Thread: all new art is pretentious

Back in the days, there were yet new things to be discovered as far as style is concerned. That's why certain artists stood out more than others, I believe.

Yes, being unusual and avant-garde was a fad 100 years ago. The vicious circle of trying to be weirder than the last guy makes a lot of modern art meaningless shit.

As an artist I could care less about needing to prove that I'm special, different, unique or better than others. All I care about is expressing myself. So far its worked.

What day are we talking about when you say, "back in the day", exactly? There were some days of distant past when only a privileged few who were sponsored by royalty could afford to spend their time frivolously on the arts instead of keeping themselves alive. There were other more recent times when nothing you did would be considered art unless you had formal training from a prodigious school or a renowned master. Thanks to certain art movements (dadaism and expressionism, among others), what can be considered art (by the art world that is) is more vague and open to interpretation. This means that you will see a much wider range of what other people are producing as "art".

When haven't the arts been pretentious anway?

stone age > modern age

I draw and what not to take up time, like when I used to smoke. Also, what the hell does pretentious mean?

pretense (at least in this context) is giving people the impression that you're better than you really are.

good question, Xaq. I'm still thinking on it.

what about graffiti nerve, that's art right?

Originally Posted by juroara

As an artist I could care less about needing to prove that I'm special, different, unique or better than others. All I care about is expressing myself. So far its worked.

This is an excellent point that can not be rephrased in a better way.

I also think that the person who wrote that is looking in the wrong place. Granted, much "modern abstract art" (by this, I mean images of random paint splatters or a photo of a toilet seat that people say things like, "WOW!!!!11one This artist is genius! Look at the emotion!") is pretentious and ridiculous, but there are many new, original pieces of art created all the time, like in the past. Unfortunately for those who really really really want to seek out the gems, the advent of the internet has allowed for everybody to be seen, good and bad, not just those whom the pompous elite think are awesome anymore.

This also depends on your definition of "art." For example, I consider Silent Hill 2, a video game, to be a fantastic work of art.

I agree. Sort of. It gets me down sometimes because I see my own work as the same thing.
There are definitely still some people who are just awesome. But a lot, a lot more who are trying purposefully to be awesome.

I find that a lot of the really genuinely good artists are people who use their shortcomings to their advantage.

Also, in the movie Stay there is this quote "Bad art is more tragically beautiful than good art because it documents human failure"
I misheard this quote, and I like my version better. "Bad art is just as important as good art because it documents the inferior" (I had an inferior copy of the movie )

They both sort of mean the same thing, but the point is; we only know that good is good because we have shit.

Furthermore, this period in time is just another art movement. Someone does something cool and a thousand people copy it. That's what this movement is.

As someone else mentioned we are also in information overload stage. Generally people used to get their inspiration from nature (including living things), from which there is much more to draw creativity from. Rather than getting inspiration from other people who are inspired already.
They also generally were taught by people less than we are today.

Have you noticed that there is an inordinate amount of people who have left school and become very successful?

Being taught too much stifles creativity and personality. Personality is what is transferred subconsciously into one's art; personality that is moulded by experiences.

When we are taught too much, we tend to come to the conclusion that everything can be taught. This probably comes from the 21st century idea that "You can do anything you want to do!".
Instead we should learn the basics, the very basics, and let ourselves develop further, simply through practice.
If one cannot reach a high level of skill and individuality through that approach, one should give up.

I just have to agree that I find most art pretentious. Especially the kind of art that doesnt even look like something. It annoys me a lot when people act like that "art" is better than an extremely realistic painting of something.

I find your thread title pretty funny, that you think you're superior enough to use the word "pretentious" and state a moronic generalization like "ALL ____ are _____". How in the hell would you know? Have you even looked at all modern art? You seem to know very little about any art in general.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I just have to agree that I find most art pretentious. Especially the kind of art that doesnt even look like something. It annoys me a lot when people act like that "art" is better than an extremely realistic painting of something.

Are you saying that all art is just a measure of technique? Or is it measured by its similarity to reality?

INTERIOR SEMIOTICS ISN'T PRETENTIOUS! THIS IS REAL ART!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Are you saying that all art is just a measure of technique? Or is it measured by its similarity to reality?

