 4 year old of my own!
posted by NinjaPirate at 2:11 AM on March 14, 2005
bingo, back again:
Precedent suggests that they won't.
Well, maybe, but with respect, that doesn't answer the preceding question. I didn’t ask whether they would know if they were right or not, I asked how would they know? According to you, they have wrongly judged something to be art. I’m trying to understand how such people can help improve their understanding of what art is.
As discussed above, they might begin by considering whether there is any aesthetic value, or any indication that some modicum of talent was involved.
Well, and as also discussed above, many people do feel that ‘The Gates’ has aesthetic value. You reject this, but so far you’ve provided no better reason for doing so than the implication that your particular judgement of aesthetics is superior to that of people who liked ‘The Gates’. This seems… inadequate as a yardstick by which to measure art, to me. This is what I was trying to suggest when I asked the question:
”Should they ask you, perhaps?” And you replied...
Did I say somewhere that it should be a national priority to raise the general level of aesthetic discretion, or that I was volunteering to be the chairman of said effort?
No, you didn’t. But as I hope I’ve illustrated, you implied that your artistic judgement is superior to that of people who like ‘The Gates’, and consider it art. I’m trying to understand on what grounds you did that. That's why I asked questions about how we would judge whether you or a naysayer would be correct in any hypothetical future dispute over artistic merit. But you simply said:
Then I expect that one of us would be right, and the other wrong.
Yes, but which of you would be right, and which wrong? How do we judge? Your criteria don’t enable us to make reliable, consistent judgements: that’s my point. Those criteria for artistic merit seem awfully subjective, to me. You say ‘The Gates’ lacks aesthetic value. Many people say the contrary. Perhaps you would dismiss such people as clueless. No doubt many of them would dismiss you as a philistine. Who’s right? You say (or imply) it did not take much ‘talent’ to conceive and create this work. Again, many others disagree. Define ‘talent’. Define how much talent is required before something can be considered art. Define how you measure that quantity. And so on.
You also suggest that ‘insight’ is a vital ingredient for art, and I assume you do not believe ‘The Gates’ offers any such insight. Yet I have heard people suggest that ‘The Gates’ is saying something quite topical about prettily disguised limitations constructed within the illusion of unrestricted freedom, via the construction of ‘pointless’ yet visually striking gates within an open space. That may well sound like pretentious twaddle to you, but to other people it seems like a reasonable artistic statement. Who's right, and how do we know?
Lots of bad art is devoid of any manifestation of talent.
Well, you made the unqualified statement, “‘The Gates’ are not art”, not “'The Gates' is not GOOD art", but that’s incidental to my point, so let it go. I’m pursuing this because you made a damning criticism of a piece of art and you made some very sweeping statements about how we should judge art. And it seems to me that your grounds for being so sweeping are thin. The appreciation of art is a highly subjective thing, that’s my point. So when I see someone making lofty pronouncements on what can properly be considered art I tend to seek pretty precise clarification on what makes them so sure of themselves.
For the record, I think ‘The Gates’ is mediocre art. That’s my own subjective viewpoint, nothing more.
posted by Decani at 6:48 AM on March 14, 2005 [1 favorite]
Precedent suggests that they won't.
Well, maybe, but with respect, that doesn't answer the preceding question. I didn’t ask whether they would know if they were right or not, I asked how would they know? According to you, they have wrongly judged something to be art. I’m trying to understand how such people can help improve their understanding of what art is.
As discussed above, they might begin by considering whether there is any aesthetic value, or any indication that some modicum of talent was involved.
Well, and as also discussed above, many people do feel that ‘The Gates’ has aesthetic value. You reject this, but so far you’ve provided no better reason for doing so than the implication that your particular judgement of aesthetics is superior to that of people who liked ‘The Gates’. This seems… inadequate as a yardstick by which to measure art, to me. This is what I was trying to suggest when I asked the question:
”Should they ask you, perhaps?” And you replied...
Did I say somewhere that it should be a national priority to raise the general level of aesthetic discretion, or that I was volunteering to be the chairman of said effort?
No, you didn’t. But as I hope I’ve illustrated, you implied that your artistic judgement is superior to that of people who like ‘The Gates’, and consider it art. I’m trying to understand on what grounds you did that. That's why I asked questions about how we would judge whether you or a naysayer would be correct in any hypothetical future dispute over artistic merit. But you simply said:
Then I expect that one of us would be right, and the other wrong.
Yes, but which of you would be right, and which wrong? How do we judge? Your criteria don’t enable us to make reliable, consistent judgements: that’s my point. Those criteria for artistic merit seem awfully subjective, to me. You say ‘The Gates’ lacks aesthetic value. Many people say the contrary. Perhaps you would dismiss such people as clueless. No doubt many of them would dismiss you as a philistine. Who’s right? You say (or imply) it did not take much ‘talent’ to conceive and create this work. Again, many others disagree. Define ‘talent’. Define how much talent is required before something can be considered art. Define how you measure that quantity. And so on.
You also suggest that ‘insight’ is a vital ingredient for art, and I assume you do not believe ‘The Gates’ offers any such insight. Yet I have heard people suggest that ‘The Gates’ is saying something quite topical about prettily disguised limitations constructed within the illusion of unrestricted freedom, via the construction of ‘pointless’ yet visually striking gates within an open space. That may well sound like pretentious twaddle to you, but to other people it seems like a reasonable artistic statement. Who's right, and how do we know?
Lots of bad art is devoid of any manifestation of talent.
Well, you made the unqualified statement, “‘The Gates’ are not art”, not “'The Gates' is not GOOD art", but that’s incidental to my point, so let it go. I’m pursuing this because you made a damning criticism of a piece of art and you made some very sweeping statements about how we should judge art. And it seems to me that your grounds for being so sweeping are thin. The appreciation of art is a highly subjective thing, that’s my point. So when I see someone making lofty pronouncements on what can properly be considered art I tend to seek pretty precise clarification on what makes them so sure of themselves.
