WMN: t3_2nid9k_t1_cmea78s

[TITLE]

CMV: If all a modern art piece does is make you question whether it's art, it's terrible.

[thegimboid]

I've gotten into a number of discussions about the validity of certain types of modern art, those being ones such as a blank canvas, or random splats with no thought behind it. People generally say that art is meant to be evocative, and I understand this, but when I [can't tell it apart from something a toddler did](http://www.sporcle.com/games/bam_thwok/toddler-art-or-modern-art1?sc=thisorthat), I can't help but feel there's no work or meaning behind it beyond what I'm imprinting purely because I expect there to be a meaning. I could imprint meaning onto anything that way - that doesn't make it art. I don't feel anything when I look at these modern art pieces beyond questioning why it's in the museum. So when I say this, a common argument is that making me question it was the point, but that's ridiculous. It's not giving me any insight into the world, or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art. A work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself. Having an emotion about the logistics of whether of not the piece classifies as art doesn't count.

[gagnonca]

And this is why art is stupid. Nothing you said made any sense. FWIW, I just took that sporcle quiz for the first time and only missed 1. It was pretty easily actually

[BigTayTay]

Hey there, amatuer artist here. Never had anything published or put in galleries. With that said though, it's hard for me not to agree with you. You've brought up the splat paintings a lot in this thread, and I definitely agree. I find little to no artistic value in splat paintings. I understand their meanings, as an expression of emotion usually. I feel as if that particular "art" is something that anyone can do... so it shouldn't be showcased or considered revolutionary at all. I feel as if it's a mockery to real artists, those who study their whole lives to be called artists by their peers. As far as your overall CMV though, I disagree. Aside from splat paintings and variants thereof (which are abominations of the art world and should burn), anything that is an expression of oneself is an extension of self. Which is, by definition art. Hypocritical of me? Yes. But as you can tell, I'm bitter as fuck over splat painters. Lmao.

[HypnoticPeaches]

Just because you, someone who I (possibly falsely) assume is not educated in art history, theory, etc, doesn't see meaning in an abstract modern art piece doesn't mean someone who *is* educated in these ideas won't see the artistic merit. Not meaning to be rude, but that's basically how I see it. Hell, if art is meant to convey emotions, I'd say that abstract/modern art is more "artistic" than older realistic paintings, because while realism requires more technical talent, anything that isn't realism requires more creative abilities.

[IDontWantMyUsername]

Say I gave an account of a discussion between a few people, but only let you know one of the statements that were made, or someone made a reference that you couldn't understand solely from the explicit information that had been laid out. Is that statement meaningless because you don't have the knowledge to make sense of it? Now, think of history as an incomprehensibly humongous, constantly unfolding discussion, and everybody has their account of it. When you see that painting, it is an itsy bitsy tiny bit of information telling you something about that discussion, and you'll try to make this jive with your picture of it all. As of now, it seems like you've heard about something called art, and come to the understanding that something is art, and something isn't, and that it's very cool when someone does something that's super hard or demanding, and very annoying and confusing when someone gets credit for doing virtually nothing or something super simple. You can choose to settle with that understanding, or you can try to go further. It's up to you.

[Zotoaster]

Traditional art is a conversation between the artist and the viewer. If I say "bare feet on the hot sand", I dare say we'll all have a memory of that, but we'll all have a specific memory based on our own experiences. In this sense, the artist can't take everything from his brain and put it into yours, but he can use clever words/colours/sounds to bring something out of you. Something personal to you. Modern art is the next natural step. They kill the artist. They give you something so abstract that everything you see is completely of your own creation. In this sense, two viewers can never agree on the meaning of the art, but they are completely unique in their reaction to it. If you see a white canvas with a small line in the corner, and that makes you angry because it's not real art, then that is highlighting something about your character. I prefer traditional art because we all want to fit in while standing out - that is - we all want to agree that we're seeing our feet walking on hot sand, but we also want to have our own experiences. Traditional art is everyone doing their own unique moves to the same beat. Modern art is everybody doing entirely what is unique to them with no beat to guide them. It's purpose is to dig deeper into our individuality.

[JesusDeSaad]

Artist here. It is my firm opinion that anything that, when purposely affected in any intended manner, expresses something else than its original purpose, it can be considered art. I think this is the widest definition I can think of. That way things that happen by accident are not art, unless the person who tries to sell them as art. In that fringe case, the narrative is part of the art piece. Random splats are covered by this rule. Pollock may have splattered paint without ever touching the canvas, but he directed the general direction where the paint would fall, he didn't just buy a bucket of paint and a canvas, left them in his garage, and the paint magically escape the bucket by itself and went to the canvas. A kid's doodles are art only in the way the kid intends them to. If the kid intends his drawings to be a jet fighter and a house, but drew them so crappy that they look like a dinosaur planting lilies, and someone tries to sell the drawings as the latter rather than the former, it's not art.

[BobHogan]

I agree with you, and I am adamant in the fact that most modern "art" isn't art anymore. But art has changed. It now has more to do with who you are and who knows you. Like you said, a fair amount of modern art cannot be told apart from something a toddler or deranged person might do. It is considered to be great art primarily, if not solely, because of either A) the artist in question is already famous and people don't question it lest other judge them as having no taste B) a famous, or not so famous, critic sees the work and proclaims its amazing artistic properties. Thus people don't question him lest others judge them as having no taste in art. It, unfortunately, happens all the time with modern art. If you or I were to produce some of that work no one would look twice at it. But because of who made it, it is considered to be not only art, but great art. And that shows that the art world is changing in that it is much more based off of who you are now. And by that standard, this modern art is actually quite good. But it is good from the aspect of who made it, not necessarily for the piece itself.

