modern art
Yanni the Great
of art here in nyc. In the section that had stuff from 1920-present there
was a bunch of stuff that i would have to call "WORTHLESS SHIT!!!!!" one was
a canvas that was completely painted in one shade of blue, there was no
design, there were no different shades of blue, it was JUST ONE SHADE!!! it
looked to be made by a printer of some kind since there were no brush
strokes on it, it was just one soild blue shade, then near this
"masterpiece" was a white canvas with one black line running down the
middle, thats all it was!!!!!!!! no other design!! i seriously considered
just getting naked and going to work on my mayo canon right there on the
"painting". I asked my music teacher in high school who is very into
paintings himself how the hell this could be in a museum and how it was
"good" in any way and he said, "well that person was the first one to think
of doing that" ahhhhhh i almost jumped out of my seat and choked him to
death in front of the whole class!!!! im pretty open minded when it comes to
all types of art, even if i dont personally like it i understand a good
amount of work was put into it but this was just a solid blue canvas and one
black line on white canvas being displayed like a treasure in the largest
museum in one of the largest cities in the world, WHAT THE
FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ok i now double dare physical challenge anyone here to defend this as any
type of art. go ahead and defend it, tell me why this shit deserves to be in
a museum. For all those who think it and the "artist" deserve to be burned
at the stake give me a hell yeah shit fuck and other assorted profanity.
Actually you cant fault the artist since that person is probably FUCKING
INSANE FROM BIRTH!!!!!! , but the directors of the museum surely should be
put to death
Clarissa
"Yanni the Great" <yann...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:2Wv47.8766$l%.4110273@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
> ok i now double dare physical challenge anyone here to defend this as any
> type of art. go ahead and defend it, tell me why this shit deserves to be
in
> a museum. For all those who think it and the "artist" deserve to be burned
> at the stake give me a hell yeah shit fuck and other assorted profanity.
> Actually you cant fault the artist since that person is probably FUCKING
> INSANE FROM BIRTH!!!!!! , but the directors of the museum surely should be
> put to death
The art is not on the canvas, it's in the artist's ability to get someone to
pay a lot of money for it. I bet he's sitting at home, thinking "how stupid
are those dumbasses to pay me $40,000 to paint one color on a piece of
canvas." He's my biggest hero for getting away with something like that.
And it's not even that original. I was covering things with blue paint way
back in pre-school. And I bet mine were a lot more interesting.
Kurt Mueller
if that's what is on the artist's mind and he felt like that image conveyed
a certain thought, maybe that's art to him.
art to me? maybe.
Kurt
--
----------------------------------
A man lies in his bed in a room with no door
He waits, hoping for a presence; something, anything to enter
After spending half his life searching, he still felt as blank
As the ceiling at which he stared
He is alive, but feels absolutely nothing
So, is he?
When he was six he believed that the moon overhead followed him
By nine, he had deciphered the illusion, trading magic for fact
No tradebacks...
So this is what it's like to be an adult
If he only knew now what he knew then...
....
Lying sideways atop crumpled sheets and no covers he decides to dream...
Dream up a new self for himself...
----------------------------------
- Pearl Jam, I'm Open
"Yanni the Great" <yann...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:2Wv47.8766$l%.4110273@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
DJMarclove
>type of art. go ahead and defend it, tell me why this shit deserves to be in
>a museum. For all those who think it and the "artist" deserve to be burned
>at the stake give me a hell yeah shit fuck and other assorted profanity.
>Actually you cant fault the artist since that person is probably FUCKING
>INSANE FROM BIRTH!!!!!! , but the directors of the museum surely should be
>put to death
HAHA ok how bout this because the guy who painted that IS A FUCKING
GENIUS....before you kill me let me elaborate. The guy painted a line on a
canvas thats it nothing else and he got it put in a big ass museum. Whoever did
that is awesome in my book it took him 10 seconds and its a famous and
apparently semi controversial work of art. Hell I wish I could do that.
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
falco where the fuck have you been?
Kron
King Mob
except I used to say the same shit about various kinds of abstract art because
I thought that was shit, and eventually I got to like it..
there's some hard edge and post-WWII nonrepresentative art that I like, because
it looks cool, and yes, it was new and revolutionary
however if it doesn't even look cool then I say fuck it
---------------------
straight to hell, boys...
