Thread: I fail to see how this is art

Question.

Is this red square that's being referenced the one I've seen?

I saw a red square in an art gallery once. It was not a very good red square, either; there were blotches of paint inside the square which made the colour uneven.

Now, as a perspective, one of my favourite pieces of art is Kazimir Malevitch's Black Square (if this makes me pretentious so be it) but this red square made me angry. It wasn't even or geometric. It was plain badly done.

Later, I reconsidered my opinion based on what somebody said. Art is meant to make you feel, I would suppose; but nobody says it has to make you feel good. Why do people watch horror movies, otherwise? They may not feel good but they feel strongly, and that's an important feeling. Red is the colour of anger so it accomplished its goal in that I guess

where am I going with this? I don't know. But Nerve, I still need to write you letters.

Originally Posted by Lseadragon

Question.

Is this red square that's being referenced the one I've seen?

I saw a red square in an art gallery once. It was not a very good red square, either

I laughed so fucking hard at this lol
Reminds me of this kid in my art history class who said a similar thing about a dot on a canvas.

Why is the black square your favourite painting? I think if someone declares something art, they should have to justify it. Just as the artists do, mostly I think.

Moving on, maybe it is not visual art per se, but more like the art of deception. These artists usually can draw and paint amazing realistic depictions of things, and they choose to go this way of abstractness. I have no doubt that some of these artists do it because they can expend less effort for more, or the same amount of money. I know I'd do it too if I was famous. If you can get some of the money from these rich bastards, why not?

Originally Posted by tommo

I laughed so fucking hard at this lol
Reminds me of this kid in my art history class who said a similar thing about a dot on a canvas.

Why is the black square your favourite painting? I think if someone declares something art, they should have to justify it. Just as the artists do, mostly I think.

Moving on, maybe it is not visual art per se, but more like the art of deception. These artists usually can draw and paint amazing realistic depictions of things, and they choose to go this way of abstractness. I have no doubt that some of these artists do it because they can expend less effort for more, or the same amount of money. I know I'd do it too if I was famous. If you can get some of the money from these rich bastards, why not?

Whoa I totally forgot about this thread but let's come back to the answer

One, I had seen some of the artist's other works, and he could paint realism quite okay. And as he was Russian and in 1919 I didn't get the impression that he was being lazy. It would simply be the wrong time and place to have an art market that could bear that kind of exploitation.

Two, it was (and is) pleasing to me in the way Steve Reich might be. The boundaries are very simple, whether visual or harmonic, but by imposing these inordinately silly boundaries other things are suddenly brought to the fore which might be hard to emphasise in regular artmusic. In the case of this square it was not actually about the square but about the grey on the canvas surrounding it which had been painted far less delicately, with cracks in the oil and brushstrokes visible. It was the contrast against the inhuman perfection of the square.

In the world of computers, mathematically perfect squares and forms are the norm; but in 1919 such things would've not been. The boundary between the black and the grey was a rubicon crossed, a line between our forever imperfect world and Plato's world of forms.

Three, I actually saw the painting. YOU CANNOT JUDGE THESE THINGS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THEM IN PERSON. I repeat. YOU CANNOT JUDGE THESE THINGS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THEM IN PERSON. I'm not sure if the red square everybody is talking about here is Rothko (might be) but he had a similar aesthetic, simple squares and contrasts. But two very important related things about his work do not translate onto computers.

1. They're huge things apparently, ten feet long. There's a physical impact you will not get from a computer screen.

2. In the reduction from this size, all the detail of form will be lost in a crappy tiny .jpeg.

Such things as these are integral to the experience of art. You, audiophile, would not say that an mp3 would lend the same understanding as seeing the band live; so how can a picture in a book be the same as the painting?


So, TL;DR: If you go to an art gallery with a minimalist exhibition and an open mind, give the actual paintings rather than pictures of them a good hard look, and think about it a bit - and still think it's talentless shit - then your opinion is well defined and fair, and I will not try to convince you any further.