State of the "Art"

[DavidS]

Hi folks,

I am interest to know what the community thinks of todays perception of the #1 shitstorm topic "what is art supposed to be?".

The reason I ask is the following: The past few years I`ve been giving digital illustration and design classes at a private academy next to my work as a freelancing graphic designer.

Over the years and months I have noticed a somewhat troubling trend: The trend to be very negative towards "modern art" (or whatever people think is "modern art"). Not that this is particularly news, but I do find that the tone has become harsher than usual.

The pinnacle of this trend was reached with the publication of this thing: http://global3.memecdn.com/miro-amp-039-...317223.jpg wich since made its round through art communities and social networks.

I do agree that 37 mil. is a disgusting amount of money. Why not build a museum or school with that ? Well, it is about prestige of course. That is how the gallery business runs after all. But I don`t even want to focus on the exact amount of money or money at all.

What I do want to talk about is why people look at a Miro (or Pollock, Warhol, Mondrean, Picasso, Hirst, Delvoye, etc.) and start barking like a rabid dog and what this has to do with the current state of "art".

I have a theory for this and will post it a bit later. Before that I would love to hear the opinions of this community.

We`re all fans of horror and many on here are creative in their jobs or free time while coming from totally different backgrounds. That there is a bigger age differences on here is also good.

[Ghieri]

I can understand the use of modern art to bring color to an otherwise bland modern house. That being said, it should be in good taste, and not that scribble above. And I sure as hell wouldn't pay more than $50.

[Froge]

I don't understand modern art but I'm open to it.

Can someone explain to me why that art piece is so prestigious?

[Ghieri]

I don't understand modern art but I'm open to it.

Can someone explain to me why that art piece is so prestigious?

Because the modern art industry is as pretentious as it is lazy.

[Bridge]

There is nothing wrong with the stylistic trends that are abound in modern art, it's just that a very large portion of the artists making it have no business calling themselves artists in the first place. In 200 years people will look at modern art as just another thing that contributed to the overall history of art, and the truly great works that have been and continue to be created will be remembered.

So, my answer is none of the poll options, but I think the 20th century and what we've seen of the 21st century so far has produced some of the most colorful and interesting music yet and I've seen some paintings I like (but I'm not really into that kind of "art" to any serious degree).

I don't understand modern art but I'm open to it.

Can someone explain to me why that art piece is so prestigious?

It really doesn't have anything to do with art. As has been hilariously demonstrated on several occasions, most of the big name art critics have no idea what they're talking about so one thing leads to another and bam, you're famous. It's just politics.

EDIT: Only temporarily of course.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law

[Danny Boy]

But I like both modern and classic. Where is dat option?

[Traggey]

I.. I have an arts eduation, so It feels odd so say that I don't really care, digital art, game art, that's all that matters to me.

[DavidS]

most of the big name art critics have no idea what they're talking about so one thing leads to another and bam, you're famous. It's just politics.

EDIT: Only temporarily of course.

Yes and no in my opinion. It surely hasn`t to do much with art anymore (and some might say this without the "anymore") but it is less the lack of knowledge than trying to make business. Buying art from a gallery happens mostly because of prestige. You buy expensive art in order to "show your riches" much like rich merchants and people of influence in olden times let artists like Vermeer make paintings for them. You can compare the modern gallerist to a real estate agent.

I like Sturgeons Law. That said, my poll was more of a joke and I thought it would show.


So here we go...theory number one:
Art does not need to please its audience, yet art needs an audience.
Art is communication.

[failedALIAS]

I once saw a room full of string taped to each side of the room. It wasn't a cool web or anything, just 4 pieces of string. I hate people.

[vixenVIPER]

It is we who decide what art is, not the artist himself. If a person has decided to spend 37 mil on a piece, no matter how lame it might look from a technical point of view, it has value because we somewhere along the road decided so.

Yes, technically it doesn't measure up at all. AT ALL. Most people can "draw" better than that. But art isn't just about how difficult it was to make it, or what techniques were used. It's more than that.
I naturally agree that the fact it was sold for 37 mil is fucking DUMB, but it's up to the buyer. *Shrug*

Now I am wondering if what I had to say was even on topic or not..