Modern art is a total scam

Author: DynamicSquid

Posts

Total: 96
#31
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@David
@Barney
@Speedrace
@DynamicSquid

This thread very ironically belongs in this subforum. Why this was created here post-separation beats me.
#32
Speedrace
Speedrace's avatar
Debates: 63
Posts: 6,283
4
9
11
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
4
9
11
-->
@RationalMadman
...and?

#33
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Speedrace
In case you are confused:

It belongs in the other 'Art' forum. Not the new one it was created in.
#34
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@WaterPhoenix
--> @oromagi
Art's main point isn't history though, it's how it looks like. If you want to learn history become a historian. And the Mona Lisa was famous because it was one of the first portraits of someone not noble.


wrong on every point.

  • Music is art but has no appearance.  Debate is art but has no appearance.  Clearly, the point of art is not mainly appearance.
  • Everybody ought to learn history but few need become historians.  Art is a primary source for history.  The Caves at Lascaux are 100% art and 100% history.  Art and history are seldom distinguishable.  READ => Simon Schama's "Dead Certainties"
  • Most art historians agree that the Mona Lisa is a portrait of the Italian noblewoman Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo.  The earliest portrait of someone not noble that I can think of in the Caves at Lascaux.  The painting hung in the baths at Fountainebleu for the first 300 years where it was seen by Kings of France and their guests, admired but hardly famous.  In fact, da Vinci himself was not particularly famous for 350 years after his death.  Napolean's admiration sparked some interest but the work was not even on the first floor of the Louvre until art critics like Pater and Gautier began publishing magazine articles about her in the mid-19th century.  At the same time, Napolean's invasion of France had plundered the diaries and notebooks of da Vinci and brought them back to France, where they were slowly being translated and wondered at.  Victorian England is the culture that made da Vinci famous and the Mona Lisa came along for the ride.  Without all that back story, the Mona Lisa would probably be just another old portrait at the Lovre, of which there are thousands.


#35
Speedrace
Speedrace's avatar
Debates: 63
Posts: 6,283
4
9
11
Speedrace's avatar
Speedrace
4
9
11
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not confused, just wondering what you want me to do
#36
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@oromagi
Music is art but has no appearance.  Debate is art but has no appearance.  Clearly, the point of art is not mainly appearance. 
But we're talking about modern art here and modern art isn't music.
Everybody ought to learn history but few need become historians.  Art is a primary source for history.  The Caves at Lascaux are 100% art and 100% history.  Art and history are seldom distinguishable.  READ => Simon Schama's "Dead Certainties"
They may be intwined but art (specifically modern art) is something that you visualize, not something of history. In schools, history is one subject while art is another. 

  • Most art historians agree that the Mona Lisa is a portrait of the Italian noblewoman Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo.  The earliest portrait of someone not noble that I can think of in the Caves at Lascaux.  The painting hung in the baths at Fountainebleu for the first 300 years where it was seen by Kings of France and their guests, admired but hardly famous.  In fact, da Vinci himself was not particularly famous for 350 years after his death.  Napolean's admiration sparked some interest but the work was not even on the first floor of the Louvre until art critics like Pater and Gautier began publishing magazine articles about her in the mid-19th century.  At the same time, Napolean's invasion of France had plundered the diaries and notebooks of da Vinci and brought them back to France, where they were slowly being translated and wondered at.  Victorian England is the culture that made da Vinci famous and the Mona Lisa came along for the ride.  Without all that back story, the Mona Lisa would probably be just another old portrait at the Lovre, of which there are thousands.
Sure
#37
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Speedrace
Move the thread to the appropriate subforum.
#38
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Music is art but has no appearance.  Debate is art but has no appearance.  Clearly, the point of art is not mainly appearance. 
But we're talking about modern art here and modern art isn't music.
Really?  Is music art?  Is music modern?  I think we've already ruled out the critic's era "Modern Art" which is basically Manet to Warhol.  I don't get the impression that OP was excluding Impressionism as "a total scam."  I got the sense he meant "Abstract Expressionism."


