Pretentious "Art" Exhibitions

[panda_uk]

I'm absolutely appalled that it's compulsory to go to galleries and pretend that you understand and enjoy what's inside them.

Who are these people saying that it's compulsory? I don't feel like I've ever had anyone say that I had to understand or feel anything when going into a gallery. That sounds more like your telling yourself that. If you get nothing from it then that's totally fine. I wouldn't worry what you imagine other people might be thinking.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Bring on empty rooms for us to imagine what the artist was trying to convey.

People at these things already prefer to imagine anyway, even when the artist themselves is standing right there telling them exactly what the score is...

I was in Florence, Italy recently looking at some of the amazing art work from the Renaissance era and my mind was blown. I guarantee you in another 400 years no-one will be exhibiting these abortions.

I feel the same way about a lot of modern music, albeit on a 4-year scale.
I heard a Craig David (yeah, remember him? I had to ask my passenger) on the radio for the first time in ages the other day. Meanwhile, far deeper and meaningful (dare I say, with greater (ie, actual) artistic merit) songs like All Along The Watchtower are thankfully immortal!

 

[Caged]

A lot of these replies are very

 

[scorza]

I feel the same way about a lot of modern music, albeit on a 4-year scale.
I heard a Craig David (yeah, remember him? I had to ask my passenger) on the radio for the first time in ages the other day. Meanwhile, far deeper and meaningful (dare I say, with greater (ie, actual) artistic merit) songs like All Along The Watchtower are thankfully immortal!

I agree with that as well. There hasn't been an authentic movement in music for around 20 years now

 

[DrToffnar]

A lot of these replies are very

Yep.

"I CAN'T PERCIEVE VALUE IN THIS THING THAT IS HERE, GET IT OUT OF MY INTERNETS!!!"

 

[JBuk]

I've think I may have inadvertently just recreated the exhibit by having an empty room at my house, could this be copyright infringement?

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I've think I may have inadvertently just recreated the exhibit by having an empty room at my house, could this be copyright infringement?

If no one is there to see it, is it really art?

 

[Vonhelmet]

Yep.

"I CAN'T PERCIEVE VALUE IN THIS THING THAT IS HERE, GET IT OUT OF MY INTERNETS!!!"

Nah, most modern art is bobbins. Since cameras turned up everywhere and no one had to be able to paint or sculpt or whatever properly there's very little reason to try

 

[ttaskmaster]

"I CAN'T PERCIEVE VALUE IN THIS THING THAT IS HERE, GET IT OUT OF MY INTERNETS!!!"

I'd say it's more the fake value that people are creating for such things, really.

I went along to a friend's own art exhibition once and stood listening to the local hipster pillocks trendies wittering and arguing something like how, "the artist is clearly expressing the zeitgeist of their relationship betwixt consumerist fetishism and recycling coture, possibly influenced by Lichtenstein or Machiavelli given the synergistic complex dialogue in the piece...", with their mates all debating, "No no, this is clearly the artist's ephemeral fascination with the dialectic of greed and the frantic, diverse practice of nihilism...". You know, the sort of pretentious arty farty BS that usually gets spouted by hipster wine-tasters on TV....
My friend had been listening from the side and basically cut in with, "Oh is that what I was doing? Wow, I thought I was just painting some pretty flowers...!!".

 

[DrToffnar]

I'd say it's more the fake value that people are creating for such things, really.

I went along to a friend's own art exhibition once and stood listening to the local hipster pillocks trendies wittering and arguing something like how, "the artist is clearly expressing the zeitgeist of their relationship betwixt consumerist fetishism and recycling coture, possibly influenced by Lichtenstein or Machiavelli given the synergistic complex dialogue in the piece...", with their mates all debating, "No no, this is clearly the artist's ephemeral fascination with the dialectic of greed and the frantic, diverse practice of nihilism...". You know, the sort of pretentious arty farty BS that usually gets spouted by hipster wine-tasters on TV....
My friend had been listening from the side and basically cut in with, "Oh is that what I was doing? Wow, I thought I was just painting some pretty flowers...!!".

