Postmodern art question
category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
jxn: if it's art because it's declared art, anything becomes art, and it loses its meaning.
Anything can become art is the whole point, see Duchamps Fountain for an almost 100 years old example.
As for the "meaning" see first quote, "the viewers are the ones who make the painting": You look at the painting, you see a meaning or you don't, but you are the one who is constructing this meaning; the meaning does not have to be intrinsic.
And if it is sth along the lines of "Gosh!" - this is utter crap, my dog could come up with something better! this is also fine.
Quote:
this is utter crap, my dog could come up with something better!
You realise it's signed "R. Mutt"? =) The whole thing made me laugh, and it's fresh, so I think that's actually quite a good piece of art. It doesn't have to be serious. And it definitely has some kind of meaning.
Anyway, I thought of a way to explain my point for view a bit better, with demos \o/
Take 32b stuff. It generally looks rubbish compared to a 'proper' demo, much like a lot of post modern stuff does compared to more traditional art. The first time it's done though, it's fresh, it's unexpected, and it challenges your view of what a demo can be. Pretty much what Duchamps did with the urinal, and Pollock did with the paint splashes. It has meaning, definitely. People then experiment, and explore what is possible, fine.
What happens when you keep repeating it though? It no longer has freshness, it doesn't surprise you, it challenges nothing. You're left with just the aesthetics. And even there, it doesn't stand up to comparison with more traditional work, because there's so little to it. Would you visit a whole gallery filled with nothing but urinals? It wouldn't be a gallery, it would be a toilet museum.
Take a look at the recent 32b demos, and what the votes were :) The earliest ones got some support, the ones that were of high quality and had some interest got support, and the ones that brought something new got support. Same should be true of art, that's my view.
i personally agree with jxn's comment ("anything is art if someone calls it art"), and to me it'd be great for us to move on and learn to discuss the merits and failings of pieces on an artistic level.
what i dont get is why some people seem to think that even if something is called art it means it's beyond criticism. it's not, but doing so probably makes people uncomfortable because it requires accepting one's viewpoint is subjective and that things cant just be straight up good or bad, and it might also require putting some effort and thought into it.
it'd do wonders for the quality of comments in the pouet database.. :)
what i dont get is why some people seem to think that even if something is called art it means it's beyond criticism. it's not, but doing so probably makes people uncomfortable because it requires accepting one's viewpoint is subjective and that things cant just be straight up good or bad, and it might also require putting some effort and thought into it.
it'd do wonders for the quality of comments in the pouet database.. :)
Quote:
As for the "meaning" see first quote, "the viewers are the ones who make the painting"
There's nothing wrong with that idea, but to discuss the merits of art whose only merits lie in the observer's subjective interpretation sounds like a futile exercise.
1. Klein
2. Generated stuffo
3. Yours
The Klein is pretty easy to spot. Has a certain atmosphere in it. So is the computer randomness. And, by the process of elimination, the last one must be yours. But WTF?:
2. Generated stuffo
3. Yours
The Klein is pretty easy to spot. Has a certain atmosphere in it. So is the computer randomness. And, by the process of elimination, the last one must be yours. But WTF?:
