art criticism is broken

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 1426948795042-0.jpg (55.67 KB, 631x300, 631:300, ask-the-expert-A-Rubber-Ba….jpg)

File: 1426948795042-1.jpg (75.97 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, Cathedra_by_Barnett_Newman.jpg)

art criticism is broken Mr(s). Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 14:39:55 No.3281

contemporary art has become a field where the opinions of a critic matter more than the talent of the artist. the whole scene is nothing but one big pump-and-dump scam for bankerish scum and the biggest hugbox in western culture. criticizing it automatically labels you as "anti-intellectual" like as if that's a thing.

Mr(s). Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 14:51:30 No.3282

File: 1426949490875.jpg (21.21 KB, 403x520, 31:40, Duchamp.jpg)

don't let anyone ever call you an anti-intellectual, because it's just a meaningless insult that implies they're somehow intellectual and you aren't.

Mr(s). Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 15:02:46 No.3283

File: 1426950165962.jpg (106.19 KB, 500x667, 500:667, finger aborigine.jpg)

>>3281
I've found that in a lot of liberal art fields, it's more a circlejerk of "Oh wow your product sure impressed me and you're such a successful ___, now what do you think about mine?"

Maybe it's just a sign of the times, but people use their interest as a commodity, even if they don't actually care about others' work. It's very disingenuous and has left quite a bad taste in my mouth. I guess suck-ups win-all and when they become popular and others suck up to them, they already know how to play the game.

Mr(s). Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 15:06:05 No.3284

>>3282
>>3283
Agreed.

Intelligence can be found in any person who genuinely wants to pursue it. I've seen some excellent examples of art work produced by people I'd consider great artists, but because other popular groups didn't see them kiss up to them enough, they spent a long time looking for popularity. It doesn't make them unintelligent, just severely undervalued.

If you've got the approval of the masses, you know you're not producing anything overly worthwhile.

Mr(s). Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 15:08:48 No.3285

>>3281
>criticizing it automatically labels you as "anti-intellectual" like as if that's a thing.

Social pressure seems to be more prevalent in arts than in anything else. It's like a mix of wanting to be special, unique, but also both belong and feel better than other people. Position on the social ladder and appreciation of certain arts has always been very connected. A bit too connected.

I find myself lying about what I like occasionally too, just to avoid any of that nonsense.

I find other lie to themselves about it, because the status they believe comes with it is what they actually care about.

Human behavior makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes.

Mr(s). Anonymous 03/21/15 (Sat) 16:26:04 No.3294

>>3285
One thing I've noticed is that the present always tends to look back on the past and laugh at it. Today's rejects will be tomorrow's heroes.

Mr(s). Anonymous 03/22/15 (Sun) 00:42:22 No.3299

>>3283
>I've found that in a lot of liberal art fields, it's more a circlejerk of "Oh wow your product sure impressed me and you're such a successful ___, now what do you think about mine?"
They're feigning interest whilst fishing for compliments.

I'd say something here about how the largest problem with art criticism is that it lacks objective criteria, and that we could use standards such as color interaction, gestalt principles of form, and so on; but I lack the research required to present a cohesive theory.

Mr(s). Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 15:11:42 No.3348

>>3299
While I agree that the old joke "modern art is the middle of a venn diagram between 'art' and 'my kid made this in preschool today" is uncomfortably close to accurate, I don't know if forcing a predominately feeling-oriented medium t be judged by the logical and ordered mind is the answer.
For an example in the inverse, it would be like your high school maths teacher grading your work based on penmanship with little or no regard for the method or findings.

Mr(s). Anonymous 03/23/15 (Mon) 18:18:33 No.3361

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Mr(s). Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 13:41:38 No.3375

I actually think that dadaism had a point. But the tecnique in art and good drawings and colors is something hard, and also is something that can be appreciated.

Mr(s). Anonymous 03/24/15 (Tue) 19:15:01 No.3378

>>3361
I came here to post this as well. Skill and standards are key. Those factors can change over time, but all artists, despite what medium in which they create, must follow a set of standard rules, or else their work is not art. It simply would be their own personal piece that has no value other than the sentimentally that comes from its creation.

Mr(s). Anonymous 04/23/15 (Thu) 04:30:30 No.4246

>>3281

I think that (at least, in the mainstream) art criticism and art itself are broken because of the exagerated cult of personal expression.

