THIS is art
Posted on 05/09/2005 10:25:56 AM PDT by Irontank
People got very excited about Christo's latest public art work, "The Gates," in New York's Central Park. For two week's 7,500 metal gates draped with orange fabric were staked along 23 miles of the park's footpaths. Some people called "The Gates" a masterpiece. Others called it an ugly nuisance.
New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser said all the orange fabric on "The Gates" made it look like an ad for Home Depot.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) was annoyed by the criticism. "Nobody's criticizing this. Everybody likes it. And this is certainly art," he said.
It is? Well, I kinda like it, but how does the mayor know that "The Gates" is really art, and not just shower curtains on poles? Do people really know what's art and what's just stuff?
We ran a test.
On ABCNews.com, we showed four reproductions of art works that are considered masterpieces of modern art along with six pieces that will never make it into any museum. We asked viewers to decide which work was art and which was not.
I assumed the famous art would get the most votes if only because art lovers would recognize them, but they didn't. Most got far fewer votes than the winner.
The one that received the most votes as a "real" artwork was a piece of framed fabric "20/20" bought at a thrift store for $5.
We also conducted the test with New Yorkers at Manhattan Mall. We asked people to tell us which artworks they'd expect to see in a museum. We included copies of the famous paintings, plus some other items.
How do critics and curators decide which is art?
How do they determine that Damien Hirst's embalmed shark and sliced cow carcasses are art?
Why is Willem de Kooning's "A Tree in Naples," which we included a reproduction of in our quiz, worth millions, when a more realistic looking landscape, done by elephants with paintbrushes in Thailand, is worth much less?
I asked an art historian: Why is De Kooning's "A Tree in Naples" art? The work doesn't look like a tree, let alone Naples.
"But if you look closely, you might say this brown part is the bark of the tree. You might say the blue is the sky. Maybe that's, maybe that's the case and maybe it's not. But you bring to it whatever feelings that this evokes," said Samantha Hoover, an art historian at New York's School of Visual Arts.
What about Kasimir Malevich's Black Circle, which we also included in the online quiz? "He was saying I want to free art from telling a story," said Hoover.
So it's just all in the eye of the beholder?
"I wouldn't say it's all in the eye of the beholder," Hoover said. "I think you need to know the story behind the work to understand its full impact and meaning."
OK, I can get that concept. Watching Ed Harris' performance in the film about famous artist Jackson Pollock, I learned that Pollock's creative genius came from his tortured soul. That led to a big breakthrough in modern art. But do the people who pay millions for Pollock's work really see the difference between his dripping colors and a child's painting?
Four of the art works in our test were done by 4-year-olds, and when we showed their artwork on the Web, and showed it to people at the mall, the kids' work ranked ahead of most of the masters.
I assumed real artists wouldn't fall for the trick, so we invited some to take our test. Most of them also put at least some of the kids' work up there with the masters.
One artist, Victor Acevedo, described one of the children's pieces as "a competent execution of abstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning and Jackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's a school of art."
When I told him the work was done by a 4-year-old he said, "That's amazing. Give that kid a show."
Actually, it was a collaboration. Maybe they should give Hannah and Haley, the two 4-year-old girls who painted it, a show of their own. More than 1,800 people said their work was great art.
And even Hoover, the art historian, ranked one of the children's paintings among the real artworks. When I told her who did the work she said, "It has good composition. I think it has good depth and space."
So can anybody explain to me why people want to spend millions of dollars on abstract art if any 4-year-old could create something great?
"There's some art that's validated by the establishment or by the media and then there's the rest," said artist Deborah Gilbert.
But maybe the establishment is out to lunch.
An artist who calls himself Flash Light told me, "The function of art is to make rich people feel more important."
Well, if rich people want to spend their own money this way, fine.
But you should know that you're contributing your money too. The politicians may say they're starved for funds, but they're still giving your hard-earned tax dollars to museums that exhibit these kinds of things.
Which makes me and some of our testers say: Give Me a Break!
modern art is, by and large, an enormous practical joke; perpetrated by those without talent upon those without taste.
the purpose of modern art is to enrich the "in crowd" at the expense of the national endowment of the arts (taxpayers)
ping.
The argument as to whether or not something is or is not "art" seems stupid to me. One of my painting profs back in the day subscribed to a view of art that still makes sense to me. He taught us that "art" is a quantitative, rather than qualitative, term. Art is a function, i.e., something is "art" if its function is to offer its aesthetic characteristics for observation. If we set forth criteria for defining "good" art vs. "bad" art, we can argue about the merits of a particular work. But anything can be analyzed as "art".
I'll have to memorize that line so I can use it the next time I'm at some hoity-toity art show. It says everything while at the same time saying nothing at all.
"The function of art is to make rich people feel more important."
You know, you might something there, Skippy.
I'll have to memorize that line so I can use it the next time I'm at some hoity-toity art show. It says everything while at the same time saying nothing at all.
Good idea. I know nothing about sports; actually, I should say I don't know enough about sports to analyze it. If I find myself having to watch a game (at a bar or some party), I'll drop phrases like, "He really gives 110%"; "They've gotta bring their defense if they want to win"; "He knows how to handle the ball"; "They're a good ball team", etc.
-------------------------------
On another note, go to the ABC website link and take their art test. I honestly tried to pick "true" art from the fake stuff and failed miserably.
Whachutalkabou' ???
press 2 for English
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
Elephants painting realistic images? Now THAT I find hard to believe.
I'm frustrated because I want to see the images they passed around. Malevich's piece I can visualize: yes, a big black circle. But it was one of the first times art was totally removed from a realistic base, so the thought was brand new (and often there is some subtlety of balance, but it's hard to discuss without seeing the image).
My problem with the 4-year olds' paintings is that they can't have much content. Yes, they may have pretty space and color. But what are they saying? That's what make a good work to me (and Pollock was "saying" plenty). What can a 4-year old say about life experience? Give me a break.
And here's where some FReepers will agree with me: too much junk passes as good art nowadays. We may easily disagree about where the lines are drawn, but obviously the experts they tagged in the article are not as great as they purport to be.
Modern art is an escape and livelihood for those who cannot earn a living with a real career.
My ex's sister is an interior designed who prided herself in her artsy tastes. Last I heard she was a bi-sexual, non-armpit shaving leech still drawing her inane pictures.
Geez I hated that b__ch she argued against everything I held dear, Reagan, strong military, cutting welfare and governemnt in general, stopping unchecked immigration etc...
I get really annoyed around the time of the NCAA tournament because so many people suddenly become experts on college basketball. Since I work at a university, I'm surrounded by students that talk about this stuff for days on end, and it's apparent most of them wouldn't know a basketball if it got smashed off their nose.
Its all about PC, so called Art Councils, clicque-ish peer review committees and amazing amounts of tax payers money looking for a good home. A good friend of mine has been awarded many tens of thousands of dollars in grants. Her work looks like comm satellites made out chicken fencing and baling wire. Her tax status was actually changed from artist to hobbyist. I gotta admit I have actually seen her sell one piece. But her greatest talent is writing grants and ingratiating herself with her peers who sit on Arts in Public Places review committees. Some jurisdictions mandate that a percent or two of every public works budget be mandated to subsidize 'art'.
Back in the 1950's my family went to an art show on Boston Common. At one abstract painting, my little brother blurted "I'm only in kindergarten, and I can paint better than that!' To which an elderly Boston Brahmin lady replied, "Young man, I think you could, too!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.