Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

doctorpotatohead t1_j7xnn6p wrote

a lot of people who hate abstract art think art should just be about the skill to replicate reality instead of conveying feeling or a vibe, and that seems kind of empty to me

5

DancingOnSwings t1_j7zrnn0 wrote

You're refuting a strawman. No educated person dislikes abstract art for that reason, or at the very least not just that reason. Abstract is also too broad of a term. What most people object to is meaningless art, and it's adherents who are too obsessed with viewing themselves as smart to admit they don't see a non-existent meaning. Quality traditional art is subtle, but the meaning and significance of the is still able to come through without knowing the title (indeed most historical paintings weren't titled). Much of modern art is either completely devoid of meaning (not that there's anything wrong with a quality, beautiful craft, but it doesn't need to be lionized in a museum) or the piece practically hits you over the head with it's (often highly political) meaning. I dislike modern art largely because I want a return to subtlety embedded in quality craftsmanship with intricate details such that the painting gets better the more, and closer, you look at it. 17th century Dutch and 19th century American landscapes are a fantastic example of this!

3

doctorpotatohead t1_j7ztdqs wrote

>No educated person dislikes abstract art for that reason, or at the very least not just that reason

I didn't specify educated

> I dislike modern art largely because I want a return to subtlety embedded in quality craftsmanship with intricate details

insert Jim looking at the camera face

>What most people object to is meaningless art, and it's adherents who are too obsessed with viewing themselves as smart to admit they don't see a non-existent meaning.

In all seriousness this is much more of a strawman than anything I said. I think you would be hard-pressed to find truly meaningless art, and intentionally creating meaningless art would be expression of its own sort.

edit: I also reject the idea that art must be understood without the title, expression can be the whole package.

2

DancingOnSwings t1_j8051f2 wrote

You're replying on a thread about a piece of art with so little meaning that no one realized it was upside down for decades...

I once bent down in a (modern) art museum to look at an dehumidifier, the security guard felt compelled to tell me that "wasn't art", "a lot of people think it is, but it's not."

Here's an "invisible statue" https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/artist-sells-invisible-sculpture-for-over-18k/

I can't count the number of paintings that are two or three solid rectangles of color. Arranged verically or horizontally, I'd love to hear how those tell a story. If you think that has meaning, I'd suggest you aren't giving enough importance to the term. It may convey a 'vibe' or 'feeling' but it doesn't have meaning. Hence it is meaningless. No strawman, I'll defend that point as long as I'm alive.

Anyways, sorry for the extent I mischaricterized your views, I've heard similar things from others before and grouped your statement in with their opinions. But as a final statement, I'll say that art that only conveys a 'vibe' or 'feeling,' as opposed to having real meaning feels "kind of empty to me."

1

doctorpotatohead t1_j806vmi wrote

>You're replying on a thread about a piece of art with so little meaning that no one realized it was upside down for decades...

I don't think you can say something lacks meaning because it is not understood. I wouldn't say a German book lacks meaning just because I can't read German.

3

DancingOnSwings t1_j809pu5 wrote

That's a fair point. I would say that if I don't understand the meaning of something there are two options. 1) There is a meaning that I am not seeing, or 2) there is no meaning.

To continue with your analogy, I could also hit random keys on a keyboard for hundreds of pages. If I use the spacebar liberally and make vowells a bit more frequent, it could appear like a foreign language, but it would, in fact, be meaningless. How would I determine if it's a language or nonsense? Well first I might ask if anybody can read it. If I'm sceptical of people claiming to read it, I might ask if two people can arrive at the same meaning independently. If no one can read I might look for patterns that that are suggestive of language and see if it can be deciphered.

Clearly some things are meaningless (rock, chewed up gum, etc), but I'd love to be wrong about any art that I consider meaningless. I'd love for someone to be able to show me clear, non-BS meaning to a piece I thought was meaningless. That's an opportunity for me to grow and widen my perspective, but someone has to actually show me the meaning first. Until then I will argue passionately that it has none.

