Forum
Community Forum
Today's Posts
FAQ & Rules
Members List

Writing
Writing Forum
Recent Posts
Critique Guidelines

Groups
YWO Social Groups
Facebook
Myspace

Chat
 
YWA

Register

Store
Support YWO
YWO Merchandise
The Book Despository
Amazon.com (US)
Amazon.co.uk (UK)
Amazon.ca (Canada)

SBS Mag


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-26-2016, 02:29 PM View Post #1 (Link) Modern Art
2sh4r (Offline)
Global Moderator
 
2sh4r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 295
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 21
https://www.buzzfeed.com/javiermoren...Z3z#.jwZX9ngM5

Yay or nay?

My view:

I think its nihilistic and annoying - the proliferation of symbol art, that is. When people did it way back in the early nineteen hundreds, it was innovative. Now, its just lazy.

Sure, glasses and teddy bears have meaning to you, but its your job to convey that meaning with skill. You can't just leave it on the floor and expect people to appreciate some beauty. You have to meet me halfway.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 04:28 PM View Post #2 (Link)
lalodragon (Offline)
Global Moderator
 
lalodragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: To the laboratory!
Posts: 1,982
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 193
Give examples of art exhibits that consist of glasses on the floor or similar? This article is a joke about the gullibility of people. I can't doubt that there are similarly banal art exhibits, but if you want to discuss them, maybe you should share them.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 10:40 PM View Post #3 (Link) My View
Emoijah Bridgs (Offline)
Abstract Thinker
 
Emoijah Bridgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Florida, sadly
Posts: 25
Points: 0.06
Times Thanked: 1
So, a teenager put glasses on the floor and everyone thought it was art. Interesting. It is kind of ridiculous that the complex and elaborate paintings, models, and other beautiful forms of art are underdogs or even compared to this. It is true that glasses is a form of art with its intricate designs. But true art shows time and a purpose of displaying it.

I disagree that modern art is lazy though. That isn't necessarily true. Modern art is so complex in all its forms. lance around us and look at what even high school and college students are doing with designing robotics and artistic models. Instead of letting a teenager leave glasses on the floor like that, why can't a teen leave a model of Justin Timberlake made out of clay? Would they mind?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2016, 03:30 PM View Post #4 (Link)
S.J. Barnesington (Offline)
Abstract Thinker
 
S.J. Barnesington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Somewhere in the world
Posts: 26
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 1
The article was talking about a prank some teenagers did. Therefore, most likely, they weren't expecting anyone to appreciate the glasses for beauty.

I think that the article is just proof that people today don't have very high expectations for what they consider art. I have noticed this in other forms of art (as opposed to visual art) as well. Most (but not all, thankfully) of today's mainstream songs have dumb lyrics, the vocalist doesn't sound good, and/or the actual melody is boring or annoying. A lot of today's popular movies and TV shows don't have a good plot.

Hopefully this will change in a matter of time. As trends and what is/isn't mainstream is constantly changing, it is very likely that it will. Until then, just ignore the stuff that annoys you and continue to pay attention to the stuff you actually like, no matter if it follows what others like or not. No one is forcing you to look at any art, no one is forcing you to listen to any music, no one is forcing you to watch any movies or TV shows, and no one is forcing you to read any books. If you end up getting called a hipster, so be it. There are a lot of cool hipsters anyway.
__________________
If anyone wants me to critique anything, just let me know!

Also, if you like writing prompts, maybe check out the group I started called Prompts and More.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2016, 04:18 PM View Post #5 (Link)
lalodragon (Offline)
Global Moderator
 
lalodragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: To the laboratory!
Posts: 1,982
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 193
Originally Posted by S.J. Barnesington View Post
I think that the article is just proof that people today don't have very high expectations for what they consider art. I have noticed this in other forms of art (as opposed to visual art) as well.
I wouldn't say so much that people have low expectations as that they have different expectations. Some people want to go to an art gallery and see beautiful things. Some people want to see examples of an artist's skill. Some people just want to see something that makes them think-- and maybe everyday items taken out of context fit that bill perfectly. (Actually, I would argue that a lot of things that we use everyday fit all of those definitions: beautiful and skillfully made-- but we don't think about them. Stick an out-of-context toilet in an art gallery and you have to think about it, whatever it is that you think.)

