Modern Art - a con job?
Don H
Historically, painting a portrait or a landscape was the only way then of
preserving a likeness - prior to the advent of photography. The objective
criteria for judging good art from bad was simply the success in achieving
such likeness.
Cynics will note that "modern art" arrived about the same time as
photography. You can draw your own conclusions.
===========================
Ernest
wrote:
Art is whatever the observer wishes it to be.
Good art has always included an 'interpretive'
component and has always been more than
just a perfect rendition of what is visible before
you, charactures and magic eye art are common
forms of interpretive art. Yes a lot of 'modern'
art should be listed as 'new shit' and is ugly
and has the same visual appeal as a pile of dog
shit you just stpped im; but if the creator of this
can convince some idiot to buy that is their good
luck. In the end all art is like beauty and it is
totally in the eye of the beholder.
BTW there have been examples of etreme
interpretive art work around much longer than
photography, it just was seen as worth anything.
The creatiuon of modern art is, in my opinion,
due more to the fact that there were a mach
larger pool of people with money to spend on
artwork than previously (due to demographic
and cultural changes) and most of these did not
have the education or experience to be discerning
in their choices.
Deadly
@bywater.net.au
Ian McFadyen
"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:APAdc.1993$ED....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The threat the photography posed to art was not merely that it competed in
producing representational images more quickly and more accurately. The
threat was that photography could allow paintings and drawings themselves to
be duplicated en masse and purchased by the lower classes. Where a factory
worker could never have afforded an original oil painting, photography and
three colour printing meant that every household could have a copy of a
Rossetti painting on the wall and a Millais painting could be printed on a
biscuit tin. This transformation of art into a consumer commodity was
anathema to artists who had always enjoyed a privileged position as darlings
of the aristrocracy. Their work was supposed to adorn the walls of palaces,
or the ceilings of churches, not the walls of workers cottage, or tea
caddies. The answer? To invent a new form of art that ordinary people would
hate - non-representational, confronting, disturbing, "intellectual art"
that would only be bought by galleries, rich collectors and, later,
corporations. The art that ordinary people liked - representational,
sentimental, narrative, aesthetic, would be dismissed as "kitsch". The works
of "serious" artists became huge (to suit office boardrooms and foyers) ugly
(to satisfy nihilistic critics) and meaningless (to stimulate art
theorists). And it worked a treat. Modern art successfully removed itself
from the public domain and is now seen only in galleries, the homes of the
ultrarich and office foyers and artists managed to re-ingratiate themselves
with the new financial and intellectual elite.
Ordinary people however continue to buy representational paintings of
landscapes, seascapes, cityscapes, running horses - even the occasional
dogs-playing-billiards picture, which give them pleasure, and are thus
"real" art.
Ernest
Although your comments re artists thoughts may
be true of some I do not think it was the major
reasoning. Traditonal art was still the major theme
even when modern art came into favour with
the critics and buyers.
When modern art started the cost of photography
and clour printing were still so high that a colour
print of a painting was very much more than ordinary
people could afford. Although cheaper than the
high end traditional painting it was still a costly
exercise. Also at the time, and afterwards, there
were still less wanted and begining artists who did
good traditional art work for little more than the
cost of materials simply to continue painting until
they were 'discovered'.
Deadly
@bywater.net.au
Mosley Jones III
"Ian McFadyen" <imcf...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:xVHdc.245$Er....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
it is funny that in my trips to the arts department at a few unis, I never
saw any ability to reproduce a likeness in a image or sculpture, the lack of
talent was hidden behind the fat that it was abstract
OK I admit that abstract art is a real thing, but that artist should still
be able to reproduce a likeness to real life, if he is to make a accurate
likeness to any abstract image he may imagine.
if one was to look at a face, then put pen to paper in a way that does not
resemble the face, we can say he is not very good. but if he was to put pen
to paper putting a abstract image to paper, how do we know if it is a
likeness of the intended image?
Ngumba Zuleke
Mosley Jones III <mos...@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
news:4077...@funnel.arach.net.au...
>
> "Ian McFadyen" <imcf...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:xVHdc.245$Er....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:APAdc.1993$ED....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[...]
> very interesting
>
> it is funny that in my trips to the arts department at a few unis
those cleaning contracts are really paying
off for you, well done, keep up the good work.
you must feel good to be off the dole and
supporting yourself ?
> I never saw any ability
you're a fucking cleaner !
what would you know ?
dickhead
Mosley Jones III
"Ngumba Zuleke" <zul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4077...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> Mosley Jones III <mos...@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
> news:4077...@funnel.arach.net.au...
> >
> > "Ian McFadyen" <imcf...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:xVHdc.245$Er....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > >
> > > "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > news:APAdc.1993$ED....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> [...]
>
> > very interesting
> >
> > it is funny that in my trips to the arts department at a few unis
>
> those cleaning contracts are really paying
> off for you, well done, keep up the good work.
>
> you must feel good to be off the dole and
> supporting yourself ?
>
you must be thinking of fasgnadh, he admitted to never ever having worked in
this country.
what did you do for a job in Uganda? sell your hole?
Ngumba Zuleke
Mosley Jones III <mos...@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
>
> "Ngumba Zuleke" <zul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4077...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >
> > Mosley Jones III <mos...@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
> > news:4077...@funnel.arach.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Ian McFadyen" <imcf...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:xVHdc.245$Er....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > > >
> > > > "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:APAdc.1993$ED....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > very interesting
> > >
> > > it is funny that in my trips to the arts department at a few unis
> >
> > those cleaning contracts are really paying
> > off for you, well done, keep up the good work.
> >
> > you must feel good to be off the dole and
> > supporting yourself ?
> >
>
>
> you must be thinking of fasgnadh,
no.. i'm talking to you, the uni cleaner
unless you're 'fasgnadh' as well ?
Don H
Pure Abstract Art, I'd rule out as invalid. Hence, I'd grant Picasso's
"Guernica", as a symbolic representation of the Spanish Civil War, as "art"
in the "cartooning" sense - because at least the average person can see what
he's getting at. What was that $3m painting that Australia purchased? "Blue
Poles"? Not art in my opinion. Caricatures, cartoons, and symbolism, can
be considered "art" if they skilfully convey a message which is linked to
reality in some way - but any painting, etc, which is solely from "the
artist's head" is just a heap of junk to anyone else. We only have the
artist's word that it is what he/she says it is. Art is social, in
presentation and appreciation. Any artist can indulge a fantasy, but
privately thanks; just don't expect the public to pay millions for it.
======================
"Mosley Jones III" <mos...@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
news:4077...@funnel.arach.net.au...
>
> news:xVHdc.245$Er....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Ngumba Zuleke
> "Mosley Jones III" <mos...@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
> news:4077...@funnel.arach.net.au...
> >
> > "Ian McFadyen" <imcf...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:xVHdc.245$Er....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
[...]
> Art is social, in presentation and appreciation.
> Any artist can indulge a fantasy, but privately
> thanks; just don't expect the public to pay millions
> for it.
no worries, top-poster, i'll gladly take your dali off ya
for ten bucks then.
dickhead.