Art expert fooled by chimp's painting
casioc...@gmail.com
A German art expert was duped into believing a painting done by a
chimpanzee was actually painted by a respected artist.
Dr Katja Schneider, director of the State Art Museum in Moritzburg,
Saxony-Anhalt, suggested the painting was by Guggenheim Prize winning
artist Ernst Wilhelm Nay.
Dr Schneider said: "It looks like an Ernst Wilhelm Nay. He was famous
for using such blotches of colour."
But in reality, the painting was made by female chimpanzee Banghi, from
Halle Zoo.
According to zoo workers, painting is one of the favourite pastimes of
the 31-year-old ape, but her works are often destroyed by mate Satscho.
After the real artist was revealed by the Bild newspaper, Dr Schneider
said: "I did think it looked a bit rushed."
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1648314.html?menu=news.quirkies.quirkygaffes
ero...@emailerosion.org
modern/contemporary-art-shown-to-be-the-hoax-it-is-because-an-expert-is-fooled-by-art-done-by-a-child/monkey/elephant/cat/etc
"news" story!
Mani Deli
Yes, its just like the usual news story that, the only reason that the
guy said it looks like it was done by a monkey, or more often an eight
year old, is because he doesn't "understand," Modern Art.
Take note, that if you dare ask the guy what he understand about
Modern art that you don't, you'll get the usual obfuscation.
If it looks like it was done by a monkey it's the artist's problem,
not the viewer's.
no skill, no art
casioc...@gmail.com
One of the worst movies I ever watched, in fact, the worst I could
perhaps ever imagine, was called something like 'what the beeb do we
know'. It's stupid, I stopped watching it after a while and cursed
everything about it. But anyhow, what's relevant here was a stupid
artsy-type cliche of a woman who'd play some stupid Earth-type music
and then step into paint and dance on a large sheet or canvas or
whatever it was. And that was supposed to be her art piece, what
results out of her dancing in that stupid 'inspired' mood to that
stupid kind of music. What idiocy, i hate that kind of nonsense. That's
not art, that's bullshit.
artangel
the entire modern and contemporary art field is proved a fraud.
Since the artist was filmed doesnt that mean that all contemproary
films are idiotic. Why not offer that the "modern and contemproary"
film maker can no longer create interesting work. No good film has
been made since 1930.
I read a really stupid book last week. Does that mean all "modern and
contemproary" writers are incompetent?
I know this may come as a shock but there is good and bad in all
fields.
How about telling us about something new you find exciting instead of
monkey paintings and some obscure German "art" expert who cant tell the
difference between animal scribbles and human expression.
Is it because you share the same capacity of the "art" expert and cant
tell the difference between a monkey painting and art? What does that
say about you?
aest...@hotmail.com
That story reminded me of the following:
- I remember being handed a score composed by Mozart at the age of
eleven. What could I say? I felt like de Kooning, who was asked to
comment on a certain abstract painting, and answered in the negative.
He was then told it was the work of a celebrated monkey. 'That's
different. For a monkey, it's terrific.'
Stravinksky - "London Magazine", March, 1967.
Bill
pretending to be insane, it's been shown over and over that
psychiatrists CANNOT tell the difference or distinguish the nuts from
from fruits. And that tells us EVERYTHING we need to know about the
world of psychiatry. I'll make a bet with you. Ask any so called
art expert to distinguish between a hundred works done by donkeys with
a brush tied to their tails and a hundred modern art paintings and we'd
see the SAME result. And THAT would tell us everything we need to know
about modern / contemporary art. Wanna bet ?
Have a nice day. Bill
casioc...@gmail.com
What does it say about you that you're making such assumptions about me
from so little information. I posted a piece of news, verbatim, and
then an anecdote to expand on what someone in this thread had
mentioned. Why generalise?
I hope you did not put much effort into your post above. It's not good,
it wasn't worth it.
Regards.
artangel
take it that way.
It is an amusing story and nothing more. However we have a group who
will try to use this as proof that all art being produced today is
without any merit. This has become really tiresome.
How about the flip side? Any positive developments going on out there?
Thur
"artangel" <cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1135439209.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Let me ask it another way (can't provide an answer myself)
Supposing you had a time machine which you could jump to
a future or past. Are there any works you would unblushingly
take with you as examples of our great achievements in Art?
I expect there are some somewhere.
All have a happy holiday, and peace to those who disagree
with me.
--
Thur
Mani Deli
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Isnt it interesting that one so called expert is fooled and therefore
>the entire modern and contemporary art field is proved a fraud.