I read a sci-fi story in Nature mag about a "Nothing" gallery: an art gallery empty of everything, just white walls. Those who entered had to leave behind their tech, in a world where tech was so pervasive that contacts provided wearers with a constant stream of information. The gallery forced patrons to see themselves & fellow patrons out of context / outside of the constant stream of information. Dropping glasses on the floor of a gallery has a similar effect: we think about the glasses out of their context. Maybe not what you look for in art, but it's probably what somebody's looking for.

Anyway, the original spark to this post was this:
Most (but not all, thankfully) of today's mainstream songs have dumb lyrics, the vocalist doesn't sound good, and/or the actual melody is boring or annoying.
The difference is what you want out of your music. There are pop songs whose lyrics are just painfully bad, so why are they popular? They're played as background noise for partying, driving, working; they're catchy, so they're good at that, in situations where the lyrics aren't important. You may not like the vocalist or the melody, but I guarantee that somebody does. Personally, I can't stand Adele. I think she's boring and annoying! But a lot of people see her as a breath of fresh air in pop music, and those same people probably dislike, say, the Weeknd. We're just looking for different things.

That said, there is shitty music. But there always has been. Bad art (music, paintings, writing) from previous generations has just mostly been weeded out.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2016, 04:53 PM View Post #6 (Link)
S.J. Barnesington (Offline)
Abstract Thinker
 
S.J. Barnesington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Somewhere in the world
Posts: 26
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 1
Maybe I wasn't so clear in my post. I wasn't saying that there hasn't been bad art or music in past generations, I was just saying that a majority of the current popular stuff doesn't have much content.

As for what you said about the whole expectations thing, I guess I should have worded that a little better too. What I meant by people not having very high expectations is they seem to appreciate or think about simple things or just enjoy stuff because it exists. I'm not saying that if you appreciate those things that you have low expectations, just most likely you don't have high expectations. I believe that there is a level of expectation between the two and that's the most common level of expectation that most people currently have.

I agree that things out of context, like the glasses, does most likely make people think. However, I don't think that means they should necessarily consider it art. I love the whole idea of the Nothing gallery that you mentioned, but that doesn't mean I consider it art.
__________________
If anyone wants me to critique anything, just let me know!

Also, if you like writing prompts, maybe check out the group I started called Prompts and More.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2016, 05:04 PM View Post #7 (Link)
lalodragon (Offline)
Global Moderator
 
lalodragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: To the laboratory!
Posts: 1,982
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 193
Originally Posted by S.J. Barnesington View Post
Maybe I wasn't so clear in my post. I wasn't saying that there hasn't been bad art or music in past generations, I was just saying that a majority of the current popular stuff doesn't have much content.

As for what you said about the whole expectations thing, I guess I should have worded that a little better too. What I meant by people not having very high expectations is they seem to appreciate or think about simple things or just enjoy stuff because it exists. I'm not saying that if you appreciate those things that you have low expectations, just most likely you don't have high expectations. I believe that there is a level of expectation between the two and that's the most common level of expectation that most people currently have.
Ha, yeah, don't think I was attacking you. I'm noting that just because something lacks content doesn't mean that it's bad, it's just filling a different niche. As for not having high expectations, it's got something to do with attention-- if you put a lot of time/attention into your music, you demand more back. If you just want noise playing in the breakroom, who cares? So I think we're pretty much in agreement here.

I agree that things out of context, like the glasses, does most likely make people think. However, I don't think that means they should necessarily consider it art. I love the whole idea of the Nothing gallery that you mentioned, but that doesn't mean I consider it art.
It doesn't meet your definition of art, but yours isn't the only one, which is the point that I was trying to make. There's not just one definition. To some people, the only goal of art is to make them think, and to those people, this is art. Who's to say that they "shouldn't" consider it art, if it meets their definition? (Similarly, there is no reason why you should consider it art.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2016, 08:03 PM View Post #8 (Link)
2sh4r (Offline)
Global Moderator
 
2sh4r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 295
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 21
Give examples of art exhibits that consist of glasses on the floor or similar? This article is a joke about the gullibility of people. I can't doubt that there are similarly banal art exhibits, but if you want to discuss them, maybe you should share them.
I saw an art exhibit at the local Museum of Art. It was memorabilia from the artist's grandfather (I think an old shoe was one of the things). It was an interactive gallery with some technology... The artist just put some items from his house on a pedestal and said, "look at it through a camera lens."