[Tenmoku]

Others have already covered the main point here excellently, but I would just make one different argument, about asking yourself "what is art?". There are seemingly infinite answers to that question, but after having gone through years of art school, I realized what a futile question it is, because it presupposes that there is such a thing as art, in a concrete sense. Anyone can call absolutely anything art. Is a tree growing art? There was no human intervention, but perhaps it's beautiful, so maybe it can be called art. Is a guy throwing his rubbish out the window art? I could definitely argue that both the act of throwing the rubbish is art, and the resulting pile outside. The question we all should be asking is, IS IT GOOD. Is it evocative, does it challenge you. The world is full of bad art, or art you don't like, and just as when you choose to not listen to music you don't like, you can similarly disregard art that doesn't suit you taste. But that doesn't make it not art.

[beej_]

After just watching Exit Through the Gift Shop for the first time, I still have no idea how to define what art is.

[LogicRulesOverAll]

[STA-CITE]>I can't help but feel there's no work or meaning behind it beyond what I'm imprinting purely because I expect there to be a meaning. [END-CITE]This is precisely what the art is intended to do. It is art of an existentialist/absurdist philosophy where you must imprint your own meaning in an absurd world.

[shawnnix610]

Many works of modern art aren't actually trying to get you to question whether or not they are art. Much of modernism isn't really self-referential work. The movement was much more about freeing one's self from the confines and rules ingrained into painters. It was about experimentation, freedom, and breaking rules. Much of the work done in modernism may appear childlike, but that may be inherent in the nature of defying those rules painters were subjecting themselves to. I have often chanted that same thing about not being able to tell the difference between a child's finger painting apart from an adult modernist, but I just got 18/20 on that test without knowing any of those works. I was also surprised.

[codenamegriffin]

It's art, but it's art about art. About the status of the world of art. It's not in any way intended for the laymen. I think there should be an entire class of art that's just simply called meta-art. It certainly shouldn't be discredited by saying that it isn't art, but instead, calling it meta-art would mean "it's art, but unless you ARE an artist, you're not going to care."

[ophello]

You're applying subjective experience to something that is open to the interpretation of everyone. No matter how "good" or "bad" something is, some subset of the audience will not regard it as "art." That doesn't make it terrible.

[daksin]

If you look at some art, and all you do is question whether or not it's art, you are terrible at art.

[airdog1992]

"Art is the intentional arrangement of things, tangible and intangible, with the intent to evoke an emotional response." I think that what you should be considering is the intentionality. Start by assuming what you are experiencing is exactly what the artist intended. Then ask why the artist made the choices she did. Why deep blue instead of bright blue. In some ways there is a graphic language involved in visual art that relies or defies cultural norms, like red being a warning or danger or soft, rounded shapes being associated with calm or peaceful emotions. The reason that art is chosen for museums and galleries, imho, is that someone has found the art to be successful in evoking something new or in doing it in a new and different way. I think that good art tends to succeed in two dimensions, first in novelty and second in transcendence. Abstract art was a new way of painting that defied the norms that came before. What is impressive about the blank canvas isn't that it was technically difficult, it's that it was the first time someone thought about the blank canvas as an artistic statement and had the audacity to present it that way. What makes Picasso and Monet so famous is they did things in a way that hadn't been done before. They skewed the way in which we viewed art. Their success was due more to the way in which they thought, than in the technique they employed. Transcendence is the ability of a piece to cross boundaries, such as time and culture. One of the reasons that Shakespeare is such a successful playwright is that his works still speak to us even 400 years after he died. He touched on topics like love and power and intrigue that are as relevant to the 21st century as they were to the 17th. Maybe we should be asking why isn't the toddler's finger painting a successful piece of art?

[beer_demon]

I think just asking yourself the question "is this art or not" is a great artistic statement and can potentially add value to life, regardless of the answer. I find extremely weird art like Andy Warhol's stuff completely stupid and a waste of time, but just something that forces me to react in an art defining way already helps, and it's not like he is causing any damage. Helping you decide what you like in life is helped by helping you decide what you definitely don't like.

[thegimboid]

You can ask that about anything. That doesn't make it art. I could have a bowel movement and question whether it's art. The fact that I questioned it wouldn't make it so. There could be other reasons why it is art (it came out looking like a perfect replica of Richard Nixon, maybe), but the mere act of me questioning it would not make it be art. And I love Andy Warhol most of the time. Filming the Empire State Building for such a long time was something that hadn't been done before, and also took some modicum of effort. It was interesting and new. The same with a lot of his things. But if someone were to do that same thing now, it wouldn't be the same. Random splats on paper are neither genre-defining or new. If someone painted a piece made of random splats entirely out of blood, I would be thinking about the blood, and the violence needed to get the blood. But paint randomly put on a canvas doesn't make me question anything like that. It's something a tiny child does, and had no greater meaning to anyone but the artist than something a toddler would make.

[beer_demon]

Yes but what is random? Random doesn't exist, there are always variables that carefully place every particle of every component of every artistic piece. The fact we don't know how these variable started or how they work means we call them "random", but there is something behind every pattern. I agree most of these patterns are meaningless, valueless and if we find anything it's our imagination, but now and again something will trigger value. Most art is a copy with a small variant of something already made anyway.

[Nocturnal_submission]

Honestly, I had the same opinion about modern art as you for a long time. It seemed to me to be a waste of time, with little value and of little interest to me. However, I went to a modern art museum recently and had an entirely different experience than usual. Instead of glossing over each work as simplistic, abstract and nonsensical, I took the time and stopped in front of each picture and contemplated it. Something funny happened. I started seeing patterns and shapes buried in the melange of colors and abstractions. Whether or not it's what the artist intended (and quite frankly it doesn't matter what the artist intends - that's why we can interpret things for ourselves), I found meaning and messages in the works of art. Some were more evocative to me than others, but I has my own unique experience because of these paintings that even a few weeks ago I would have considered garbage. You seem to latch on to a toddler as some arbiter of what is or isn't art. This is a mistake. A rorschach test is simply blots of ink on paper. But people interpret different meanings from them. Electronic music sounds like a cacophony of disharmony to some, and like an entrancing melody to others. Let's go to the definition of art: [STA-CITE]>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. [END-CITE]You claim to not experience any beauty or emotional power from any modern art. It seems more likely that your pre-existing opinions drive this belief more so than any inherent worth or lack thereof in modern art. Once you open your mind and explore the possibilities presented by modern art, you may find a Beauty and emotional power that previously seemed to be missing. Also, why should age of the creator matter to the quality of any art? Mozart wrote "twinkle twinkle little star" when he was six; does this mean this timeless lullaby is worthless and devoid of value? I should hope not.