1

SideShowtrees t1_jac20ev wrote

To me there are three perspectives that exist when viewing art, the artists intent, the viewer’s interpretation, and the “objective” analysis of the piece. I must object to the idea that the painting lacks meaning because it was displayed upside down and no one noticed, you may look at the piece and find that it doesn’t invoke anything inside you but the people who view it and see something valuable in its expression are not in any way pretending. The artist had an intent and I guarantee you felt that it was a meaningful artistic expression, and yes the “objective” reality is that it is a bunch of parallel lines on a plain background and your feeling that it is “empty” is 100% valid and you are free to voice your opinion. Art is in everything and meaning is everywhere, you listed a rock or chewed up gum as being meaningless but there is infinite meaning that can be drawn from those things if you are willing to open your mind and be a little creative, rocks can be incredibly beautiful, even the ones you see in the cracks on the street, they can tell a story of time if you contemplate where they come from or what they’ve been through, this context doesn’t need to objectively exist to provide a valuable experience to the observer in the same way that a bunch of parallel lines on a canvas needs no objective features to tell a story. You don’t need permission to see meaning in things. Moreover art galleries are places designed to put you into the receptive mode of appreciation, many things that would not be considered art in another context can suddenly seem worthy of attention and deeper thought, hence you mistakenly looking at the dehumidifier, if you were to have some sort of satisfying experience or novel thought while looking at the dehumidifier that is in a way “art”. The metaphor of a language is poor because it implies there is an objective “meaning” to the piece. When it comes to abstract art an artist can tell you what they were thinking about when they created it, what emotions they wished to invoke, or what they see in it but once they release the image from their mind and set it free in the world it is no longer in their hands and you’re free to see it how you wish, this includes upside down.

As for your last statement about being open to being shown a non-bs meaning to an abstract piece, I’d like to know what kind of answer you’re expecting because I feel like you would be unsatisfied by any explanation due to the subjective nature of abstract art. Do you find yourself lacking meaning in other areas of life? Why do we exist, what is the meaning of life, is there a purpose to anything, these are questions that only you can answer and anyone who claims to have the answers are giving you “bs” because it couldn’t possibly apply to your unique life, same goes with meaning in art, only you can assess meaning for yourself, and if we look to objectivity we find that the answer is no, no there is no meaning to life, no there is no meaning in art. though there are many things that you can learn to better help yourself find meaning in art and life in general, and I’d love to discuss techniques for mindfulness if you’re interested.

Closing off id just like to say that it’s ok to not like a piece of art, hell there are tons of art that I find pretty empty myself, but to look at others and judge them for finding value in what you see as valueless is a sad way to engage with a medium designed to be open to interpretation. Art is about creativity, so let’s leave objectivity at the door and make up stories about colors and shapes without worrying about the “truth”

1

Daniel_The_Thinker t1_j7zxuuk wrote

People forget that if you're in a room full of artists who've all been to art school, being able to paint landscapes and fruit baskets is not impressive in the slightest.

An artist is going to care far more about what their peers consider impressive than the opinion of some pundit who wants to go back to the "classics" (aka shit that has already been done before).

3

Venomora t1_j7xs8qs wrote

See, you get it. Why narrow your definition of art and close your heart off to all the wonderful forms of expression out there?

−3

hellopomelo t1_j7ys6zs wrote

because some douche will end up hanging it upside down anyways

5

V6Ga t1_j7yccjo wrote

I don't think they have a definition of art like that; rather they are frustrated that abstract art (or classical music, or opera) is given a place of honor in place of art they themselves enjoy.

Why is fine art given public monies, and sound systems are not? More people get enjoyment from sound systems than will ever even know that piece of art exists. And their enjoyment of sound systems is exactly about conveying a feeling or a vibe.

NB: I hate sound system music; but I am well aware that it is way more popular than any so-called fine art.

−4

critfist t1_j7yk9lp wrote

Musicians get public money all the time though.

0