It doesn't meet your definition of art, but yours isn't the only one, which is the point that I was trying to make. There's not just one definition. To some people, the only goal of art is to make them think, and to those people, this is art. Who's to say that they "shouldn't" consider it art, if it meets their definition?
In some ways, accepting this level of subjectivity as absolute truth is positive. It creates compassion (Everyone's world view is equally OK; lets hold hands and not fight and sing kumbaya). But in other ways, its extremely nihilistic and destructive.

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking the logic of your point-of-view. The reasoning and science behind it are sound. It just lacks a certain willpower. "Sure, your view is as right as mine" is somehow less appealing to me than "Let me show you true Beauty".
  
						Last edited by 2sh4r; 05-27-2016 at 08:07 PM.
					
					Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2016, 08:08 PM View Post #9 (Link)
2sh4r (Offline)
Global Moderator
 
2sh4r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 295
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 21
I disagree that modern art is lazy though.
Obviously, that's not what I was saying. To say something like that would be ridiculous. It'd be like saying "Everybody is stupid!"

Another example of what I mean when I say "symbol art":



It's a rock...
  
						Last edited by 2sh4r; 05-27-2016 at 08:16 PM.
					
					Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2016, 08:21 PM View Post #10 (Link)
lalodragon (Offline)
Global Moderator
 
lalodragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: To the laboratory!
Posts: 1,982
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 193
Originally Posted by 2sh4r View Post
I saw an art exhibit at the local Museum of Art. It was memorabilia from the artist's grandfather (I think an old shoe was one of the things). It was an interactive gallery with some technology... IDK. It was similar. The artist just put some items from his house on a pedestal and said, "look at it through a camera lens."
See, I think that this is cool as shit and 100% what I want to see in an art gallery. A lot of art just slips by me: I can look at it and go, huh, okay, that is one beautiful and amazing picture, now what? But this exhibit is interactive and interesting. It makes me look closely at loss and time passing, at change; it makes me look closely at things I use every day, and actually think about them; it makes me think about the intricate lives of people around me, that I so often ignore. And I will leave the gallery with some new kind of perspective. I'm not saying that there's no place for Van Gogh in this world, because there is, but I'd rather go to this exhibit than to a Van Gogh gallery. This exhibit gives me so much more.

In some ways, accepting this level of subjectivity as absolute truth is positive. It creates compassion (Everyone's world view is equally OK; lets hold hands and not fight and sing kumbaya). But in other ways, its extremely nihilistic and destructive.

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking the logic of your point-of-view. The reasoning and science behind it are sound. It just lacks a certain willpower. "Sure, your view is as right as mine" is somehow less appealing to me than "Let me show you true Beauty".
To me, your initial post sounded ridiculously nihilistic and depressing. You may not like to look at somebody else's old shoes, but you're whining about art being nihilistic and lazy because Beauty isn't presented to you on a silver platter? You say "meet me halfway," but that's exactly what they've done: they found beautiful things and presented them to you in a way that allowed you to interact with them and see all the beauty that they saw. Whose fault is it that you didn't see beauty there? I saw it; the artist saw it; a hell of a lot of other people did, too.

But I think that the world benefits from the existence of multiple definitions of beauty. If everybody thought that this world was as fucking beautiful and unimprovable as I do, we'd just get lots of pictures of butterflies and rather little Art In The Classical Sense. So it doesn't do me any good to tell you that the phrase "let me show you true Beauty" makes you sound like a pompous narcissist (which it does). We're both better off if I just say, cool man, make art happen, and give me my rocks and old shoes.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools

 


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 - Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All writing Copyright © its author(s). All other material Copyright © 2007-2012 Young Writers Online unless otherwise specified.
Managed by Andrew Kukwa (Andy) and Shaun Duke (Shaun) from The World in the Satin Bag. Design by HTWoRKS.