Printable View
I think everyone is able to judge what is and isn't art even if they don't have the "learning" backing them up. Because, like I said in my original post, what is and isn't art is different for everyone else. I don't like "modern" art (and I've learned something new from this thread about the term!), but I'm willing to accept that there was probably a lot of thought or emotion that went into creating it, and it's just not something I personally connect with.
I think it depends on individual works for me personally. I enjoy art that makes me feel. Good or bad. The pic on the first page doesn't make me feel anything. Not anger or annoyance or irritation. Not happiness or wonder. It's just a "oh look, colours. Are those dots? Alrighty." There is no emotion there other than maybe apathy. And not because the work gives me a feeling of apathy, just because there is lack of feeling.
Does this make it trash? I don't know. It isn't art to me, but it might evoke an emotion in someone else. I'm sure there is stuff that gives me feels that someone else thinks is trash. I guess this is why they say art is subjective.
Context is everything. The artistic world is full of it's own machinations and understanding what each movement represents, what its ideologies are is incredibly crucial when it comes to understanding a work of art. It's far more than just looking pretty. You're right that you can assess whether you like it or not, but not whether it's good or trash. And that's a huge difference.
And that is all I shall contribute. I already regret looking at this thread. This reeks of EoEO.
Pshaw! EoEO is way different. In here, we can post smileys and be silly and not get reported for it. Dare I say it, we could even have fun!
I dunno. I've grown up with an artist mum and have read a bunch of art books because of it (I was a big reader growing up and Mum had alllll kinds of art books). I just don't feel it's made me view art any differently. If anything, it has made me appreciate the amount of work that goes into a specific piece, and I have a lot of appreciation for things because of that. But contemporary art just isn't my bag at all.
Trash is a strong word, but I purposefully chose strong words when making the poll because I wanted it to be divisive. ;D
I think I'll stick to my base evaluations, since trying to understand art in any great depth apparently makes one a whiny gobtroute. :up:
Sure you can. You don't have to have a degree in English and be a writer or editor to read a book and know it's trash. Same with art. You may not understand all of the nuances or the movements it comes from...but if you have to know all of that to know if it's art or not, doesn't that defeat the purpose? Art is supposed to get its own message across without needing an explanation beforehand.
And then, it still comes down to personal preference. What I consider trash in a book or a movie may be the greatest thing someone else has seen or read. I may not agree with their opinion, but it's still valid.
The whole thing has a distinct Emperor's New Clothes feel about it, in my opinion.
I consider things to be art when they make you think about something in life or provoke an emotion. But different people get triggered by different things, so that's why some people can consider something art and others don't.
As for the picture in the first post, it doesn't work for me. But maybe someone out there discovered how intense a good green can be. Works either way.
I'm pretty sure I'll stick to my landscapes for a while :cool:
I think my main thoughts on the matter have been covered. I have not come to enjoy any of the "modern art" I've happened upon in my time - and I have been to exhibitions in the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow (multiple times) and the Tate Modern Gallery in London. There has never been anything I have connected with - some things are cool to look at, but other things are a mirror put on a wall with a plaque beside it describing how YOU ARE THE ART.
If someone enjoyed all that stuff I turned my nose up at, well, good for them - glad they had a good time with it all. I don't need a degree in art to let me not like something. Sure having that deeper knowledge might cause you to have a deeper appreciation for the art - but appreciating something is not the same as thinking that it's good.
It doesn't really matter what the smallfolk think about different forms of art, since it's certain elite groups of intellectuals and critics and auctioneers that make the calls and determine the value of art works and what is art and what is kitsch at the moment.
Having to explain an artistic piece for it to be truly appreciated is like having to explain a joke. It's either a trout joke, or you're telling it to the wrong audience. There's no point complaining that these toddlers don't get your joke ("C'mon! It's because tau is two pi! IT'S SO SIMPLE WHYAREN'TYOULAUGHINGYOULITTLEBRATS."), and there's no point complaining when someone doesn't appreciate a piece of art. :)
I've seen both in modern art, though generally speaking I'd say it's talent.
_________________________________
Alexandra
https://artystransit.ca/en/museum/crating
modern art rules for so many reasons:
sometimes its actually very good, and truly beautiful
sometimes its actually very bad, and truly ugly
sometimes its bodily fluids, like piss and cum
sometimes its directly money laundering, which is cool
sometimes its indirectly money laundering, which is cooler
sometimes its getting a billionaire to spend tons of money on something they dont understand, which rocks
most people who dislike modern art only like furry art and manga
people want to feel smart and thats fine but sometimes their only way to do it is to look at a tower of TVs each displaying a different tree and say soemthing like "this isn't art, its barely engineering!!" to their friends - this rules the most because everyone wins