Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
I never imagined it would be edible.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                       

Zimmerite, Christo, Yayoi Kusama

new range of car finishes
  (+8)(+8)
(+8)
  [vote for,
against]

Cars are inevitably finished with highly polished paint (sometimes there is the added adventure of matt or bare metal), but nothing currently exists that offers the Zimmerite, Christo, Yayoi Kusama range of finishes.

If you choose Zimmerite, your car will be returned coated with the same material used by the Germans in WW2 to smear over their Tiger tanks. If you don't know about it follow the link to see just how mad it is.

The second finish is called the Christo. With this your car is treated as it would have been by "Mr Wrap Everything" artist Christo (RIP) Naturally the doors still open and close and you can see out of the windows, but otherwise the car has now become a mobile Christo.

The third finish is the Yayoi Kusama (aka spotty dotty). Kusama is the wonderful Japanese artist known for her fab colourful dots, and now you can have your car covered in them, using a special extra thick paint that generates an actual tactile lump and not just a coloured spot.

Every car receiving any of the three finishes on offer will be totally unique and a visual sensation. Other finishes are being developed to extend the range.

xenzag, Sep 18 2021

zimmerite https://tankmuseum.org/article/zimmerit/
no more need to fear limpet mines [xenzag, Sep 18 2021]

Christo https://christojean...nd-wrapped-objects/
would you like that gift wrapped? [xenzag, Sep 18 2021]

Yayoi Kusama https://www.artsy.net/artist/yayoi-kusama
dotty and spotty [xenzag, Sep 18 2021]

This much, at least, has already been done https://www.google....usama+car&&tbm=isch
by Yayoi Kusama as well as others [a1, Sep 18 2021]

And this, for car wraps https://www.google....rapped+car&tbm=isch
[a1, Sep 18 2021]

Otto https://getyarn.io/...d-a3e3-7d4851cdc79d
[a1, Sep 18 2021]

Spray-on mud https://www.theguar.../2005/jun/14/uknews
from 2005 [pocmloc, Sep 19 2021]

Wherein the "modern art is bollocks" argument is put through its paces Tennis_20racket_20w...ic_20frog_20on_20it
[calum, Sep 19 2021]

Christo https://christojeanneclaude.net/timeline/
Timeline of L'Arc De Triomphe wrapping [xenzag, Sep 20 2021]

This is what the art world's blessing looks like. https://www.artsy.n...0More%20items...%20
[Voice, Sep 20 2021]

Weiwei https://www.theguar...=Share_iOSApp_Other
[xenzag, Sep 22 2021]

On copying, borrowing, stealing https://quoteinvest...3/06/artists-steal/
[a1, Sep 23 2021]

Aboriginal study https://onlinelibra...l/10.1002/ocea.5212
learning to express how you see and represent the world visually in 2D is learned behaviour [xenzag, Sep 25 2021]

Ways Of Seeing https://www.ways-of-seeing.com/ch1
John Berger [xenzag, Sep 25 2021]

Take The Money And Run https://www.insider...s-called-art-2021-9
But is it art? [a1, Sep 29 2021]

[link]






       [+] Fascinating stuff about Zimmerit, I’d never heard of it. Reminds me of automotive undercoating, at least as used some forty years ago when I worked in a car dealership. Sticky, foul smelling, and dangerously flammable while it was being applied. Guys in the rustrproofing shop called it “pucky” but sometimes didn’t pronounce it that way.   

       I don’t think it offered as much protection against anti-tank mines.
a1, Sep 18 2021
  

       The Christo thing isn't art if you ask me. He just saw a bundled up thing and called it art. Then a bunch of pretentious tasteless idiots decided to call him an artist, allowing him to do the same thing over and over.   

       Yayoi Kusama doesn't impress me either. It takes little skill to do that kind of thing. Pick a random one and call it art, I could make a hundred new, unique such things today. Here are some: Smash pencils and make a doodle out of them. Shape electrical wires into the outlines of appliances. Make a coffee mug entirely of chocolate. Paint only the footprints of some fantastic, nonexistent animal. Make a lava flow out of transparent glass.   

       Maybe one or more has been done before but if it has that only strengthens my point: Arbitrary thing does not equal art, no matter how much money is laundered with it.
Voice, Sep 18 2021
  

       If you think all of those make art, then go ahead and submit them to some galleries or open calls. I know a lot of curators and taught at several of the world's leading art colleges and have widely exhibited my work. It's far from easy to gain respect and have your work valued. As regards Christo, getting a place like Paris to agree to an entire bridge or a monument to be wrapped in the way he did was, and remains, a simply astounding achievement of incredible vision and relentless energy. Christo and his fellow artist wife were two of greatest artists of the last 100 years.
xenzag, Sep 18 2021
  

       I couldn't agree less. "large arbitrary thing" also does not equal art. A lot of aesthetic appeal is universal. Art that lacks aesthetic appeal is by definition arbitrary. Arbitrary things are not art. I could spend a thousand hours denting an old refrigerator and making it into a pear shape (or an apple, or a dog), but whether that's considered "art" is PURELY a matter of which way the critics decide to wave their wands today. A bundle of stuff wrapped up in string and cloth is not art no matter how large it is.   

