01 Jun 11
Originally posted by SeitseHave you ever considered that it is not the art that is deficient, but, rather, that it is you who is deficient?
... at least not with public money.
It is utter nonsense and those who say they like it
in reality are just striking a pose to appear cool.
Ergo, it is a waste of money and it serves no purpose
other than give something to do to some untalented
weed smokers.
Discuss.
02 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by SeitseIt is probably only on this issue that you and I will be in mutual agreement. As someone who can draw pretty damned well (and paint (albeit in acrylics) when I can be bothered) I say "modern art" is the domain of the talentless and pretentious.
... at least not with public money.
It is utter nonsense and those who say they like it
in reality are just striking a pose to appear cool.
Ergo, it is a waste of money and it serves no purpose
other than give something to do to some untalented
weed smokers.
Discuss.
02 Jun 11
4 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedImpressionism if done correctly is anything but talentless - these guys are able to capture the essential features of a scene with whatever ambient lighting (which changes) is present in one sitting - and produce images that though not hyper-detailed are still pretty damned accurate (in the geometric/spatial/chromatic sense).
Works produced by Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollock (and those who imitate them) on the other hand I say are talentless and pretentious, there is nothing about their `art' that couldn't be emulated by a chimp, and any aesthetic value to be found is as dubiously subjective as the aesthetic value to be found in a half eaten pizza.
02 Jun 11
Originally posted by AgergI am forever at a loss to understand why so many seem to have such a burning desire to condemn 'modern' art. Because it doesn't appeal to you, why do you then denigrate the art form itself? I don't like 'modern jazz', but that doesn't cause me to turn around and say that it "is the domain of the talentless and pretentious." I am fully prepared, rather, to admit that I am deficient as a listener and that I don't know enough about the art form to properly judge it. The most I can say is that I don't understand it and that it doesn't appeal to me.
It is probably only on this issue that you and I will be in mutual agreement. As someone who can draw pretty damned well (and paint (albeit in acrylics) when I can be bothered) I say "modern art" is the domain of the talentless and pretentious.
02 Jun 11
5 edits
Originally posted by rwingettLet's suppose someone invents a new type of music - call it, say, "Bango"; further, lets say it is generally formed by a group of people banging bricks with wooden spoons, there need be no rhythm, no adherence to tempo, no attempt to capture any melody - just random brick banging.
I am forever at a loss to understand why so many seem to have such a burning desire to condemn 'modern' art. Because it doesn't appeal to you, why do you then denigrate the art form itself? I don't like 'modern jazz', but that doesn't cause me to turn around and say that it "is the domain of the talentless and pretentious." I am fully prepared, rather, to a . The most I can say is that I don't understand it and that it doesn't appeal to me.
Now I don't know about you but I would be quite happy to denigrate this new `artform' with as much zeal as I denigrate those who randomly and thoughtlessly throw paint onto a canvas or try to peddle some arbitrary configuration of mundane objects as a profound statement of the way things are in the world.
There is much music that doesn't appeal to me but I can at least acknowledge the skill and talent that underlies their work - with the stuff that Tracy Emin, Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko (et al) produce I have nothing but contempt.