More evidence that "art" is just well...

[nublikescake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-13685095

Guess this confirms my thoughts about art or specifically, paintings in general. Doesn't matter what you draw or paint and no matter how crappy, pointless or meaningless it is, there is bound to be some idiot who's going to find that deeper meaning, that hidden talent, that larger than life message that the painting is trying to convey which the rest of us are too stupid to see even though it seemingly jumps out at the gay/fashionable artsy fartsy expert.

Not to take anything away from the effort of the young lady. It looks like something appropriate for her age but does this say something about her being a genius or the other art "greats" whose works adorn these galleries?

 

[HAL9000]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-13685095

Guess this confirms my thoughts about art or specifically, paintings in general. Doesn't matter what you draw or paint and no matter how crappy, pointless or meaningless it is, there is bound to be some idiot who's going to find that deeper meaning, that hidden talent, that larger than life message that the painting is trying to convey which the rest of us are too stupid to see even though it seemingly jumps out at the gay/fashionable artsy fartsy expert.

Not to take anything away from the effort of the young lady. It looks like something appropriate for her age but does this say something about her being a genius or the other art "greats" whose works adorn these galleries?

Agreed. That is why IMO all art should be free.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Still feeling butt hurt over not getting a gold star on your finger painting?

 

[HAL9000]

still feeling butt hurt over not getting a gold star on your finger painting?

i am! :'(

 

[ahenkel]

Its a 7 year old with a picture of a penguin, and she won a contest to have it shown with respected established artists. I hope it gives her pride and encouragement to continue developing her skills, and the naysayers can lick the sweat from my taint.

 

[CPA]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-13685095

Guess this confirms my thoughts about art or specifically, paintings in general. Doesn't matter what you draw or paint and no matter how crappy, pointless or meaningless it is, there is bound to be some idiot who's going to find that deeper meaning, that hidden talent, that larger than life message that the painting is trying to convey which the rest of us are too stupid to see even though it seemingly jumps out at the gay/fashionable artsy fartsy expert.

Not to take anything away from the effort of the young lady. It looks like something appropriate for her age but does this say something about her being a genius or the other art "greats" whose works adorn these galleries?

Effort? She was 4 years old when she drew it. I doubt there was much "effort".

 

[nublikescake]

Still feeling butt hurt over not getting a gold star on your finger painting?

No bragging here but I've am pretty good at some forms of art, like pencil portraits for example but this random-lines-on-a-piece-of-canvas is what I've never understood.

 

[techforums]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-13685095

Guess this confirms my thoughts about art or specifically, paintings in general. Doesn't matter what you draw or paint and no matter how crappy, pointless or meaningless it is, there is bound to be some idiot who's going to find that deeper meaning, that hidden talent, that larger than life message that the painting is trying to convey which the rest of us are too stupid to see even though it seemingly jumps out at the gay/fashionable artsy fartsy expert.

Not to take anything away from the effort of the young lady. It looks like something appropriate for her age but does this say something about her being a genius or the other art "greats" whose works adorn these galleries?

Maybe it tells art is one big joke....


But really, I don't know. Sometimes, there is no meaning to a piece and that is what I like the most. As for the little girl, good for her I guess.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

For a 4-year old I'd say that's a pretty good penguin, but it's nothing extraordinary.

 

[LumbergTech]

are you saying that all art is invalid if it is not technical?

For instance, there is metal and then there is technical metal.....i like both , but i prefer technical metal because it is more interesting because of the level of music knowledge that goes into it......but on the other hand i would not say that regular metal is not music simply because it is not on the level of some old school composer

 

[0roo0roo]

"In the twentieth century, modernism and postmodernism took over, and their practitioners disdained beauty as bourgeois, saccharine, lightweight. Art was deliberately made incomprehensible or ugly or shocking—again, on the assumption that our predilections for attractive faces, landscapes, colors, and so on were reversible social constructions. This also led to an exaggeration of the dynamic of social status that has always been part of the arts. The elite arts used to be aligned with the economic and political aristocracy. They involved displays of sumptuosity and the flaunting of rare and precious skills that only the idle rich could cultivate. But now that any schmo could afford a Mozart CD or go to a free museum, artists had to figure out new ways to differentiate themselves from the rabble. So art became baffling and uninterpretable—unless you had some acquaintance with arcane theory.