>
Right ALL isn't a fraud , just the crap that looks like monkey
painting and that's a lot of painting.
>
>How about telling us about something new you find exciting instead of
>monkey paintings and some obscure German "art" expert who cant tell the
>difference between animal scribbles and human expression.
The usual excuse. If it looks like it was done by a monkey its the
artist's problem, no on elses.
>Is it because you share the same capacity of the "art" expert and cant
>tell the difference between a monkey painting and art? What does that
>say about you?
What is says is, that inspite of what you say, I maintain that you
can't tell either.
artangel
the past we still have the works or documentation to review.
For this tread lets narrow the focus on the 20th century since Modern
and Contemporary art seems to cause all the fuss.
Short List - Western Art.
Early 20th Century.
Rodin - Gates of Hell
Monet - Waterlilies
Galle - glassworks
Picasso - Les Demoiselles D'Avignon
Matisse - Dance
Braque - A Portuguese
Duchamp - Nude Decending a Staircase
Boccion - Unique Shape of Continuity in Space
Malevich - An Englishman in Moscow
Dix - Artillery
Leger - Woman in Blue
Gris - Glass, Newspaper and Bottle
Hopper - House by the Railroad
Giacometti - The Surrealist Table
Ernst - Europe after the Rain
Picasso - Guernica
Moore - Reclining Figure
This takes us to about 1950. After 1950 Art gets really interesting.
What are your thoughts on the list so far.
Mani, dont bother. We already know what you think.
Nate Branscom
casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> One of the worst movies I ever watched, in fact, the worst I could
> perhaps ever imagine, was called something like 'what the beeb do we
> know'. It's stupid, I stopped watching it after a while and cursed
> everything about it. But anyhow, what's relevant here was a stupid
> artsy-type cliche of a woman who'd play some stupid Earth-type music
> and then step into paint and dance on a large sheet or canvas or
> whatever it was. And that was supposed to be her art piece, what
> results out of her dancing in that stupid 'inspired' mood to that
> stupid kind of music. What idiocy, i hate that kind of nonsense. That's
> not art, that's bullshit.
"What the Bleep Do We Know?" is about quantum physics. It's not
stupid, you just don't understand it.
-- Nate
Thur
Very much in the tradition of the Renaissance,
Italy. I have seen several bronze doors which
have the same flavour, though don't ask me which
place.
Ok, but I don't think they really typify Rodin,
though.
Monet Water Lilies.
I checked out on the web and confirmed that there
are a number of such.
From every viewpoint I can think of, they do not
stand as significant works of art. They may typify
Monet and his work, but that is only an historic
content. His awful palette, his selection of the same
place, the complete lack of movement, and in the
case of the said picture(s), lacking an interesting
focus, the general carelessness in regard to a
painterly handling of the medium.
None of my criticisms can be held up as typical of
Impressionism, and there were many Impressionists
whose works stand well above him in all aspects.
Some of his supporters would have pointed me to
the view of the Thames, London, which was a departure
from the above in several ways.
If you refer to Emile GALLE (1846-1904)
I too love fine "art" glassware.
as in :-
http://www.tav.net/mcamps/english/
Picasso.
Why? What is you see in this? I wont condemn all work
which strays from realism, but the work Has to take the
viewer along somehow. I see a puzzle, something the
artist knows, maybe a fine work, but how can we tell if
there is no language? How do we discern anything from
any language which cannot be translated? I cannot even
enjoy the craftsmanship, since like most Modernists, he
did not seem to feel obliged to provide.
Matisse. I have posted on him before.
A two dimensional work. It lacks any indication of
artistic design, and obviously all other values that
could have been there have been shed too.
I see the work as a single letter of an artistic message.
On it's own it's like a piece of plaster fallen from
the wall of an Egyptian tomb which contains part of a
hieroglyph. We might have a wonderful fight of fancy
imagining all the history of Egypt, just staring at it.
No credit to the creator of the hieroglyph would be due.
Braque.
I have no particular dislike except I feel the web
representations are overly green.
I prefer in contrast something like Umberto Boccioni.
(Italian, 1882-1916) Dynamism of the Footballer, but
I don't hold it up as 20th Century Art with very much
pride.
Duchamp. Even the accompanying text I found emphasised
the historic value of it rather than it's artistic
significance. I feel that if there were a moment when
it said something artistic, then this has long passed.
Boccioni - Unique Shape of Continuity in Space
Yes, I like some of his stuff too. I rather recoil from
Futurism when I read it was inspired by fascist ideas,
though.