Everybody ought to learn history but few need become historians.  Art is a primary source for history.  The Caves at Lascaux are 100% art and 100% history.  Art and history are seldom distinguishable.  READ => Simon Schama's "Dead Certainties"
They may be intwined but art (specifically modern art) is something that you visualize, not something of history. In schools, history is one subject while art is another. 
That's like saying "Hey, we are studying physics here knock it off with all the mathematics."  Math describes Physics, Physics is constructed of Math.  Art describes History, History is constructed of Art.

#39
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Modern literature is some of the best it has been for a while, but the art has decreased. Some great novels have arisen in the modern era.

The Kite Runner
Harry Potter
The Submission
Ready Player One
Fault in our Stars
Garden of Evening Mists

#40
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
There are so many pieces of literature that have developed. Musical lyrics and meaning have strengthened. Poetry is at a new high, and creativity is there. Modern literature and modern entertainment is great. So many originals have been so good and true pieces of work 
#41
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
agreee
#42
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@DynamicSquid
Real art takes skill, and possibly weeks of painting.

True, but not all decent art projects have to take weeks. Depends upon the picture or idea the artist has. 

Change my mind.

I don't personally like it but just to sway you a bit for fun...What if you were to consider that "modern" art is a form of using color, tones and sometimes shapes to express oneself rather than using realistic images or scenes? Color can be a beautiful thing and maybe some realism can limit that....
Are modern artists using that method to mask the fact they can't paint realistic paintings? I don't know...but, I would say art is a lot like music, many styles and forms make things interesting for all tastes. Why should someone who can't paint faces or realism be limited by that? when there are still so many ways to put paint on a canvas?

I'm an artist and I prefer realistic type paintings and artwork and so I have always liked to draw and paint in that style. My Dad however cannot draw or paint like that but also likes to express himself with art, so he does caricatures and cartoon style pictures. Both of us are good to the average person but two different approaches and skills. I say if you don't like it ignore it, leave it for the fans to judge but I wouldn't label it a scam TBH that's a bit extreme. If it's a matter of skill level there still should be no reason modern art should not be an option for some artists.

#43
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the styles and philosophy of the art produced during that era.

Work produced more recently is either postmodern or contemporary. It's confusing.

7 days later

#44
Pinkfreud08
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 578
2
7
11
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Pinkfreud08
2
7
11
-->
@DynamicSquid
Are you just referring to paintings or art as a whole? 

Because I'd argue as a whole modern art has brought us a lot of brilliant videogames, movies, tv shows, and music. 


Topic's author
#45
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@Pinkfreud08
I don't want to get into the exact definition here, but you should know what I mean. Like the painting with the lines and blanks and stuff.
#46
Pinkfreud08
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 578
2
7
11
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Pinkfreud08
2
7
11
-->
@DynamicSquid
Makes sense, what time period are you referring to then? 

Because " modern " could mean anything in the 2000s or anything made in the last 50 years. 

It really just depends on what time period you're referring to. 
Topic's author
#47
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Well, whenever the first art of that type appeared. I don't really consider "Modern Art" as an exact definition, rather I just call any art that is "simple" in design modern art. However is there a term for those kinds of art?
#48
Pinkfreud08
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 578
2
7
11
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Pinkfreud08
2
7
11
-->
@DynamicSquid
Well, my time period would be any art made within the last 20 or so years. At least by my definition. 
#49
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@DynamicSquid
Yep for sure.

Some "modern art" is definitely the untalented, taking the piss out of the gullible.

But isn't taking the piss out of the gullible for profit, just a fact of life.

Take religion for example.

58 days later

#50
skittlez09
skittlez09's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,012
3
3
9
skittlez09's avatar
skittlez09
3
3
9
-->
@DynamicSquid
You're going to completely disvalue an entire age of art because of a few works of art you don't like? 
#51
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@skittlez09
Stick a urinal on a plinth and call it fountain.

