DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Amusing incident proves that modern perception of "Art" is crap

**bactrimtab** · 06-19-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by General Ludd
That's quite a bold statement.

Strange how you find andy warhol in virtualy every art history book, when no one who studies the field thinks that it's art.

Huh? I'm aware that a lot of jagoffs with degrees think Warhol is art (plus some morons hoping to look smart by imitating the jagoffs with degrees, even though they know, deep inside, that it's just a can of soup). I'm talking about the majority here.

So why do you believe that this excludes modern art? There is a great deal of composition, theory, and conceptual background involved in all contemporary styles of art. You seem to of forgetten to mention the conceptual and interpretive aspects of art. Craftsmanship is important, but by itself it doesn't amount to much. Just as concept, by itself, does little without good craftsmanship. I'm just saying that, if it could have been done by accident, 'taint art. I'm sure there's modern art that qualifies as art (M.C. Escher comes to mind), just not the people who put a few colored squares on a canvas and think it's marvellous. Their concept and composition creates a work of startling beauty and elegance...to other people who've spent too much time reading up on modernist theory. To people who don't have a background in the pompous-crackhead language, it's just a bunch of colored squares, meaning nothing. Whereas you can know nothing about any theory and still think "Starry Night" by Van Gogh is really cool.

By the way, I've only been doing it for a year and I can throw vases with ease.

Not like a master you can't. Unless you're an absolute prodigy. I'm talking about someone who can make three casual-looking pulls off a mound, while talking to a group of students and sometimes not even looking at it, and produce a perfect vase consistently, in under thirty seconds. He made it look comically easy, and didn't seem to be showing off. It was just old hat. Which is not to say that perfect technique alone makes an artist. Some of the pieces he made for sale (typically to benefit the college) were gorgeous.

My point is, there's skill involved in all art. Effort indicates the potency of an artist's feeling, shows s/he put heart into it, makes the message stronger. If it shows little skill, it's not going to be very impressive. Unless you've studied lots of devastatingly witty Derrida and suchlike. LHOOQ, nothing means anything, hahahaha!

06-19-2006, 01:10 PM	#35
bactrimtab Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 557 Senior Member	Originally posted by General Ludd That's quite a bold statement. Strange how you find andy warhol in virtualy every art history book, when no one who studies the field thinks that it's art. Huh? I'm aware that a lot of jagoffs with degrees think Warhol is art (plus some morons hoping to look smart by imitating the jagoffs with degrees, even though they know, deep inside, that it's just a can of soup). I'm talking about the majority here. So why do you believe that this excludes modern art? There is a great deal of composition, theory, and conceptual background involved in all contemporary styles of art. You seem to of forgetten to mention the conceptual and interpretive aspects of art. Craftsmanship is important, but by itself it doesn't amount to much. Just as concept, by itself, does little without good craftsmanship. I'm just saying that, if it could have been done by accident, 'taint art. I'm sure there's modern art that qualifies as art (M.C. Escher comes to mind), just not the people who put a few colored squares on a canvas and think it's marvellous. Their concept and composition creates a work of startling beauty and elegance...to other people who've spent too much time reading up on modernist theory. To people who don't have a background in the pompous-crackhead language, it's just a bunch of colored squares, meaning nothing. Whereas you can know nothing about any theory and still think "Starry Night" by Van Gogh is really cool. By the way, I've only been doing it for a year and I can throw vases with ease. Not like a master you can't. Unless you're an absolute prodigy. I'm talking about someone who can make three casual-looking pulls off a mound, while talking to a group of students and sometimes not even looking at it, and produce a perfect vase consistently, in under thirty seconds. He made it look comically easy, and didn't seem to be showing off. It was just old hat. Which is not to say that perfect technique alone makes an artist. Some of the pieces he made for sale (typically to benefit the college) were gorgeous. My point is, there's skill involved in all art. Effort indicates the potency of an artist's feeling, shows s/he put heart into it, makes the message stronger. If it shows little skill, it's not going to be very impressive. Unless you've studied lots of devastatingly witty Derrida and suchlike. LHOOQ, nothing means anything, hahahaha!
	Quote