[Lorska]

I don't think we can get away from the whole "art is subjective" thing here, so I don't see ever being able to categorically determine that random paint splotches aren't art, in absolute terms. That being the case, you could still probably come the the conclusion that these types of creations are subjectively NOT art to 99.9%+ of the population. You could probably also investigate as to whether that 0.01% of people who claim 3 bars on a canvas is art to them really believe this to be the case, or if they instead are just insipid people, trying to get attention by trying to be mysterious or eccentric by at least pretending to like what most people would consider absurd. While you could never rationally prove that random paint splotches do not qualify as art as an absolute statement, you *could* still show that it doesn't qualify for the vast majority of society, and that those who say they consider it art, are either on the truly extreme fringe, or simply pretending in order to try and craft some sort of eccentric charisma for themselves.

[ieofaiia]

[STA-CITE]>you could still probably come the the conclusion that these types of creations are subjectively NOT art to 99.9%+ of the population. [END-CITE]Oh come on. That's ridiculous. Why would they put modern art in museums if it appealed to less than 0.1% of the population? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that people who do are literally unicorns.

[AlDente]

For a long time I've regarded most modern art as "art for *artists'* sake". I've known many people who've studied art and now call themselves artists, quite a few who do this full time and exhibit. Usually they're lovely people. It may well be that I'm missing something, but when I hear artists talk about their work it's usually the most circuitous, non-committal language I've ever heard. I think someone may have done a study on the language used by artists, and if not then linguists - get on it. The common denominator seems to be a desire to please the audience, the key part here being that the audience is *other artists*. Perhaps I've become too cynical, and there are of course exceptions to what I'm saying, but IMO most artists have turned exploratory play into a nebulous form of pseudo-intellectual navel gazing and utterly tedious group conformity (ironic given that art is 'meant' to push boundaries). They're mainly trying to impress each other, and use references that only other 'in' people can grasp (but that's often buried so deep that few people do). IMO the pursuit of meaning in art is often simply 'emperor's new clothes'.

[boredmessiah]

Interestingly, Schoenberg's music has been [similarly criticized](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schoenberg#Criticism).

[AlDente]

Yes, that's very similar, and the critiques are enjoyably withering. Thanks for the link, I hadn't read that before.

[BejumpsuitedFool]

When I saw the title of your CMV, I was expecting a critique of things like framing a toilet seat, stuff where the artist really is seeking to make people "question art" rather than aim for any aesthetic appeal. But instead you brought up the "random splats" side of the modern art argument, and here I think it's actually not the best one for your CMV angle. Because some modern art, like my example of just framing a toilet seat, really doesn't do much else besides make you question what is art or not. (as someone who went to art school, I might have then argued that there's still fun to be had in that, but I will easily understand if no one else cares) But the "random splat" style of modern art, that I would argue has a much better chance of having meaning beyond the questioning itself. The colors and strokes and the composition itself, even when seemingly random, can give an emotional effect. Even a completely blank wall of one color can give an emotional effect, or else why would people care about choosing between paint colors when painting their house? In your link to the test of toddler artwork vs modern art, some of those toddler's works did look very pleasing! #6 was my favorite, with its bright variety of colors. #10 and #14 looked nice and soothing, too. At least, in the areas where they cropped in. If a toddler got lucky enough to keep up that same style and color across a whole sheet large enough to hang on the wall, then I would gladly hang it on my wall, because it would look good. This is probably going to be a matter of luck, though. One thing people often don't realize is how *large* some of these works are. Jackson Pollack's works are usually [about the size of a whole wall](http://i.imgur.com/gqjT7fu.jpg). A bunch of toddlers smearing paint randomly certainly can make stuff that sometimes looks as good. But could they keep that up consistently across the whole wall? And how many tries would it take, and how much money would you have wasted on paint and canvas by then?

[NotFreeAdvice]

[STA-CITE]>It's not giving me any insight into the world, [END-CITE]Of course it is. This CMV is proof positive of that. Essentially, the art that you hate has motivated you to think through your position on art. To the extent that art is part of the world, this thought process has provided you new insight. Thus, the art you hate was the motivating factor for gaining new insight into the world. Just because you don't like something, does not mean that it cannot teach you. Indeed, often things that you don't like can provide the most interesting lessons. [STA-CITE]>or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art. [END-CITE]Again, I offer your own CMV as proof that the art you hate has provided enough of a emotional response to engage the world, beyond the art itself.

[YossarianWWII]

To discuss the game that you linked to, a key part of the analysis is to look for a singular, cohesive idea (more likely to be "art") and to look at variety in the widths of brush strokes (toddlers tend to use only one type of brush). Speckled patterns are also a decent sign that it's not a toddler's creation.

[TheGreatFaggadouchio]

I think the issue is more the fetish surrounding modern art. Like if somebody does something I don't like or understand why should I care if they like what they do and have an audience? What causes the more negative reaction is when a piece of art that doesn't seem to have taken much time or skill (for example "found pieces") continuously grossing many millions of dollars shortly after exhibition. That is understandably frustrating to people who work hard at whatever they do, it's like a "fuck you" to anyone who works for their money, and flies in the face of the artist as a rebel and critic of society and consumerism. However we should not direct our frustrations at the artists who just do what anyone would do in that situation but rather at the asshole collectors whose lives are so priveleged and concept of wealth so warped that they would offer to pay hundreds of millions for pretentious bullshit.