Was Marcel being serious or literally taking the piss?

Hey, but he convinced people that it had value. Which as you suggested, is what it's all about.

If you can convince the gullible it's art, then they will happily part with their money. 

Money, that's what really makes society tick.

Fuck art.
#52
skittlez09
skittlez09's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,012
3
3
9
skittlez09's avatar
skittlez09
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
ok lol 

7 days later

#53
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DynamicSquid
Your original premise asks for two different causes and effects. Yet you ask to be proven wrong. That, art aside, is an enigma wrapped in a paradox. Nevertheless, in the end, art is either the best free expression of man, or it is anything you can get away with for a buck, and anything in between. It is sacred, and it is profane. Each of us must either ignore it altogether, and it is obvious many posters here take that approach and walk away, or we must embrace the sacred and shun the profane, or vice versa, for that matter, and do so with each article of art we encounter and pause to evaluate. I've proven nothing but to affirm that art is conundrum, and no one is right or wrong.

8 days later

#54
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Vader
Some great novels have arisen in the modern era.
Harry Potter
Sorry Supa. Harry Potter is not an example of a great novel. It's garbage. Your other examples were good examples though.
#55
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Some "modern art" is definitely the untalented, taking the piss out of the gullible.
Yes, Some "modern art" is definitely the untalented, taking the piss out of the gullible, that is true true.

Take religion for example.
Right. Not, "some" religion.

Biased much?
#56
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Artistic expressions really.

Nonetheless;

"Some".
No..... Religion in general..... I'm not picky.

As I always say, all hypotheses are valid as such.

But religions have a habit of extracting large sums of money from their dutiful followers.

Someone somewhere get's fat at the expense of the gullible.

And maintaining all that religious infrastructure doesn't come cheap.

If a god does exist, then it surely doesn't require a multi-billion dollar industry here on Earth to back it up.

Believe in God my son, and fuck the church roof. (Though maybe church roof's in the U.S. aren't such an ongoing problem as here in the U.K.)


#57
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
"Some". No..... Religion in general..... I'm not picky.
You're not objective either.

As I always say, all hypotheses are valid as such.
Why would you always say a thing that is untrue?

If a god does exist,....
Aaaaand the uni-topic atheist is back to his obsession. God does not exist.

...it surely doesn't require a multi-billion dollar industry here on Earth to back it up
Does modern art require a multi-billion dollar industry here on Earth to back it up?

Know what I think I'll do? I'm going to make thread "Does God Exist?" that will act as a trawling net to catch all the atheists who are incapable of arguing anything other than "Does God Exist?", who keep contaminating and derailing every thread with their inexplicable obsession. 

Modern art is a scam, and these geniuses are here again whining that God doesn't exist. Where is that face-palm emoji when you need it?

7 days later

#58
JoshFerguson
JoshFerguson's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5
0
0
0
JoshFerguson's avatar
JoshFerguson
0
0
0
I agree. Any artist who wants to explore concepts by splashing paint is lazy. Real masters can paint beautiful masterpieces that explore the concepts in modern art far better.

360 days later

#59
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Asarsax
Thing is though.

Anything can unskilfully be presented as art.

The success of the artwork is more dependant on the academic and social credentials of the artist, rather than their artistic skill.

Take a pile of bricks for example....Something that any Bob the builder, could do quite adeptly.


The question is....Is Art the end result.....Or the formulation and consequent manifestation of a concept .

Nonetheless, any Tom, Dick or Harriet can formulate a concept and produce an accompanying artwork.


For example...I just had the idea of standing two saucepans one on top of the other and calling it Onwards to Victory.......Would that be Art or Scam?

Or  to be taken seriously.......Do I require a BA degree, and need to be exhibited in all the right places and be seen by all the right people.
#60
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
There’s a ton of really cool innovative art forms.
What you’re referring to is the fringe of the fringe that gets picked up in right-wing media.