By their own admission, the humanities programs in universities, and institutions that promote new works of elite art, are in crisis. People are staying away in droves. I don’t think it takes an Einstein to figure out why. …many artists and scholars have pointed out that ultimately art depends on human nature. The aesthetic and emotional reactions we have to works of art depend on how our brain is put together. Art works because it appeals to certain faculties of the mind. Music depends on details of the auditory system, painting and sculpture on the visual system. Poetry and literature depend on language. And the insights we hope to take away from great works of art depend on their ability to explore the eternal conflicts in the human condition, like those between men and women, self and society, parent and child, sibling and sibling, friend and friend.

Some theoreticians of literature have suggested that we appreciate tragedy and great works of fiction because they explore the permutations and combinations of human conflict—and these are the very themes that fields like evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics and social psychology try to illuminate. The sciences of the mind can reinforce the idea that there is an enduring human nature that great art can appeal to."http://reason.com/archives/2002/10/01/biology-vs-the-blank-slate/1

 

[Kaido]

I have a really difficult time with abstract art and even stuff like Picaso's art. I was heavy into art throughout my school years, but could never quite understand that stuff. We took a field trip in high school down to a big art festival/museum in Miami and I saw one painting that blew me away...half white, half blue...$24,000. That was it - the artist was famous for mixing his own "special colors" and would paint extremely simple paintings and sell them for massive amounts of money. And there were several on display for sale. And people were buying them.

I later came to realize a few things about art. First and most importantly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I may not like "chick flick" movies, but there are people who do, and thus there is a market for them - same as certain kinds of art. I may not like abstract art, but...there are people who do, and they think it's the best thing in the world! There's a market for everything (who was it that said never underestimate the American taste?).

Second, popular art can be that way due to fashion or popularity - it's not about the piece of art itself, it's about the marketing behind it - someone famous made it, it was made in a unique way, etc. Kind of like saying you have Diesel jeans - you can buy $20 jeans from Old Navy that work just the same, but Diesel jeans carry with it a social weight in certain circles. And on top of that, the importance of having an original or a limited edition or a signed copy. What's the difference between an original da Vinci (say the Mona Lisa) and a canvas-printed copy that looks exactly like the original? Zippo, except one is worth $50 and one is priceless. But to your eye, they look exactly the same. So partly it's about what you think and about how much you care about what others think.

Third, a lot of artists have emotional problems and just like to be either weird or in it for the shock value, or just to be different like the emo kids or goths were. So they feel a need to "stand out" or "be different" or whatever and express themselves through art, which is fine. There's something for everybody out there. And of course, not all artists are like this. There are a ton of people working in the game industry, the film industry, commercial art, fine art, advertising, etc. that all produce consistent work of good quality without going on drugs or doing weird things or whatever. But then, variety is the spice of life, right? It'd be boring if everything was the same

For the record, I still think abstract art is dumb :awe:

 

[Soundmanred]

Still feeling butt hurt over getting a gold finger in your starfish painting?

 

[nboy22]

Agreed. That is why IMO all art should be free.

I hope you are kidding. I'm a 3D artist, there's always people out there that want shit for free to just "put my name in the credits." Well, if I go to the grocery store and try to pay for my groceries with "my name in the credits" it doesn't work. I work extremely hard and this type of mentality pisses me off.

I wouldn't ask a mechanic to fix my car for free. I wouldn't ask a dentist to drill my teeth for free. I wouldn't ask a taxi cab driver to drive me for free, and I wouldn't ask a doctor to fix me up for free.

Now on the other hand, I hate shit like this when people find "deeper meaning" in an infant's finger painting and would pay extravagant amounts of money for it. That's just dumb, and should actually be spent on artists that work hard for a living and those who do have deeper meaning in their work.

 

[Miramonti]

Not all kids are overrated.

 

[Jaepheth]

If you have to read something to know what the art means (aside from literary art, of course) then it's not art. Because the creation did not convey its message, the explanation did.