[hippiechan]

Duchamp's [Fountain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29) was arguably one of the earliest pieces of modern art, and certainly one of the most controversial for its time. At the time it was displayed, art and sculpture were more or less "literal", in the sense that what you saw was what it was. There was no question about it - when you saw it, it was art. Duchamp changed this by essentially creating a piece that wasn't formed by him, and was merely put into a setting that implied that it was art. This was a big idea - was it art if it didn't *seem* like it was art? The debate surrounding its involvement in the exhibition in which it was submitted was highly charged in the public sphere, and it raised one question above all -- What is art? Fountainhead helped popularize the Dadaist movement in Europe, which in turn influenced other art movements, such as cubism, surrealism, and futurism, and eventually movements like abstract expressionism and postmodernism. These movements, collectively, include some of the 20th century's most famous artists: Picasso, Pollock, Dali, Warhol, et al. In short, a piece of art that essentially only caused a debate on the meaning of art, ended up influencing an entire subsequent century of artists through the question "What is art?". For the record, in that wikipedia article, it claims that "500 british art professionals" described this urinal flipped on its side as "the most influential piece of art in the 20th century".

[BenIncognito]

[STA-CITE]>People generally say that art is meant to be evocative, and I understand this, but when I can't tell it apart from something a toddler did, I can't help but feel there's no work or meaning behind it beyond what I'm imprinting purely because I expect there to be a meaning. [END-CITE]Im not sure what "meaning" has to do with being evocative. Even bringing about negative emotions (like, "this art sucks") makes the art successful in being evocative, regardless of any intended meaning by the artist. Also, why is meaning you imprint on art not valid? It still means the piece meant something, specifically *to you*. Therefore it had meaning, intentional or not. [STA-CITE]>It's not giving me any insight into the world, or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art. A work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself. Having an emotion about the logistics of whether of not the piece classifies as art doesn't count. [END-CITE]Why should a work of art provoke emotions beyond itself? Also, in this case it seems to have done just that - since you're engaging in discussion about this type of art instead of individual works.

[thegimboid]

By your definition, isn't everything a work of art? If someone paints a bunch of splats, then it's just a bunch of splats. Then they call it art, and suddenly that makes it important, and the fact that it makes you question whether or not it actually is art becomes the art. But doesn't that mean I can do it with anything? I drink out of the same coffee cup every day. It has a stain in the bottom. It's not art, and I probably couldn't sell it because it's ruined. However, if I call it art, does that suddenly make it so? Is it suddenly worth lots of money? Can I do that with all my possessions and sell them off, proclaiming them to be art?

[SMMBG]

Yes, I believe you are correct. That is how I see art. Anything can be art - any act, object, or abstract concept. If someone proclaims it is art then it is. You could attempt to sell off your possessions, claiming them to be art - but it would depend on subjective valuation on the viewer/purchaser if they were worth anything. This is, sometimes, how pieces make it into museums. The artist has their own intentions/meaning for the piece, then separate but sometimes dependent on that the original purchaser/viewer ascribes their own personal meaning/value. Then because they place it in a gallery or museum, that can add value to some other viewers, if that is what they value. Others will value it based on how it makes them feel, separate from the intent of the artist or the location/socially ascribed value of the piece, and others will not value it at all. Art is entirely subjective, that is the point. What is art is subjective, what is good art is subjective, and what is valuable is subjective.

[Lvl60Lucario]

Someone pays for the art, you can sell whatever you made and say it is art, but someone has to want to buy it first

[Trimestrial]

How do YOU define "ART"?

[thegimboid]

As I said in another reply: > I define art as something that makes me feel something beyond what the object is. > > If someone painted a piece made of random splats entirely out of blood, I would be thinking about the blood, and the violence needed to get the blood. > But paint randomly put on a canvas doesn't make me question anything like that. It's something a tiny child does, and has no greater meaning to anyone but the artist than something a toddler would make.

[Trimestrial]

So you think art is an THING that someway pay a lot for, that makes you think of something other than the object?

[thegimboid]

It's not something that *needs* to be worth lots of money. I was asking why certain pieces, which are no different from everyday items (toddler's paintings, cups, urinals, etc) *are* worth lots of money and are considered art.

[Trimestrial]

They are worth lots of money because people will pay lots of money for those OBJECTS. But I consider "ART" something different than the objects.

[ophello]

If you can't imagine what the child sees, you aren't really paying attention. [STA-CITE]> feel something beyond what the object is [END-CITE]That's exactly what a child's painting does.

[BenIncognito]

[STA-CITE]>By your definition, isn't everything a work of art? [END-CITE]Well, not until someone calls it art. [STA-CITE]>If someone paints a bunch of splats, then it's just a bunch of splats. Then they call it art, and suddenly that makes it important, and the fact that it makes you question whether or not it actually is art becomes the art. But doesn't that mean I can do it with anything? I drink out of the same coffee cup every day. It has a stain in the bottom. It's not art, and I probably couldn't sell it because it's ruined. However, if I call it art, does that suddenly make it so? Is it suddenly worth lots of money? Can I do that with all my possessions and sell them off, proclaiming them to be art? [END-CITE]Sure, call it "I Fucking Hate Modern Art" and sell your stuff on eBay. People sometimes do weird shit and call it art, give it a shot. They don't always make money, of course. I don't know why you think art makes something suddenly worth a lot of money, ask an artist how that is working out for them sometime.

[MundaneInternetGuy]

I used to share your opinion, then I made a couple art major friends and they convinced me otherwise. They both basically used the same argument. [STA-CITE]>I don't feel anything when I look at these modern art pieces beyond questioning why it's in the museum. It's not giving me any insight into the world, or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art. [END-CITE]Have you ever considered that you're not the target audience? The target audience is usually people who know a lot of background info, people who have the complete picture. Not a huge stretch to assume that you're not that into art. If you're not into something, you probably won't know much about it, and you won't be able to appreciate the nuance. Like, someone who isn't really a basketball fan would look at [the Spurs ball movement](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3mEiVoazds) and be all like, "so what? It's a video clip of guys passing the ball, big deal, a nine-year-old can pass a basketball." But an informed fan would marvel at the spacing and the fundamentals. Intent and context matter. Another example: think about critically acclaimed art like a graduate level physics textbook, it doesn't have to be comprehensible by a wide audience for it to be considered effective or "good". A lot of art, *especially* modern art, is aimed at people who are knowledgeable about the art community, and can properly contextualize the piece. To a layman, a [hydrogen probability density wavefunction](http://i.imgur.com/gXqEmH0.jpg) just looks like someone messed around on Photoshop and made a pretty picture, but really it's one of the greatest scientific achievements in human history. The difference is, people almost have to respect science because it's easy to use hard numbers and data to shut down people who call bullshit. Would-be critics know that it takes high qualifications to truly understand science. That's not the case with art. People tend to think that having eyes is enough of a qualifier to objectively judge art, when in fact you have to be very familiar with art history, relevant techniques, recent works in the particular field/style, the art world zeitgeist, and probably other stuff. Art is very much a statement, not just the physical appearance and aesthetics. If you can't or won't acknowledge the message, you're not getting the full picture, so of course you don't appreciate it.