Malevich - An Englishman in Moscow
Typifies what has happened to art. Absolutely nothing
here for the refined tastes of an art lover.
I note that he produced a white canvas as a piece of
art, too.
Otto Dix.
I did like "Self-portrait of Mars" (1915) which I had
not seen before. I feel his work does qualify as art,
and would be of interest to other generations.
Could not find "Artillerie"
Maybe
http://www.art-ww1.com/trame/004text2.html
or
http://worldimages.sjsu.edu/Prt-971*1$645*392142
Leger - Woman in Blue
Indecipherable.
Gris - Glass, Newspaper and Bottle
Indecipherable
Hopper - House by the Railroad
Bleakness, emptiness, and perhaps a reference
to the mid-West USA, where there are featureless
landscapes aplenty. But I fear he was letting out
his own feelings more than commenting upon
the world about him. Not enough of anything to
hold up as great art.
Giacometti - The Surrealist Table
I don't understand it. Should I?
Would future generations understand it?
Ernst - Europe after the Rain
I read this was completed a year after he escaped
from Germany.
I don't think the web does anything for this work.
I feel it cant be as bad as it looks. I can't accept
it just because he had a lot to say, as he must have.
Picasso - Guernica
What makes this acceptable to my eyes is that I have
watched a couple of tv shows where learned people
discussed the meaning of it in detail.
This makes it easier for me to break past the usual
wall of incomprehensibility.
Even so I can see future generations shaking their heads
and asking is this all they could achieve?
Moore - Reclining Figure
I wont ask "which one?" because I have a general view on
them all.
They are sculptures. They have a certain style, which does
not appeal to me. As simplified, or minimalist images, they
cannot say very much, as could your Rodin for example, which
has the necessary level of complexity to contain enough
for a real work of art.
I would suggest a label underneath with something like -
"our society has nothing left to express but a style, and
style which is as brief as it is empty"
--
Thur
artangel
style which is as brief as it is empty"
The works I chose were for the most part early works by the artists
who broke with the acceptable style of their times. They decided to
express their ideas in a new way.
There can be no arguement here. Its like the person who says "We had
real music in my day, Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller, not like the
noise you kids are listening to". One can not negate the contributions
of Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller however it is unfair to dismiss
everything that came after.
The range of human expression is extraordinary. The wholesale
dismissal of a large portion of it is limiting. It may bring personal
comfort. It does not make for very good conversation.
Glad I diddnt get into post 1950 art!
Well this was fun. Thanks.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> "What the Bleep Do We Know?" is about quantum physics. It's not
> stupid, you just don't understand it.
>
nutters. They try to pretend that quantum mechanics has something to do
with their brand of mystical fruitcakery.
Avoid the nasty piece of propaganda at all costs.
If you think it is all true and makes complete sense then line your job
aspirations more along the road sweeping than the estate agent line.
--
"Aye, of that Chingis was it said that while he carpeted all Asia
with bones, yet might a virgin with a bag of gold walk the length of his
dominions without harm, so perfect was his governance" - George
MacDonald Fraser, 'The Candlemass Road'
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Nate Branscom
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> Nate Branscom wrote:
> > casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > "What the Bleep Do We Know?" is about quantum physics. It's not
> > stupid, you just don't understand it.
> >
> It is not. It is a badly produced propaganda film made by religious
> nutters. They try to pretend that quantum mechanics has something to do
> with their brand of mystical fruitcakery.
>
> Avoid the nasty piece of propaganda at all costs.
>
> If you think it is all true and makes complete sense then line your job
> aspirations more along the road sweeping than the estate agent line.
I didn't say *I* understood the movie (though, I can see where that
could be inferred). I, personally, didn't like WTBDWK. It reminded me
of an afterschool special aimed at teaching Junior High students the
"wonders of mathematic science", but the movie wasn't based solely on
art. The weird artist roommate was just a quirky add-on.
I haven't seen you in AUE in a while. Why is that?
-- Nate
Peter H.M. Brooks
mine who only had legal training thought it brilliant - to me that is
the worst possible outcome. A film that is utter crap but convinces
people is something that, like Mr Hitler, the world is better off without.
>
> I haven't seen you in AUE in a while. Why is that?
>
--
I do not know as much as god, but I know as much as god did at my age
- unnamed mathematician quoted by Milton Shulman
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket
, where a pompous art critic (Christopher Lee) is similarly fooled.
http://www.1000misspenthours.com/reviews/reviewsa-d/drterrorshouseofhorrors1965.htm