Judy
"Yanni the Great" <yann...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:2Wv47.8766$l%.4110273@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
matter of what the artist is trying to convey and what it means to the
observer.
sexy m.f.
>In the section that had stuff from 1920-present there
>was a bunch of stuff that i would have to call "WORTHLESS SHIT!!!!!"
cute ;)
and very typical
btw 1920-present would contain postmodern art as well as modern
>one was
>a canvas that was completely painted in one shade of blue, there was no
>design, there were no different shades of blue, it was JUST ONE SHADE!!!
oh, the horror! LOL
>it
>looked to be made by a printer of some kind since there were no brush
>strokes on it, it was just one soild blue shade, then near this
>"masterpiece" was a white canvas with one black line running down the
>middle, thats all it was!!!!!!!!
yanni - your enthusiasm is, as ever, hilarious
>no other design!!
scary isn't it
>im pretty open minded when it comes to
>all types of art, even if i dont personally like it i understand a good
>amount of work was put into it
not always
look at andy warhol
he's famous as hell for recycling tabloid images of car crashes and
overexposing pop icons and advertising symbols even more than they already were
then he had the gall to tell everyone that there was nothing below the surface
of his work having to do with a greater commentary or with his motivations,
that it was all just surface
he also made a short film called 'blowjob' yet the only thing the camera showed
was the man's face the whole time, pretty boring
that's why andy was great
art is more than slaving over a canvas for hours, yanni
it's about presentation
>but this was just a solid blue canvas and one
>black line on white canvas being displayed like a treasure in the largest
>museum in one of the largest cities in the world, WHAT THE
>FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
heh
sure got you all riled up didn't it
>ok i now double dare physical challenge anyone here to defend this as any
>type of art. go ahead and defend it, tell me why this shit deserves to be in
>a museum.
are you baiting the art history minor in me?
the white painting with the black stripe sounds eerily like a barnett newman.
he did stuff like that for awhile, here's why he started with the plain
canvas/one stripe deal:
"newman referred to the straight line down the middle of _onement I_ as the
'zip.' the structural symmetry of the zip in _onement I_ wipes out the problem
of composition. by thus reducing the composition to zero, newman killed the
preciousness of the painting as an art object and forced the viewer to
apprehend the work more strictly in terms of ideas." [Fineberg, Jonathan. _Art
Since 1940: Strategies of Being_, University of IL, 2000. p100]
there's loads more that went into his work than i can type here, newman was
jewish and really into the kabbalah. he painted _onement I_ in 1948 just at the
point where a lot of jewish artists were trying to come to terms with the
holocaust, etc. there's stuff newman wrote about the zip representing the
sublime, different levels of consciousness, whatever. it's interesting to read
about.
as for the straight up blue canvas, word, that's like my favorite type of art.
it was probably abstract expressionist, and the whole point of that genre was
not to appeal to the masses but to reflect what was going on inside the
artist's head, so in a sense nobody could ever really comprehend what was meant
by it but they could draw their own meaning.
my favorite abstract expressionist is mark rothko, whose work looks deceptively
simple but is really about the power of color as a meditative device and its
ability to heal. rothko was a russian jew and in his early years did figurative
work (re: he painted people) but moved away from that and into huge canvases
that he covered with luminous expanses of dark color, lots of reds and blacks.
my favorite piece of his is popularly called _four darks in red_ and was an
exercise in conjuring the mass graves and ovens of the concentration camps just
by using color. some of his work uses just one big expanse of color, most uses
combinations of tones. his work is really, really emotional and crazy/beautiful
in person.
i saw the anderson collection at the san francisco museum of modern art last
january and it was full of stuff that i love - jackson pollock, dekooning,
ruscha - but nothing moved me more than coming around a corner and finding
myself face to face with a massive rothko canvas. you are supposed to stand up
very close to them so that your entire field of vision is dominated by the
painting and you have a physical response to the canvas, then kind of relax
your mind. anyway, it was amazingly beautiful and pretty much the only time
i've been close to tears just from looking at a piece of art.
rothko got really good at this stuff - meditative color, etc - as he went
along, and in his later years he actually completed the interior murals for a
chapel in houston, texas that are supposed to be wonderful.
anyway, i hope that explained something. work like that is supposed to be kind
of inaccessible to the average person, and i'm sure i would have had a response
like yours if i'd run into a rothko or newman without having taken loads of art
history classes.
btw, clarissa was pretty much right with her comment that "it's art because he
got someone to pay loads of money for it" or whatever. it's art because of
that, and because it's in a gallery. it's art because of the presentation.
lucidanne -----> http://knifeprty.fusion.net.nz/
"liam howlett from prodigy ... liam, how are you?"