[Trimestrial]

Art is a way of looking at things... No Shit, my mother worked at an art lithography shop in the 70's. My little brother (in kindergarten at the time) finger painted her a pencil cup. A famous artist wanted to work with him... The pencil cup was not worth a hundred grand, this guy's painting were. Marcel DuChamp won an art contest with a mass produced toilet. The "dancing plastic bag" scene in American Beauty, explains this much better than I can, but "ART" isn't about questioning what "ART" is. ART is about making you aware of looking at beauty. Playing with the definition of "art" is just a technique...

[RYouNotEntertained]

That scene with the bag is such pretentious shit though.

[Trimestrial]

Yep, but it's true. And it even made you aware of viewing it...

[thegimboid]

True, but why do you find Willem De Kooning's [Tree in Naples](http://imgur.com/4TGO0Ok) in a museum and worth millions of dollars, whereas the same thing made by a toddler wouldn't be there? They both look the same. So what makes one greater than the other?

[mouichido_21]

If you take any art class regardless of if it looks like a toddler could create it just go home and try to recreate it. Don't say 'Of course I can!' Just go home and put your money where your mouth is.

[mr_skull]

I understand your concern about what art is, but when you bring money into it, it really reduces the conversation down to worth in a different sphere.

[mr_skull]

Also, think about Picasso or Dali (if you consider them more worthy of artistic merit). Their unique sketches or quick doodles are worth a lot of money to people who revere their work. So how can you just pick apart one of De Kooning's ideas for criticism and not look at his more complex pieces?

[mr_skull]

Going further, there are many bullshit copycats that still try to pass off ideas created 50-60 years ago as their own, paint splatters and all that. I assume that is a lot of what you are referring to. But just like music, dance, and graphic design, the ones who come out on top usually have something new to add to the discussion outside of paint drippings. In all of these art forms, there is plenty more mediocre work than great work happening, so it's easy to see more of the former.

[PLeb5]

Artistically? Neither. Financially? A name and pretense.

[Trimestrial]

So you define "Art" by what is in a museum? by what some people will pay for something?

[thegimboid]

No, I define art as something that makes me feel something beyond what the object is. As I said in a reply to someone else: If someone painted a piece made of random splats entirely out of blood, I would be thinking about the blood, and the violence needed to get the blood. But paint randomly put on a canvas doesn't make me question anything like that. It's something a tiny child does, and has no greater meaning to anyone but the artist than something a toddler would make. So why is one held in such high regard, whereas we're not framing every toddler's painting?

[NotFreeAdvice]

[STA-CITE]> But paint randomly put on a canvas doesn't make me question anything like that. [END-CITE]But that is only you. Isn't it possible that it makes other people question things? Clearly there are movements in art -- so the art that you hate has at least made other artists question what they are doing, and try to emulate. [STA-CITE]>It's something a tiny child does, and has no greater meaning to anyone but the artist than something a toddler would make. [END-CITE]Wow. This is a huge amount of arrogance on your part. Do you even realize that? When you say that it doesn't have meaning to **anyone**, have just presumed to speak for the entire human race. How do you know that other people do not find meaning and beauty in things you do not? Seriously?

[Trimestrial]

[STA-CITE]> No, I define art as something that makes me feel something beyond what the object is. [END-CITE]This is close to what I define art as. But then you go back to "regard".... Jackson Pollock splattered paint to give the viewer a "sense of the moment" both moments really... The moment of creation, and the moment of looking at it. My definition of "Art" is: being aware that you are seeing something beautiful. "Art" only means what you think it means. Not it means what you've read the "Artist" intended it to mean. Nor it only means something if people will pay a lot for it. I can be aware of beauty looking at a toddler's splatters, or even a toddler. Art doesn't even have to be an object. Art for me, is when I can notice and am aware of noticing beauty.

[thegimboid]

∆ I like this description. I suppose I just don't notice the beauty in art that all looks the same to me, especially that which doesn't have a historical significance or context. Similar to the way you'll stop seeing the beauty of the place you live after a while, the same thing probably happens with certain modern art styles. Though I will say that people who splat paint for no reason nowadays probably aren't doing it for the same revolutionary reasons that several artists did in the past.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Trimestrial. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Trimestrial)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[felixjawesome]

You are calling out a very particular genre of painitng known as Action Painting, or Abstract Expressionism that was popular in the 1950s and 1960s. What made the genre so "revolutionary" is that it was going against all "classical/old world" modes of art practice. It was a highly personal and individualized practice that was the antithesis of "social realism." It also fit well with the Postwar Art Market. It should be noted that Japan and Italy also had their own, independent Abstract expressionist periods. I think you also fail to realize that the example you quote "Tree in Naples" is actually a very, very large painting, https://lotuseditions.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/bricemarden2.jpg as are all de Kooning's and other Abstract Expressionists. As indicated by the name, Abstract Expressionism was about expressing pure emotion through gesture. I will end on the note that Toddlers and children can produce some amazing works of art that capture a lot of the raw energy found in Abstract Expressionism. Abstract Expressionism was born out of Automatic Surrealist practices which were extremely influenced by the philosophy of Freud and Jung as a means to tap into the subconscious...and so the comparison is valid. The difference ultimately comes down to intention and output.

