Thread: all new art is pretentious

Originally Posted by dreamsickle

You're comparing a painting that's up for auction on Etsy for like $50 to Guernica?

edit: it should be pointed out that the universally accepted definition for the word art is 'a philosophy described visually'. Some things are designed to make you think. Some are crap. Even 200 year old paintings people consider 'pretty' can be multi-layered analogies to prompt deep thought.

Oftentimes indie art is the best kind. I am not saying that since some art is on the fringe that the obscurity somehow makes it more valid, but rather, there is so much more independant art out there then popular art that the sheer volume makes it inevitable that many of the best artists are undiscovered. Like if I drafted one hundred random college basketball players to the NBA and you drafted a couple of fairly well known players, I still have a very good chance that one of my players will reach a higher level of super-stardom then any of yours. So the fact that a painting is on an auction site for peanuts and the fact that another is a well known name mean nothing. I concede that often popular things are popular for a reason. But comparing the monetary value isn't an argument.

Originally Posted by spockman

Oftentimes indie art is the best kind. I am not saying that since some art is on the fringe that the obscurity somehow makes it more valid, but rather, there is so much more independant art out there then popular art that the sheer volume makes it inevitable that many of the best artists are undiscovered. Like if I drafted one hundred random college basketball players to the NBA and you drafted a couple of fairly well known players, I still have a very good chance that one of my players will reach a higher level of super-stardom then any of yours. So the fact that a painting is on an auction site for peanuts and the fact that another is a well known name mean nothing. I concede that often popular things are popular for a reason. But comparing the monetary value isn't an argument.

It does make a difference because you can start going off on different tangents (ie. that painting might be worth millions some day). But for arguments sake you need to compare one highly regarded artist to another.

-------------------------------

As far as cubism, modernism, post modernism, etc all these movements have to be viewed from the point of view of when it came about, what preceded it etc. Cubism was a direct progression Paul Cezanne's paintings, but because he wasn't consciously aware of what he was doing in his paintings he would have thought Picasso to be completely mad if he lived another 30 years. As well, Starry Night isn't just valued at 100million because it was the first picture of its kind, and Van Gogh wasn't striving to be this revolutionary artist that ignored normal conventions. It's because he wrote hundreds of letters, led an extraordinary life, and through his naiveté he offered the world an amazing new uncompromisable vision. You have to look at the entire body of work sometimes.

Another thing people need to realize is that it's OK to not 'get' a painting. Really. You're not expected to, and those people that do want you to - they're what's pretentious. They're insecure, and their only securities lie in their 'secret knowledge' of art. I hold manners and philosophy above having a refined sense for art and wine tasting. What the beatnicks of the 50s didn't realize, or perhaps they got off on it, was that they would create a rift and distance the artist further from the everyday person.

Originally Posted by dreamsickle

It does make a difference because you can start going off on different tangents (ie. that painting might be worth millions some day). But for arguments sake you need to compare one highly regarded artist to another.
-------------------------------

As far as cubism, modernism, post modernism, etc all these movements have to be viewed from the point of view of when it came about, what preceded it etc. Cubism was a direct progression Paul Cezanne's paintings, but because he wasn't consciously aware of what he was doing in his paintings he would have thought Picasso to be completely mad if he lived another 30 years. As well, Starry Night isn't just valued at 100million because it was the first picture of its kind, and Van Gogh wasn't striving to be this revolutionary artist that ignored normal conventions. It's because he wrote hundreds of letters, led an extraordinary life, and through his naiveté he offered the world an amazing new uncompromisable vision. You have to look at the entire body of work sometimes.

Another thing people need to realize is that it's OK to not 'get' a painting. Really. You're not expected to, and those people that do want you to - they're what's pretentious. They're insecure, and their only securities lie in their 'secret knowledge' of art. I hold manners and philosophy above having a refined sense for art and wine tasting. What the beatnicks of the 50s didn't realize, or perhaps they got off on it, was that they would create a rift and distance the artist further from the everyday person.

I could not possibly disagree with this sentence more.

Originally Posted by spockman

I could not possibly disagree with this sentance more.

I could.

*disagrees with sentence even more*

Yeah, art to me is more about inspiration than technique. And more about inspiration than commercial. Artists who try to please the critics and be current with the latest style are not listening to their inspiration, generally. It is a business, like music. Rock music nowadays is dead in my opinion, because the music industry has only supported imitators and originals. There is no classic sound anymore. Every band is either trying to sound like another band, or they are trying to be original, but only in order to please the industry and the audience. Does this make sense? Instead, they should just make the music that inspires them, and not worry if it sounds like something already done or not. Painting is the same way.

Modern artists who do what inspires them I like. I like Alex Grey, Andy Goldsworthy, and people who paint their dreams. You know who you are.
Art should not be about impressing people. That is pretentious. But it still can be impressive.

Inspiration..."Music sweet music, wish I could caress, with a kiss. Manic depression is a frustrated mess." Inspiration. Art that is inspired also inspires, and that is the most impressive. Fortunately there is no formula for inspiration.

By the way, I hate that Kincaid artist who mass produces paintings. "The painter of Light!" wooooh! Give me some kerosene and a match.

"All new art is pretentious".

Hmmm.. what about the painter/sculptor who has absolutely no interest whatsoever in exhibiting and who creates just to have fun? It's not art that's pretentious- it's (most) artists who sign and exhibit their stuff, stuff which screams out "ME! ME! LOOK AT ME!", not to mention the dealers and critics of the worldwide "salon" who control what posterity will say is "good" and "important" and what the art market says is "valuable". It's the ego that is at the root of this. My painting tutor at Art College told us that he no longer painted and when asked why, he replied: "It's because I realised that you can't really paint unless you eradicate the ego, and when I realised that I couldn't do it, I stopped."

Food for thought.. anyway.. it's all been downhill since cave painting. Would such have qualified as "pretentious" when it was "new"? I don't think so, but critics opinions on it are, IMO. I hope that makes sense.

Then of course, there's subjectivity: I love Damien Hurst's pickled animals, I'd love one of his sharks in my garden, but I just wish Tracey Emin would make that bed of hers. £100,000 pounds for that? Not for me.. the high end of "pretentious" if you ask me.