"very well, very well. very drunk."
Judy
"sexy m.f." <andsher...@aol.commiserate> wrote in message
news:20010716200108...@ng-co1.aol.com...
I have also had some intense reactions to modern and postmodern art. I'm
not sure about the solid blue one, but there are a lot of artist that I
love. Dekooning, for one. I remember the first time that I saw a Chagall,
covering a large wall of a museum. That was cool. Painting is not about
capturing a perfect image. It is more about showing a way to see something.
Simple and obvious is not bad. How many people have gone to great lengths
to find simple answers? Flu-flu sucks.
Yanni the Great
> matter of what the artist is trying to convey and what it means to the
> observer.
there is a certain amount of work and thought put into making any kind of
music, at least when people attack punk they say it sucks, they dislike the
sound or whatever, in this case the thing is just solid blue!! its nothing!!
theres nothing to comment on or like or dislike, it might as well not even
exist!!
Judy
like that, only to regret them later.
I met a man yesterday that said Loud was a genre of music.
Yanni the Great
> >all types of art, even if i dont personally like it i understand a good
> >amount of work was put into it
>
> not always
> look at andy warhol
> he's famous as hell for recycling tabloid images of car crashes and
> overexposing pop icons and advertising symbols even more than they already
were
oh yes there was an andy warhol piece i remember, it was just 5 or 6 black
and white photos of jackie o, but the white was replaced by blue, so it was
basically black and blue, and each picture of her had a different shade of
blue, wooweee zowee!!!
> then he had the gall to tell everyone that there was nothing below the
surface
> of his work having to do with a greater commentary or with his
motivations,
> that it was all just surface
well was he just lying or did he really mean it? was he just saying, "haha
look at me im making all you people think this is something meaningful,
youre all fools!"
> he also made a short film called 'blowjob' yet the only thing the camera
showed
> was the man's face the whole time, pretty boring
well at least thats funny :-)
> heh
> sure got you all riled up didn't it
yeah i guess the artist was trying to get that reaction from me blah blah
etc right? :-)
> the white painting with the black stripe sounds eerily like a barnett
newman.
> he did stuff like that for awhile, here's why he started with the plain
> canvas/one stripe deal:
>
> "newman referred to the straight line down the middle of _onement I_ as
the
> 'zip.' the structural symmetry of the zip in _onement I_ wipes out the
problem
> of composition. by thus reducing the composition to zero, newman killed
the
> preciousness of the painting as an art object and forced the viewer to
> apprehend the work more strictly in terms of ideas." [Fineberg, Jonathan.
_Art
> Since 1940: Strategies of Being_, University of IL, 2000. p100]
oh cmon that doesnt mean anything!!!!!!!
> point where a lot of jewish artists were trying to come to terms with the
> holocaust, etc. there's stuff newman wrote about the zip representing the
> sublime, different levels of consciousness, whatever. it's interesting to
read
> about.
im sure its interesting to read about but when your just looking at it its
pretty worthless, if i was looking to read a book i would, the art should be
able to stand on its own without some mystical explanation next to it, "this
painting rocks because....." oh thats why it rocks! i see now! brilliant!!
> my favorite abstract expressionist is mark rothko, whose work looks
deceptively
> simple but is really about the power of color as a meditative device and
its
> ability to heal. rothko was a russian jew and in his early years did
figurative
> work (re: he painted people) but moved away from that and into huge
canvases
> that he covered with luminous expanses of dark color, lots of reds and
blacks.
