Question about contemporary art... [Serious]

"Nibby" (nibby68) 10/21/2014 at 20:59 • Filed to: None

2

29

What does Oppo think of it? I know it's a bit vague and it encompasses so much in terms of modern-day art (video, performance, installation, sculpture, painting, digital, process art, etc.).

Leadbull > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 21:15

0

Disclaimer: I'm not an artist. I've only taken one college-level art appreciation course, so I'm not an expert by any means.

However, a lot of the contemporary paintings and sculptures I've seen seem way too busy for me.

Anon > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 21:16

0

I personally love it! I'm not going to pretend to know what the artist is trying to say, but I love it when creators try new and weird stuff, part of why I love stuff like evangelion (even if the strangeness was due to budget problems) so much.

beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 21:17

0

I wouldn't say I frequent contemporary art galleries, but it's on my list of things I do when I visit a new city.

ACCA in Melbourne is often good. I go to CCAS in Canberra 4 or 5 times a year.

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 21:21

0

Contemporary art really isnt my thing, bjt this falls in the better pieces of the genre

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 21:28

0

I don't get some modern art. Stuff like this:

Same with some of the sculptures.

Nibby > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 10/21/2014 at 21:42

0

That one is probably about the method of how it was painted. You can clearly see how it was done, the direction of the brushstrokes and whatnot. Everything was done deliberately, including the subtle changes of hue from blue to violet.

Nibby > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s 10/21/2014 at 21:43

1

Yue Minjun's stuff is amazing

Nibby > beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard 10/21/2014 at 21:43

0

Very nice!

Nibby > Leadbull 10/21/2014 at 21:44

0

I see what you mean. More often than not, you really gotta read about the work

Nibby > Anon 10/21/2014 at 21:44

0

Tis all about creativity and finding new mediums and ideas.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 21:48

0

Nibby...

this was painted by a toddler.

http://www.sporcle.com/games/bam_thwo…

Nibby > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 10/21/2014 at 21:56

0

Yeah, but Pollock was the first one to put it in an art gallery.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 21:58

0

???

ranwhenparked > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 22:03

0

I can generally appreciate it on an aesthetic level, but usually need it explained to me to get any deeper appreciation. Except Duchamp, him I understand.

Nibby > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 10/21/2014 at 22:04

0

These are large, over 7' wide.

Nibby > ranwhenparked 10/21/2014 at 22:04

0

Duchamp is a whole 'nother world! One of the most influential artists in the past 100 years.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 22:27

0

I mean, it's not a bad looking thing, but people pay exorbitant sums of money to own stuff like this or line up to view it in museum, and all I see is a splatter painting that I did in art class (only bigger). Then you get very artsy people who analyze it to a level so deep it almost makes my smallish mind hurt, and then say that you "just wouldn't understand" or "can't appreciate true genius.". I have actually had this happen to me. I'm not saying the people who make it or the people who appreciate it "on a deeper level" are wrong, but I just cannot see it myself.

Frank Grimes > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 22:28

0

I mostly dont like it. If you need a huge paragraph on the side explaining crap that cant even be seen in the work I just walk away. Its pretentious. The above I like the style but dont get the intention.

Most people bring up pollock and make fun of it etc. but I like it on a very superficial level I just like how some of the colors and splishy splashy parts work together.

I recently watched a documentary on Kehinde Wiley he is a portrait painter and uses classical style and inspiration but mostly black dudes. It is really well done looks pretty awesome and the intention and message is pretty cool and not too pretentious or hard to grasp.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Frank Grimes 10/21/2014 at 22:30

0

^this sums up my thoughts on it exactly. Pretty to look at, but that's all the more I can get from it.

Nibby > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 10/21/2014 at 22:31

0

When people tell ask me questions like this or tell me they don't understand an artwork, I tell them "You have to look past your opinion of it and think about it in its context. When was it made? What was going on at the time? What were other painters doing at that time?"

The fact that this piece is from 1949 and is 65 years old is *amazing* to me. Just think that it took mankind thousands of years to appreciate this as art... and it wasn't exactly well-received at the time. If you want to read more about Pollock, I suggest reading Clement Greenberg's writings about his work.

Nibby > Frank Grimes 10/21/2014 at 22:32

0

Different strokes for different folks. There's a lot of art out there I don't like, such as Frida Kahlo. But I still understand the significance of her work.

Kaizer Soze > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 22:39

0

Really opinionated post incoming.

It's because all he did was splatter paint on canvas, which takes no skill or imagination. The only amazing thing about it is he was able to pass it off as art at all. Even more amazing is people will pay more money than the average person will make in their lifetime for paint splatter.

Kaizer Soze > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 22:40

0

Thats just creepy.

Nibby > Kaizer Soze 10/21/2014 at 22:41

0

Most of his paintings involve his signature smile. |D

Nibby > Kaizer Soze 10/21/2014 at 22:41

0

One way to look at it.

Kaizer Soze > Nibby 10/21/2014 at 22:51

0

I have to say, though, it is probably the prettiest and best planned out paint splatter ever splattered. Really, if I am paying my hard earned cash for art, I am interested in the skill and craftsmanship that it takes to make something. If I can recreate it myself that makes it worth a lot less to me. For example I am a big fan of Escher, it takes incredible skill, planning, and innovative thinking to create something like that. To sound more openminded, art can be so many things, it is really about the beauty factor and wether it can make you think.

Agrajag > Nibby 10/22/2014 at 00:33

1

It depends. I like what I like, and that is wide range of ever evolving things. Viewing static pieces in person makes a huge difference, for me at least. I didn't care for Van Gogh until I saw one of his works in person and realized it was as much a sculpture as it was a painting. I thought Chuck Close was a quite talented fellow, but wasn't aware of the scale he worked in. Then I walked up the stairs at the Whitney and was greeted by the enormity of one of his pieces. I stared at that piece for probably close to half an hour.

I'm not as familiar with contemporary art as I should be, or at least the respected facet of it, but I do enjoy many pieces. It has allowed people without the "traditional" technical skill to express themselves in ways that expand the form of art. And that is awesome.

Personally, I prefer to work with some constraints. I've always felt humans produce their best when limited by available tools, technological limits and such. Contemporary art, I feel, is often too unhinged. When the advent of synchronized sound allowed speech in film, Charlie Chaplin was constantly pressured to make a talkie. "Words are cheap" he said. "The biggest thing you can say is elephant." Eventually he did make talkies and they are arguably some of his greatest works. They were different from his previous films. Different like Picasso's different periods, but great all the same.

Questions for you, Nibby. Since your kind of knee deep in the art world, are comics recognized as contemporary art? Will the likes of Alex Raymond or Kelley Jones be remembered by anyone but their peers/successors or that guy with 500 Batman comics(me)? Is there really art in sequential story telling ?

Nibby > Agrajag 10/22/2014 at 08:40

1

Some comics are recognized as contemporary art! Let us not forget about Roy Lichtenstein's pop art in the 60s and such.

There's a lot of storytelling in art these days; it's becoming more of a trend of late. Especially in video art, like Matthew Barney's work.

King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider > Nibby 10/22/2014 at 11:21

0

All art may be art, not all art is GOOD art.