[ophello]

The painting isn't worth that. Paintings are only worth what PEOPLE are willing to pay for it. It is worth its perceived value set by other people -- not you.

[RidleyScotch]

Because during the time De Kooning created that painting, this modern art movement of experimenting with new ways of seeing things, different ideas and getting rid of the past traditions of what art looked like, how it was done, the images you see in it. One big part of that movement was by being abstract with the images created and because De Kooning was a part of that art scene and was seen as somebody particularly talented in what modern art was trying to do his paintings became worth money because people wanted them for who he is/was, for what he was trying to do and for just liking the image. Modern art doesn't mean abstract all the time, it just happens that this abstractness or what you seem to think is "something a child can do" is a large part of modern art. Because artists were trying new things and throwing aside the romanticism, classical styles of painting/art. De Kooning knew the rules and the constraints of art and actively sought to break those rules and try new things. That is why he is in a museum and my kindergarten finger paintings is not. He is a product of his time and as is his art. A toddler is not aware of such rules and can be seen as incapable of trying or wanting to break them.

[thegimboid]

Breaking the rules by creating something that is already mass-created by people who don't even know the rules seems odd. However, you are entirely right about context. De Kooning probably revolutionized things by thinking out of the box. However, would you say the same thing about an artist who did the same type of work today?

[RidleyScotch]

[STA-CITE]>However, would you say the same thing about an artist who did the same type of work today? [END-CITE]The artist could either be creating a work in a style of art found during the Modern Art movement such as abstract expressionism, which is something De Kooning and Pollock would be called. Or the artist could be creating a piece of work today that tries to accomplish the same kind of rule or idea breaking, use of current technology or styles but is doing so in 2014. I don't know if i would call it modern art as i wouldn't say it was created in the modern art period. I would call it contemporary art, as i believe this to be the current period we are in but perhaps this artists piece incorporates X style, Y style and Z style and that genre of art is called (lets just say) Redditism Art/Painting but it would be contemporary art, rather than modern art. Because they way i look at is it there are "Periods" and in each period there are various genres/styles that are rather prevalent. This is just thinking on the topic.

[gaviidae]

A fat guys breasts can look remarkably similar to a woman's breast. I have zero interest in the former. It's not just about what you see but also about context.

[thegimboid]

This is very true. Has there ever been an experiment where they put up toddler's paintings and such in a museum, labelled as being famous art, and seen what people think of them?

[namae_nanka]

I think they did it with a chimp, the 'critics' went gaga over it.

[isperfectlycromulent]

I can't find the links, but there's been art shows where an elephant or a chimpanzee was the painter, and no one was told prior to the shows. People loved them.

[Heiminator]

I think [this article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/pearls-before-breakfast-can-one-of-the-nations-great-musicians-cut-through-the-fog-of-a-dc-rush-hour-lets-find-out/2014/09/23/8a6d46da-4331-11e4-b47c-f5889e061e5f_story.html) is quite relevant to this. It's about an experiment they did in the New York Subway. A world class violin player dressed up as a street musician and started playing in one of the stations. The question was if people would recognize it as an extraordinary performance or if they'd treat him as a "normal" street musician. The results are rather interesting :-)

[gaviidae]

It wouldn't really matter. If a beaver creates a pond or humans do is one more enjoyable to look at than the other? If a three year old makes something people enjoy looking at is it less enjoyable because they were three?

[ExploreMeDora]

I think the issue is that there's a bigger disparity between a fat mans breasts vs a woman's breasts and a dam made by a beaver vs a man-made dam than there is an adult splattering paint around vs a toddler splattering paint around. They're both people trying to make "art" or something "creative" by using paint. Why is the adults work valued more than the toddlers when they create the same results? The way I see it, art has it's value by how well it's made. If you have a unique style or skill that can not be replicated you have talent. Same as a singer who has an incredibly unique range, voice, and style. You can put anyone on an auto tune, but it doesn't count.

[bmangan]

Yea but autotune, or drip painting, or whatever else can be a tool that is the interesting characteristic of an individual artist. Pollock did drip art in a way that defined the field partially because he had already had an idea of art standards. He knew what he was angling against and was better able to counter point it. A baby can create a drip painting too, but it won't poignanty respond to anything in the world around it because the child simply doesn't understand the art world in the same way. Also you can characterize autotune as a crutch, and for some it is, but it's also a tool in the hands of an artist who understands it, like T-Pain but that artist has to have some base of talent to start off with. http://www.npr.org/event/music/359661053/t-pain-tiny-desk-concert

[gaviidae]

Who says the adults version is worth more? But art's value isn't just how well it's made but a complex set of variables. Forgeries are a great example. You have two paintings that are almost exactly alike. The only difference is something only an expert can tell **with** an expensive piece of equipment. The forgery is worthless the authentic one valuable. The story behind the art is valuable. A darth vader mask is worth $x. A darth vader mask actually worn on set is worth $x + y. It's really the same thing. The former is the 3 year old's art the latter is the famous artist.

[ExploreMeDora]

The adults art in the example could be sold for millions but any toddler could recreate that today. What value does that adult painter have?

[perpetual_motion]

I think the point is more that there is a causal relationship between who the artist is and people's enjoyment of the art. If you tell people a toddler did it they probably won't think it's very interesting or meaningful. So it would be interesting to see the extent to which this is true. That is, the extent to which percieved meaning in a piece of art depends not on the piece itself but on how we think the artist conceived it. OP seems to be saying that there would be a big gap and that there shouldn't be because the piece should stand only for itself.

[gaviidae]

It's really both. That something looks nice (whether it be finely drawn or simply pleasing color patterns is part of it but it is also the context behind it. Millions of women go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa. I hung a print of the Mona Lisa in my dorm room and no women came to see it. My print meant nothing while the actual painting does. The problem with using a toddler's art is that you are forging the context part of the art. And as we all know the value of a forgery and of an exact replica are quite different. So it wouldn't really be a good experiment.