For the record, I think ‘The Gates’ is mediocre art. That’s my own subjective viewpoint, nothing more.
posted by Decani at 6:48 AM on March 14, 2005 [1 favorite]
Decani:
Well, maybe, but with respect, that doesn't answer the preceding question.
That's true. I don't have an answer to the preceding question( "how will they know if they're right or not?"). I don't think that they'll know if they're right or not.
Well, and as also discussed above, many people do feel that ‘The Gates’ has aesthetic value. You reject this, but so far you’ve provided no better reason for doing so than the implication that your particular judgement of aesthetics is superior to that of people who liked ‘The Gates’.
Well, it probably is, but like I said, there are other factors, such as the publicity. People's judgement gets swayed for lots of reasons. Some might like the color orange. Some might have spent the afternoon recalling a positive experieince they had at a construction site.
This seems… inadequate as a yardstick by which to measure art, to me.
Apparently, but if you believe in relative qualifiers, why worry about it?
Your criteria don’t enable us to make reliable, consistent judgements: that’s my point.
Who is 'us'? Are you saying that my personal ability to make aesthetic judgements is not open-sourced to the rest of humanity, and that's a problem?
Define ‘talent’. Define how much talent is required before something can be considered art. Define how you measure that quantity. And so on.
I believe that those questions have answers, though I may not be able to express those answers perfectly. I could mull it over for days and craft a good answer, but I don't think it would change your mind, do you?
Well, you made the unqualified statement, “‘The Gates’ are not art”, not “'The Gates' is not GOOD art", but that’s incidental to my point, so let it go.
I hope you're not suggesting that there was some sort of contradiction between my statement that the Gates are not art, and my statement that there's such a thing as bad art.
I’m pursuing this because you made a damning criticism of a piece of art and you made some very sweeping statements about how we should judge art. And it seems to me that your grounds for being so sweeping are thin. The appreciation of art is a highly subjective thing, that’s my point. So when I see someone making lofty pronouncements on what can properly be considered art I tend to seek pretty precise clarification on what makes them so sure of themselves.
Are you really seeking such clarification, or are you just asking a bunch of rhethorical questions that you don't think I've considered?
Why do my criterica have to be explicable to be right? If they were explicable, why would they have to make sense to you in order to be right universally? Do you need to understand, or agree with, laws of space and time for them to be unalterably true? Is there such a thing as morality, and is there such a thing as love? Are there some people who are more in tune with those forces than others, and do they owe the rest of the world an explanation of why? If everyone thinks that something is right or true, does that make it right or true? Is it possible that there are other worlds than this one?
posted by bingo at 6:58 PM on March 14, 2005
Well, maybe, but with respect, that doesn't answer the preceding question.
That's true. I don't have an answer to the preceding question( "how will they know if they're right or not?"). I don't think that they'll know if they're right or not.
Well, and as also discussed above, many people do feel that ‘The Gates’ has aesthetic value. You reject this, but so far you’ve provided no better reason for doing so than the implication that your particular judgement of aesthetics is superior to that of people who liked ‘The Gates’.
Well, it probably is, but like I said, there are other factors, such as the publicity. People's judgement gets swayed for lots of reasons. Some might like the color orange. Some might have spent the afternoon recalling a positive experieince they had at a construction site.
This seems… inadequate as a yardstick by which to measure art, to me.
Apparently, but if you believe in relative qualifiers, why worry about it?
Your criteria don’t enable us to make reliable, consistent judgements: that’s my point.
Who is 'us'? Are you saying that my personal ability to make aesthetic judgements is not open-sourced to the rest of humanity, and that's a problem?
Define ‘talent’. Define how much talent is required before something can be considered art. Define how you measure that quantity. And so on.
I believe that those questions have answers, though I may not be able to express those answers perfectly. I could mull it over for days and craft a good answer, but I don't think it would change your mind, do you?
Well, you made the unqualified statement, “‘The Gates’ are not art”, not “'The Gates' is not GOOD art", but that’s incidental to my point, so let it go.
I hope you're not suggesting that there was some sort of contradiction between my statement that the Gates are not art, and my statement that there's such a thing as bad art.
I’m pursuing this because you made a damning criticism of a piece of art and you made some very sweeping statements about how we should judge art. And it seems to me that your grounds for being so sweeping are thin. The appreciation of art is a highly subjective thing, that’s my point. So when I see someone making lofty pronouncements on what can properly be considered art I tend to seek pretty precise clarification on what makes them so sure of themselves.
Are you really seeking such clarification, or are you just asking a bunch of rhethorical questions that you don't think I've considered?
Why do my criterica have to be explicable to be right? If they were explicable, why would they have to make sense to you in order to be right universally? Do you need to understand, or agree with, laws of space and time for them to be unalterably true? Is there such a thing as morality, and is there such a thing as love? Are there some people who are more in tune with those forces than others, and do they owe the rest of the world an explanation of why? If everyone thinks that something is right or true, does that make it right or true? Is it possible that there are other worlds than this one?
posted by bingo at 6:58 PM on March 14, 2005
That was a horrible "study". Certanly work done by a 4 year old would be "art", and I'm sure there was artistic intent in the cloth (it was framed, after all).
The "science" in this peice was offensivly bad.
posted by delmoi at 1:51 PM on March 15, 2005
The "science" in this peice was offensivly bad.
posted by delmoi at 1:51 PM on March 15, 2005
« Older Get your own damn blog, indeed! | Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi versus The Undead Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by daksya at 2:38 AM on March 13, 2005