Meh, I don't really have an issue with that. There's pretentious **** in every artistic medium.

Being able to infer perspective and meaning is exactly what I think 'art' is all about. I think if the artist actively takes that away from the audience, they're not much of an artist at all. Though of course, even that can be done in a way that totally subverts the works supposed meaning.

I dunno. Talking modern art with people these days is boring. There seems to only be 2 camps of people, those who adore it, and those who see zero value in it. There's often zero nuance to the discussion on both sides of the argument, especially with the latter.

 

[DrToffnar]

Nah, most modern art is bobbins. Since cameras turned up everywhere and no one had to be able to paint or sculpt or whatever properly there's very little reason to try

Over half of the work exhibited in the Tate galleries most of the time is sculpture and painting

Regardless, people will utilise whatever tools they can get there hands on. A photograph can be just as valuable to the soul as any painting or sculpture.

 

[MookJong]

Fine art and things that took dedication and creative effort should be placed back at front and centre. Modern art has had it's fun as a kind of anti movement, but it needs to be called out now.

 

[DrToffnar]

Fine art and things that took dedication and creative effort should be placed back at front and centre. Modern art has had it's fun as a kind of anti movement, but it needs to be called out now.

Is it really a case of 'either-or' though? I'm always slightly bewildered when people seem to think multiple sub genres of anything wont be able to co exist together. Modern art doesn't devalue the work of older pieces at all, unless that's actively made a theme, in which case that can be equally fascinating.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Over half of the work exhibited in the Tate galleries most of the time is sculpture and painting

Regardless, people will utilise whatever tools they can get there hands on. A photograph can be just as valuable to the soul as any painting or sculpture.

Sure, but with less need to pursue realistic replication of things, there is a gap that gets filled by "artists" doing random rubbish.

 

[MookJong]

Is it really a case of 'either-or' though? I'm always slightly bewildered when people seem to think multiple sub genres of anything wont be able to co exist together. Modern art doesn't devalue the work of older pieces at all, unless that's actively made a theme, in which case that can be equally fascinating.

There is good modern art and room for it for sure. We are surrounded and bombarded with so much imagery and conceptual art in everyday life that none of that now makes it into a gallery. What tends to make it into modern galleries is this extreme branch of abstract art that in many cases has taken little skill to produce. At the point where the viewer can no longer understand the message or appreciate any skills involved in the creation then what exactly is the purpose of displaying it?

 

[FishFluff]

Fine art and things that took dedication and creative effort should be placed back at front and centre. Modern art has had it's fun as a kind of anti movement, but it needs to be called out now.

You are aware that people are still painting things and that having modern art doesn't mean that 'fine art' ceases to exist right? If you love fine art so much then support the scene by going to galleries and buying paintings/prints. Art is not a zero sum game ffs.

 

[DrToffnar]

Snip

At the point where the viewer can no longer understand the message or appreciate any skills involved in the creation then what exactly is the purpose of displaying it?

To interpret and to wonder. Does there really need to be more of a reason then that?

 

[Semple]

I sort of like modern art because it has the skill of a well executed scam without the same degree of victimisation. So, for example, I can admire the skill of Victor Lustig but deplore the adverse effect his cons had on his victims. The sheer scale of skillful flimflam required to sell the Eiffel Tower is impressive, but there were victims in that con. Modern art requires the same skillful flimflam but the marks freely choose themselves and are complicit in it, so they're not really victims. It's more akin to Lustig's fake banknote scam, in which he sold fake money-printing equipment solely to people who wanted to use it to make fake notes.

I quite like this statement, i feel it sums up modern art very well!

 

[Burnsy2023]

I don't see what the issue is, surely this is a self-correcting system? If people don't place any value on it, then it won't be visited and will soon be forgotten. If people do get something out of it, then perhaps it's worth respecting as art.

 

[dowie]

Indeed - what people want to spend (or waste) their money on is up to them. I guess if public subsidies are involved in the case of galleries etc.. that is perhaps a different argument but the general one against modern art is a bit pointless.