[kabbotta]

It's a fine experiment for demonstrating what it is trying to demonstrate. And that is if you prime people, they will find signifigance in something they would otherwise consider insignificant.

[gaviidae]

Couldn't you also do it by hanging forgeries? That's basically what you'd be doing. Taking art and forging a history.

[Kingreaper]

A forgery has the same appearance, so when they compliment the work put into the appearance they'd still be complimenting the work done by the actual artist. It's still the famous artist's intellectual work. A random toddler's work wasn't made by the named artist at all.

[NotAnArmadillo]

not sure about the toddler thing. But one time this was done with art made by a 4-year old chimpanzee and even professional art critics thought the the chimp's paintings were good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau

[RYouNotEntertained]

I had this conversation with a friend of mine who was a painting major, about the works of [this guy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematism), IIRC. He walked me through the evolution of painting, that went something like this: * First, painters focused on painting objects or things as realistically as possible. They hid their brush strokes, tried to create something close to a photograph. This is loosely called "realism." * Then a stylistic change happened. Painters started painting *representations* of objects. Maybe they were not super realistic, maybe you could see the brush strokes. Maybe they were just painting the light that an object gave off. This was different than realism, but they were still focused on painting *things.* This was called impressionism. * Then the guy I linked came along and decided, fuck painting *things,* I'm going to paint a *painting.* Just a painting. It doesn't have to represent or look like an object, it can just be paint on canvas. This was considered radical, and launched several other branches of art. It sounds silly now, and if some dude came along painting black squares we wouldn't give two shits. But at the time, no one had ever considered this as an option. Sort of like how you could listen to the Beatles today and think they are kind of ho hum, but in the sixties their music was mind-blowing and revolutionary. Anyway, I'm sure I messed up some terms or names or something, but I remember this conversation changing my view. Maybe yours as well.

[smallpoly]

[STA-CITE]> if some dude came along painting black squares [END-CITE][Color Field Painting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Field) is definately a thing. Mark Rothko comes to mind. He painted [this](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/No_61_Mark_Rothko.jpg) in 1953.

[quantumlinux]

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but, in other words, does this mean that the emphasis shifted from the object of the painting to the form?

[RYouNotEntertained]

Maybe, I honestly don't know. My first post literally exhausted the entire breadth of my art knowledge ;)

[gangtokay]

Wow! You finally cleared the concept of realism and impressionism for me. Thanks.

[thegimboid]

Ah, now i do agree with this, in that this guy was trying something new and experimenting. But modern artists who are still creating what amounts to making splats on paper aren't pushing any new boundaries.

[oBLACKIECHANoo]

The thing is though, even if it was new, it's still lazy and pointless. It's being edgy for the sake of it. And nowadays, none of that stuff is new anyway, so it's regurgitated lazy and pointless crap. I think to be art it has to require technical skills as well, so you can create something that is complex enough to actually put across a real message and make people think about things that matter. But a lot of the art you talk about has messages that are just mundane and inane shit that could of been told in a few words. It's like painting something to give people the message "4+4 = 8", it's just ridiculous and contrived. And when people come up with these pointless "messages" and paintings of squares that represent some story, they are just trying to justify putting so much effort into something a 3yr old could of created. I could paint anything I wanted and say it represent anything, doesn't mean it's a good painting. At this point there have been people that have literally taken a shit and called it art by magically linking it to something.

[RYouNotEntertained]

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. If i learned anything from the above convo, it was that I didn't actually know enough about art to tell if guys were pushing any boundaries or not. Either way, this is an exception to your CMV statement. His black square painting changed art forever by forcing people to consider, "what is art?"

[thegimboid]

Very true. ∆ I do admit there are some exceptions to my statement. They happened at a time before that particular branch of art had come about, though. The painting now has more historical significance, because what makes it art was the fact that people questioned it when it was something entirely new, rather than the questioning you do yourself, comparing it to the things created in the art style that sprung away from it.

[SMMBG]

"what makes it art was the fact that people questioned it when it was something entirely new, rather than the questioning you do yourself" For the record, you are still questioning if modern artists who emulate paint splats or black square of previous artists is art or not. Questioning: "Why is this art? Someone thinks it is, but why?" If they cause you to question what is art, that is valuable. If they cause you to question what you like about art, what is good art, that is valuable (even if you don't "like" it).

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RYouNotEntertained. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/RYouNotEntertained)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[BejumpsuitedFool]

That comment above with the black square example reminded me of one of the first works that got me interested in modern art, once I got to see it at an exhibition. So I thought I'd try and tell you about it. Just seeing photos on the internet or in a book is a lot different than seeing a real work in person. If you'd seen a photo of this one, you'd have probably rolled your eyes, cause it would have looked like nothing but a black solid canvas. But in person, this thing was HUGE, taking up most of the wall, and it was very tall. And while the color was almost all black (I think there might have been a lighter speck much higher up, but I can't remember as it was many years ago), it wasn't a flat canvas. It had 3-dimensional texture all over, and was very wide and thick in some places, so it felt more like a giant stone block than a painting - like standing next to the monolith from 2001 or something. So standing right next to this thing gave me this really impressive imposing feeling. And yet if you looked at a photo of it where you couldn't see the texture, or read an article about it where you couldn't appreciate its size and presence, it would seem really ho-hum and ridiculous. People painting more realistic stuff aren't usually breaking any new ground, either. But we don't take that as a reason to not bother painting realistically anymore. We still appreciate new realistic artworks if they're good. Similarly, this big black monolith work might have come long after Malevich made his point with the black square. But it was still a great work worth seeing. And in fact, since a work like that could really only be appreciated in person, if you gave up after a few of the top artists made their point, it would be harder for everyone to get the opportunity to see it.

[special-measures]

I had a similar feeling seeing some of Mark Rothko's work in London about a decade ago - that was what made me think differently about modern art. Something about the colour and size of the work really created an atmosphere in the gallery that is hard to describe. It was excellent.