> my favorite piece of his is popularly called _four darks in red_ and was
an
> exercise in conjuring the mass graves and ovens of the concentration camps
just
> by using color. some of his work uses just one big expanse of color, most
uses
> combinations of tones. his work is really, really emotional and
crazy/beautiful
> in person.
thats all good, im not attacking that type of stuff, at least some type of
work or thought was put into it, anyone can just make a blue canvas or a
black line and make up some explanation for what its meaning is, there was
lots of stuff in the modern section i liked alot, i really like the huge
paintings where the artist, i think its pollock who just threw the paint all
over the wall, it makes the paint look like worms crawling all over each
other in one giant seething sexual mass!! but not in a good sexual way, more
like a really nasty oily mess of worms fucking :-)
> very close to them so that your entire field of vision is dominated by the
> painting and you have a physical response to the canvas, then kind of
relax
> your mind. anyway, it was amazingly beautiful and pretty much the only
time
> i've been close to tears just from looking at a piece of art.
wow thats great when art can make that kind of physical response in you! i
just hope it wasnt a giant plain blue canvas cause then id have to kill
you!! oh no i mean bless you my child :-)
> anyway, i hope that explained something. work like that is supposed to be
kind
> of inaccessible to the average person
well when i look up at the sky on a cloudless day i see that blue canvas
again! and look at me i just drew a straight black line with a pen, genius i
am!! amazing!!
but seriously im glad you responded representing the other side, or as i
like to say, "the wrong side" :-)
Jarrod
> my favorite abstract expressionist is mark rothko
red canvas with a white stripe.... simply stunning!! hehe, j/k ;)
--
Jarrod
--
A groan of tedium escapes me...
doctor
this makes me want to offer you my body in gratitude for causing me such
enjoyment.
-Jayne
-- "what kind of idiot talks back to an armed person." --
Yanni the Great
>
> this makes me want to offer you my body in gratitude for causing me such
> enjoyment.
hmm, how do i respond to this? i know ill just say hmm, oh yeah and bend
over!!! :-)
sexy m.f.
>Well said.
>I have also had some intense reactions to modern and postmodern art. I'm
>not sure about the solid blue one, but there are a lot of artist that I
>love. Dekooning, for one.
he's great, too. val kilmer does a hilarious portrayal of him in the movie
'pollock' (out on video later this month, everyone should go rent it!). spot
on, i say.
> I remember the first time that I saw a Chagall,
>covering a large wall of a museum. That was cool.
chagall is amazing as well.
>Painting is not about
>capturing a perfect image. It is more about showing a way to see something.
>Simple and obvious is not bad.
correct
and i love minimalism in art. not necessarily to the extent of a plain blue
canvas - tho that sounds interesting - but if something's too crowded and
overdone, it always rubs me the wrong way.
sexy m.f.
>oh yes there was an andy warhol piece i remember, it was just 5 or 6 black
>and white photos of jackie o, but the white was replaced by blue, so it was
>basically black and blue, and each picture of her had a different shade of
>blue, wooweee zowee!!!
haha yes
andy was a master of commercialism
>well was he just lying or did he really mean it? was he just saying, "haha
>look at me im making all you people think this is something meaningful,
>youre all fools!"
well
it's hard to tell with andy warhol
his work is very, very smart social commentary
but his whole life he denied that
and considering that his public persona was an art project in itself, i mean,
he created and maintained this vapid personality and at the same time used his
background in advertising to turn art and commercialism upside down
i have a feeling andy knew exactly what he was doing
and claiming that everything was 'just surface' was a wicked kind of commentary
in itself
>well at least thats funny :-)
art can be humorous, too ;)
he also made a film called 'sleep'
that is, literally, like 10 hours of someone sleeping
that's it
ahhh andy was cool
>oh cmon that doesnt mean anything!!!!!!!
oh cmon yes it does!
>im sure its interesting to read about but when your just looking at it its
>pretty worthless, if i was looking to read a book i would, the art should be
>able to stand on its own without some mystical explanation next to it
sure, and a lot of it does cuz it's beautiful
but a lot of art involves social context as well, especially postmodern art,
it's not always just a pretty picture, you have to take into account the
artist's motivations and mindset and influences, then it makes sense
and as i said
that was the point of a lot of abstract expressionism
making the artist's mind an abstraction
obviously you won't understand it as much as, say, the guy who painted it did
the public really never liked AbEx for that very reason, but let me tell you,
the best of those guy were anything but hacks
>"this
>painting rocks because....." oh thats why it rocks! i see now! brilliant!!