That's about where I draw the line. With contemporary work at least. Some historic art I give a break to; since you may need a bit of a history lesson to understand some things in context.

 

[nublikescake]

If you have to read something to know what the art means (aside from literary art, of course) then it's not art. Because the creation did not convey its message, the explanation did.

That's about where I draw the line. With contemporary work at least. Some historic art I give a break to; since you may need a bit of a history lesson to understand some things in context.

No kidding! A picture's worth a thousand words only if you don't have to read those words!

I apply the general rule of 1) the amount of work and 2) the skill that goes into a work of art. Historical significance and context are very important but should be secondary, imo. These are the two criteria used to measure the value of pretty much everything and it shouldn't be any different with art. Most art today (or atleast the ridiculous stuff that appears in these elitist galleries) just doesn't live up to that criteria imo.

 

[Kev]

reminds me of a first date I went on

Her: "I enjoy painting"
Me: "Oh really, that's cool. Not abstract though right? Cause that is bullshit."
Her: "It's abstract"

*price is right fail sound*

 

[Printer Bandit]

i don't see how this painting is worth $155 million:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:No._5,_1948.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

 

[zinfamous]

Its a 7 year old with a picture of a penguin, and she won a contest to have it shown with respected established artists. I hope it gives her pride and encouragement to continue developing her skills, and the naysayers can lick the sweat from my taint.

basically.

OP is a putz.

 

[KaOTiK]

Nice painting for a kid, but give me a break. It was a kid drawing a picture of an animal, like all kids do. There is no deep meaning or thought put into it. She drew the animal she remembered or liked that popped into her head.

Not to distract from her work, but there is nothing more to it then that really.

 

[Numenorean]

Agreed. That is why IMO all art should be free.

Wow....uh how about no? Art has value, and it is not $0. It is subjective. I don't care if someone wants to pay $10,000 for that children's drawing. I wouldn't value it at that, but someone may.

 

[mugs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-13685095

Guess this confirms my thoughts about art or specifically, paintings in general. Doesn't matter what you draw or paint and no matter how crappy, pointless or meaningless it is, there is bound to be some idiot who's going to find that deeper meaning, that hidden talent, that larger than life message that the painting is trying to convey which the rest of us are too stupid to see even though it seemingly jumps out at the gay/fashionable artsy fartsy expert.

Not to take anything away from the effort of the young lady. It looks like something appropriate for her age but does this say something about her being a genius or the other art "greats" whose works adorn these galleries?

Pictures from 20 winning children are appearing in the Education Room of the Saatchi Gallery in Chelsea, west London, for the rest of June.

They're displaying a bunch of children's art... what's the problem with that? They're not claiming it's as good as an Andy Warhol.

 

[Joseph F]

i don't see how this painting is worth $155 million:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:No._5,_1948.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

So now all you need to make $150 million:

1) Get an 8' x 4' piece of fiberboard
2) Spill paint all over it
3) Wait 60 years
4) ...
5) Profit! :awe:

 

[HAL9000]

I hope you are kidding. I'm a 3D artist, there's always people out there that want shit for free to just "put my name in the credits." Well, if I go to the grocery store and try to pay for my groceries with "my name in the credits" it doesn't work. I work extremely hard and this type of mentality pisses me off.

I wouldn't ask a mechanic to fix my car for free. I wouldn't ask a dentist to drill my teeth for free. I wouldn't ask a taxi cab driver to drive me for free, and I wouldn't ask a doctor to fix me up for free.

Now on the other hand, I hate shit like this when people find "deeper meaning" in an infant's finger painting and would pay extravagant amounts of money for it. That's just dumb, and should actually be spent on artists that work hard for a living and those who do have deeper meaning in their work.

I'm not kidding art should be free, there's a difference between creating something that is used in marketing and creating something that is used purely for artistic purposes. I'm talking about pure art.

Wow....uh how about no? Art has value, and it is not $0. It is subjective. I don't care if someone wants to pay $10,000 for that children's drawing. I wouldn't value it at that, but someone may.

It should be free, so should music. Free. It's art that anyone should be able to appreciate.