[AnonForSenate]

"A work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself." Whenever you have a rule in art then other artists are going to try and break that rule. Maybe the stuff you looked at wasn't right for you. But that's not a big deal, there is lots of stuff out there. Sometimes boundaries are pushed in dumb directions, but that's okay. Random splats exploring meaningless noise *might be* an overdone concept in art, but that won't always be true. If things become too rigid and rule-oriented then there will be a counter-movement of artists messing with that notion. Maybe what you saw was just boring or bad. In another time and place it might be good though because the audience's expectations changes. If we lived in a world where only realistic depictions of things were seen (and written about, etc..) then some nonsense smears might jostle us out of that box. I'm no expert though. I kinda agree with you that the airy-faery stuff doesn't do anything for me. But I think the problem with that stuff is that we've seen too much of it and now just seems trite, art-school, lazy, marijuana-haze. At a different time, it would be bold. It depends where the audience is at.

[JohnnyFrostbite]

∆ Like it.

[DeltaBot]

This delta is currently disallowed as your comment contains either no or little text ([comment rule 4](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4)). Please include an explanation for how /u/AnonForSenate changed your view. If you edit this in, replying to my comment will make me rescan yours. ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[AnonForSenate]

Thanks!

[kabbotta]

[STA-CITE]>Maybe the stuff you looked at wasn't right for you. But that's not a big deal, there is lots of stuff out there. Sometimes boundaries are pushed in dumb directions [END-CITE]I think one of the main concerns people have with this view is that it leads to the conclusion that there are really no "dumb directions". Fine, maybe you don't want to look at a picture of a holy figure with shit smeared all over it, but if we can find some tiny fraction of people in the world who are "moved" by the piece, then it suddenly becomes legitimate art. Nothing is really boring or bad, it is just waiting for its audience.

[AnonForSenate]

Art is unlike other things, you can't really measure it with a ruler. I don't think this means that "everything is good, you just don't like it," but rather that the audience experiences it and then makes their argument as to whether it is good or bad. There have been a lot of things I didn't like until it was explained to me what to look for. The worst thing is when someone says "I was moved" by something and then they can't tell you anything useful about it. Being moved is one powerful emotion, I'd expect an educated person in art to be able to explain a bit about it. Unfortunately I think a lot of dopes look at things that are supposed to be really good and say "it moved me" without knowing dick about what they are talking about. I had a friend once who said he loved 2001: A Space Odyssey. I got really excited because it is one of my favourite movies, and I had to watch it repeatedly and watch an hour long video review of it (by a really smart guy) to really "get" it, but once I got it - it blew me away. Anyways, so I excitedly asked my friend what he loved about and what he thought was the meaning of the monolith. ... and he asked "what was the monolith again?" He said he "loved" it because it is supposed to be a great movie that is very cerebral, but he couldn't remember anything about it. I think there is a lot of that going on in art. If someone tells you that it "moved" them, then you should be able to ask them what they see in it, and you should put your bullshit detectors up. They might just be saying that to seem smart. I'd never call random splats great, but that's because I know very little about painting. I would love for someone to explain a great painting to me though. Or opera. Or abstract sculptures. I don't know anything about those. Random-splats are in the museum for a reason, and the curator isn't a dummy. The likelihood of collective-delusion in the art world is low (though not zero).

[rehgaraf]

[STA-CITE]> If someone tells you that it "moved" them, then you should be able to ask them what they see in it, and you should put your bullshit detectors up. [END-CITE]Or it could be because they have a genuinely emotional response to something. I remember the first time I saw a Rothko 'in the flesh'. It didn't mean anything, and I didn't see anything in it - its a bloody great lump of colour - but I was pretty overwhelmed by it. Something to do with the scale and simplicity maybe, or perhaps I'd had wallpaper just that shade as an infant - who knows. I was moved.

[BeardedWisdom]

Any chance you've still got a link/name for that review of 2001?

[AnonForSenate]

It was done by a game named Rob Ager, and his movie reviews are on YouTube. I can't seem to find the "main" 2001 critique. Here is one that he does about the Monolith, but it's kinda an update to the main thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSo6s_xrj4c&list=PL300EDAD8B4525069 TBH though I think this one goes too far. He does other movies too. I think he's the kind of guy who has a lot of great insights, but sometimes pushes it too far. But that's part of the fun.

[VortexMagus]

But when every rule is broken, they'll end up just going back to the starting point. I'm trying to get sociologists to term this phenomenon the "Grand Theft Auto Effect": Once you've spent awhile running over everyone and crashing into everything and driving on the sidewalks/off ramps/through buildings, you eventually get bored really bored with it and start following all the traffic laws again. That's what's gonna happen in art.

[platniuminer]

Well I my self believe in unlimited (too wast for one mear being to cover with his intelligence) universe and intelligence for that there will always be a great and unbelievably beautiful way to do anything . As for the taste for art, peaple have to have one or develop it to appreciate any form of art . That is food , drink or aesthetically pleasing one.

[yalhsa]

You're equating figuration and realism with tighter rules. It's completely possible to create abstract works of art and have a strict set of criteria or rules. As others have noted hyperrealism comes and goes.

[rehgaraf]

Already happening! Movements like [hyperrealism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperrealism_%28visual_arts%29) have moved in the opposite 'direction' of many other modern art movements - cubism, impressionism, pop etc. They are aiming to produce art that is absolutely figurative, with no abstraction at all; it focuses almost entirely on technique. And this stuff has definitely raised the "is this even art" question.

[Standardleft]

hyperrealism is dead. NeoHyperrealisms what its all about.

[billy0246810]

∆ So I had basically thought of it as a giant waste of my time until now. I still think it doesn't do anything for me either, but I understand its purpose now. The other artists will try to break the rule is what made me consider more deeply.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AnonForSenate. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AnonForSenate)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[FriskyMushrooms]

[STA-CITE]> If we lived in a world where only realistic depictions of things were seen (and written about, etc..) then some nonsense smears might jostle us out of that box. [END-CITE]And that is exactly what the Modernist movement was - something new during a period where there was only traditionalist art