I believe it is a measure of technique. I can understand that there is some abstract art that can be appreciated...but when people claim it is "more artistic" or "deeper" than an exceptionally realistic portrait, which takes just as much skill and passion, I find that quite pretentious and annoying.

Artists might seem like they were a more special, talented breed in the past.

Keep in mind that we only know about the talented ones from back in the day. A crappy painter won't have a legacy that lasts. Rest assured that there were plenty of mediocre artists wherever there were artists. It's like foreign films. Unless they are Japanese, most of the terrible ones don't reach out TVs and movie stores. So people think foriegn films are all just better then the alternative.

Anyway, people like to think we are lots different then people in the past instead of the same people just with some different cultural bias/technology to work with. I don't know why they like to think that.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I believe it is a measure of technique. I can understand that there is some abstract art that can be appreciated...but when people claim it is "more artistic" or "deeper" than an exceptionally realistic portrait, which takes just as much skill and passion, I find that quite pretentious and annoying.

I agree with this, I also believe art naturally flows forth out of skill.

This type of "art" does not require skill and to me this is not art. And it pisses me off just by looking at it. How can anyone claim this is art?

Sooo.. Again.. Who are you to say what is art and what isn't?

If I or you or he won't do it. Who will? There is only us to judge about art. Who else will say what is art and what isn't? Pinguins?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

If I or you or he won't do it. Who will? There is only us to judge about art. Who else will say what is art and what isn't? Pinguins?

Probably not. But maybe the kingarees will.

Originally Posted by spockman

Artists might seem like they were a more special, talented breed in the past.

Keep in mind that we only know about the talented ones from back in the day. A crappy painter won't have a legacy that lasts. Rest assured that there were plenty of mediocre artists wherever there were artists. It's like foreign films. Unless they are Japanese, most of the terrible ones don't reach out TVs and movie stores. So people think foriegn films are all just better then the alternative.

Anyway, people like to think we are lots different then people in the past instead of the same people just with some different cultural bias/technology to work with. I don't know why they like to think that.

That's not true at all. Jan Vermeer was essentially forgotten about for 3 centuries, now he's considered to be one of the top 5 painters of all time.

Anyway, the art market is a scam these days. Most of the famous living artists are hand picked to be celebrities, each one falling into a certain niche much like the pop industry. Even the ones that try to create pop art out of irony are unironically household names because they make shit that can be printed on everything.

But that's not to say that I can't go into a gallery and find some amazing stuff. Shouldn't judge modern art based on Picasso's 'lazy jerk' period.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I believe it is a measure of technique. I can understand that there is some abstract art that can be appreciated...but when people claim it is "more artistic" or "deeper" than an exceptionally realistic portrait, which takes just as much skill and passion, I find that quite pretentious and annoying.

You don't seem to know much about the actual process of creating art, and if this is the case how can you even begin to talk about technique? Much of abstract art still requires excellent technique. It isn't all waving brushes around and throwing paint on to canvasses. You keep making reference to realism; does a photographer trump a painter because they are more able to represent what is real? Where do aesthetics fit into the judgment if it is solely about technique?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You don't seem to know much about the actual process of creating art, and if this is the case how can you even begin to talk about technique? Much of abstract art still requires excellent technique. It isn't all waving brushes around and throwing paint on to canvasses. You keep making reference to realism; does a photographer trump a painter because they are more able to represent what is real? Where do aesthetics fit into the judgment if it is solely about technique?

I don't know much about programming video games, but I can tell the difference between a very good one and a pretentious one.

This is an example of pretentious, lousy modern art.


This is a very nice old painting.


And so that I don't seem like a jerk, here is a piece of abstract art that I think is pretty well done:


Granted, aesthetics alone isn't everything, but there has to be some visual appeal. A couple of lines painted on a canvas or randomly made colors are of little value to me.

Read #1 on this article. A chimp fooled art critics into thinking that he was a human modern artist. When it gets to the point that a chimp's (no offense, chimps in the audience) art is mistaken for an adult human's, I think there is a problem.

I'm pretty sure art has been and always will be infected with pretentiousness. What bothers me is the idea that the skill required to make a piece of art has anything to do with how good it is. It's one thing to appreciate the technique but if you're considering something to be better than the other because it was harder to make you're really just completely missing the point.