Personal expression has always been an important part of art, but also has been the search of perfection and beauty. In fact, some artists make that search into their personal statement (Glenn Gould comes to mind, in music).

I feel that a lot of contemporary art has suffered from not giving value to that search anymore. Even some modern/postmodern artists made some daring stuff with the goal of perfecting their ability to cause emotion (pleasant or not) or just making you actually think about yourself.

There are so many forces that drive good art, but the ones I normally can fathom through contemporary art are "look how deep I am" and "please tell me I'm artsy enough". The same happens a lot with literature and videogames.

I don't fear for art, though. "Mainstream" art is, ironically, ignored excepto by hipsters seeking for approval.

Mr(s). Anonymous 04/24/15 (Fri) 01:21:01 No.4251

>>3282

This.

Criticism is one big circlejerk of critics and artists who act as critics.

Mr(s). Anonymous 04/30/15 (Thu) 01:51:58 No.4295

My understanding of modern art is that in the 20th century, art became more and more "dematerialized". This means that the focus of the work is the IDEA behind…e.g. Marcel Duchamp's urinal that >>3282 posted begs the question of what is art, what can and can't be art, and whether anything that is signed by an artist counts as art.

Now the problem is that artists take dematerialization as an excuse to throw technical skill and execution out the window, and that's how you get poppycocklike pic related.

I like dematerialization, and I think it's good trend in art. I just don't understand why a work of art can't be both beautiful AND have a profound idea behind it. Wouldn't that make it even better?

Mr(s). Anonymous 04/30/15 (Thu) 02:01:18 No.4296

>>3284

>If you've got the approval of the masses, you know you're not producing anything overly worthwhile.

Well put. I've always thought of it like this: you can make art that has mass appeal and that everyone will like, or you can make art for a niche that most people will hate, but a few people will absolutely love.

Mr(s). Anonymous 05/01/15 (Fri) 09:45:06 No.4307

File: 1430473506867-0.jpg (195.68 KB, 2100x800, 21:8, Giampietrino-Last-Supper-c….jpg)

File: 1430473506882-1.jpg (356.46 KB, 900x458, 450:229, lastsupper-grid.jpg)

>>3284

>If you've got the approval of the masses, you know you're not producing anything overly worthwhile.

I don't agree with this attitude. Sometimes things are popular because they're good. Not everything is a blind trend.

You don't have to be an art critic with a degree or a master painter to appreciate good art. The best art has many layers that it can be appreciated by. while the average person doesn't have the vocabulary to explain exactly why they like something, they aren't artistic retards. There ARE aesthetic elements that can be considered universally beautiful. The last supper is a pretty painting of jesus and his friends to a 12 year old, an interesting geometric composition to an architect and a symbolic masterpiece to an esoteric. the shlock we call modern art today is geared for one audience, and the only one that matters: pretentious art critics.

Mr(s). Anonymous 05/01/15 (Fri) 09:45:32 No.4308

File: 1430473532661.jpg (136.85 KB, 496x678, 248:339, 8852ae393658513eeb648aea85….jpg)

Mr(s). Anonymous 05/01/15 (Fri) 19:27:57 No.4311

File: 1430508477468.jpg (150.05 KB, 1600x1088, 25:17, John Everett Millais - Oph….jpg)

>>4307

You really can't put all modern art in one bucket and call it trash…

The problem here is that you need to separate artistic creation and the image that the economic side of art as a business gives.

Take Damien Hirst, for instance. Even if his paintings are obviously ridiculously overpriced, you can't deny that they have some kind of content: if not aesthetic, then some significance (in this case, something about death, and the cult of death/life).

Take the related painting, for instance. There are several layers to it; the problem that most people face is that this has the first layer - they recognize it as elements of reality. But then they stay in that layer, when the painting has a much more dense meaning and ideals expressed in it.

Before the 20th century, that question wasn't on the table, the drawing aspect was the one that was criticized. Now, looking at Hirst, for instance, you can't criticize it for not having the properties of realism, since it doesn't really aim to represent as much as presenting something (it's just how Gottlieb said - "A new age requires new images).

So, how can you criticize, i.e., to judge it? That's the question that nobody really knows how to answer.

Sorry about the confusing ramble, I'm kind of tired.

But if you want me to explain something more clearly, I'd be glad to.