exactly, hence the study of art
>thats all good, im not attacking that type of stuff, at least some type of
>work or thought was put into it, anyone can just make a blue canvas or a
>black line and make up some explanation for what its meaning is,
but yes, you very well could be attacking that type of stuff, how do you know
why the artist painted a canvas blue or just put one line down the center?
that's why i typed out all that barnett newman crap, cuz i'm telling you, he
did work with colored canvases and one 'zips', and he had a whole methodology
behind it, so the nameless artist you saw could very well have done the same
thing or even slaved over it more
and maybe not, but geez, suspend your disbelief for five seconds
>there was
>lots of stuff in the modern section i liked alot, i really like the huge
>paintings where the artist, i think its pollock who just threw the paint all
>over the wall,
all over the floor, you mean
loads of people criticized him and still do, cuz his drip paintings were just
that -- drips on the floor -- which he would try and make via automatic
movement, not thinking, etc. but he was trying to paint from his unconscious,
that was the point.
blue canvas, canvas covered with dripped paint, what's the difference? what's
art and what's not?
and yes pollock was great
but he was also immature and self-destructive and he wasted his fucking life
and talent away by drinking
those drip painting were made during the only sober period of his life. go see
'pollock' already, dammit. it rules.
>but seriously im glad you responded representing the other side, or as i
>like to say, "the wrong side" :-)
haha yanni you deserve a punch in the nose
snowman in hell
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:20010716200108...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> my favorite abstract expressionist is mark rothko
mmm willem de kooning
the manic street preachers has even done a song about him
as well as for kevin carter..
um i gotta go pray at my msp altar now.. i'll be right back.
--
§am ( www.mylittleempire.cjb.net )
--
"blablabla and hedgehogs in gardens blablabla."
--
Yanni the Great
>
> oh cmon yes it does!
hmm you make a valid point, i guess youre right :-)
> sure, and a lot of it does cuz it's beautiful
> but a lot of art involves social context as well, especially postmodern
art,
> it's not always just a pretty picture, you have to take into account the
> artist's motivations and mindset and influences, then it makes sense
alright i see what you mean but those two pieces were WAY too minimal, there
is absolutely nothing that the artist can say about the meaning behind his
blue canvas that will suddenly make me realize how wonderful it is, he could
say absolutely anything and in a way it will make sense, "oh it represents
the circle of life and death and the rise and fall of the moon and sun" OR
"oh it represents Big Bird taking a massive dump on Snuffalapukus' head" its
so damn simple anything can apply! seriously now if it was a simple design
of some kind or a bunch of wavy lines really that would be enough for me not
to get angry about it, at least you could say, oh those wavy lines are waves
on the ocean or whatever, im not against minimalism at all, its just that a
blue canvas by itself is so minimal that it drives me insane!!
> but yes, you very well could be attacking that type of stuff, how do you
know
> why the artist painted a canvas blue or just put one line down the center?
i have a feeling that when he made it he saw how minimalist type art was
becoming popular and he said to himself, "oh shit im gonna have it all blue
and these suckers are gonna eat this shit up!" and ate it up they did! or
the directors of the museum put that thing there to get the type of reaction
that they got from me, afterall a strong reaction whether it be joy or anger
is exactly what you want from the viewer
> that's why i typed out all that barnett newman crap, cuz i'm telling you,
he
> did work with colored canvases and one 'zips', and he had a whole
methodology
> behind it, so the nameless artist you saw could very well have done the
same
> thing or even slaved over it more
>
> and maybe not, but geez, suspend your disbelief for five seconds
ok im willing to bend a little for the black line thing but i REFUSE to bend
even an inch on the blue canvas!! :-)
> those drip painting were made during the only sober period of his life. go
see
> 'pollock' already, dammit. it rules.
i will, i just saw on imdb that ed harris played him, that guy fucking
rules! every movie i have seen him in he was perfect, ever since i saw the
bond movie the world is not enough with the FUCKING HORRIBLE acting by
Denise Richards ive come to appreciate great acting even more, even her
hotness wasnt enough to overcome my disgust! :-)
> >but seriously im glad you responded representing the other side, or as i
> >like to say, "the wrong side" :-)
>
> haha yanni you deserve a punch in the nose
a punch in the nose indeed, or as i like to call it, "a golden trophy that
says, "Yanni is correct":-)