       My crushed pencil doodle would not be considered art, but not because of any inherent value in the banana nailed to a wall or the golden toilet. Or the whatever wrapped up in cloth and string. My crushed pencil doodle wouldn't be art because the right people haven't nodded in a self-important way and said, "ah yes, the shadows in the lower right quadrant are so clearly evocative of the Picasso/Klimp paradigm, welcoming the old ways into the twenty first century with style. And look at the way the blonde is highlighted by the shadow of the graphite. Yes, this is very new and interesting"   

       And don't say I'm just ignorant either. There is no great wealth of wisdom behind the rebellion against aesthetic appeal that is modern art. That previous sentence pretty much says the whole thing. "I, too, am art" but yeah no it isn't art. Art has a purpose beyond rich people pretending to know more about X than anyone else. Anyway rich people have wine to do that with.
Voice, Sep 18 2021
  

       // don't say I'm just ignorant //   

       Why on earth not?
a1, Sep 18 2021
  

       I suggest that, if you are going to call someone "ignorant", then you ought to be able to point to some specific fact of which they are ignorant. Otherwise, "ignorant" becomes a vacuous out- group designator, like "philistine".   

       So carry on, call [Voice] ignorant, but back it up.
pertinax, Sep 18 2021
  

       Nah. As with Otto in A fish Called Wanda, when someone tries to show off their intellect and caps it with “Don’t call me stupid” - a rhetorical dismissal is all they deserve.
a1, Sep 18 2021
  

       + not arguing about art because I agree with both points of views at different times.   

       But as the idea is for car paint, I quite like it.
xandram, Sep 18 2021
  

       //a rhetorical dismissal is all they deserve//   

       Mmmkay, so we've pivoted from the epistemological question, "What</edited> does [Voice] know or not know?" to the ethical question, "What does [Voice] deserve or not deserve?"   

       And on this question, your position seems to be "people who show signs of insecurity deserve contempt". Would you like to expand on that?
pertinax, Sep 19 2021
  

       He's gonna call you on "Whar.   

       just sayin   

       I’ve always thought Range Rover should offer a “mud splatter” paint option - i.e. to make your stupidly oversized car look as though you actually ever take it off-road as opposed to just driving it to the supermarket
hippo, Sep 19 2021
  

       [hippo] spray on mud is (or was) commercially available. <link>
pocmloc, Sep 19 2021
  

       Thank you, [2 fries]; my eyesight's going.
pertinax, Sep 19 2021
  

       I am of course aware of the Kusama cars, but these are not realised using the protruding physical knobs of colour I propose.
xenzag, Sep 19 2021
  

       //And don't say I'm just ignorant either.// There’s no need to defend your lack of understanding of contemporary art. It's perfectly ok not to like whatever you don't like, but it clearly challenges you, and that's a great reaction for any maker of work. Meanwhile, being specific - have you ever been in the presence of a Christo piece?
xenzag, Sep 19 2021
  

       [poc] - I’ve heard of that, but this would be really nicely done, photorealistic mud splatters, with the right kind of spray patterns from each wheel up the side of the vehicle, and wouldn’t need to be redone every time you wash your car
hippo, Sep 19 2021
  

       Right, then use brown spray paint.   

       <idea on the way>
pocmloc, Sep 19 2021
  

       //it clearly challenges you//   

       I seem to have failed to make myself clear. There is nothing I find confusing or challenging about modern art. Modern art consists almost entirely of arbitrary items, misshapen sculpture, and meaningless, often ugly pictures all blessed with snobbery. What aesthetic appeal remains is either purely subjective and therefore pointless or a carry over from when art meant something beautiful. Anyone can put a random thing on a pedestal. Anyone can paint squares, blobs, and even squares and blobs with a little perspective and shadow. Anyone can doodle a misshapen head or a half cow half devil. There is no non-trivial value in what can be trivially reproduced.   

       And something mundane or ugly does not become aesthetically pleasing just because it was expensive or difficult to make. The value of a 10 kilogram golden toilet is ten kilograms of gold.   

       //have you ever been in the presence of a Christo piece?//   

       No, but I've been in the presence of probably thousands of expensive, snob-blessed objects that you wouldn't notice if they didn't have a little card over them. A janitor once left his mop and bucket in an art museum and came back to find a small appreciative crowd admiring them.
Voice, Sep 19 2021
  

       Did you know there was an artist who sold pieces for large sums that he made by encouraging some monkeys to splash paint on canvas? Before the matter was divulged people were talking in breathless terms about his clever use of space and perspective.
Voice, Sep 19 2021
  

       There’s an awful lot about contemporary art that’s all about money. Over the last forty years it’s become seen as an investment market and a place to store money in assets, in a very different way to what it was before. Because of this there are dangerous temptations in the market; gallery owners and museum curators mentor young artists and buy their work, and then give them prestigious solo exhibitions in ‘establishment’ venues which drive their prices up and signal that they are a name to invest in. There is some genuinely good contemporary art but money and snobbery (establishment artists now have to go to the ‘right’ colleges) distort everything.
hippo, Sep 19 2021
  

       //when art meant something beautiful.// When was that? I notice you also use the term “modern art” quite often. What does this term mean? It seems to make you quite animated. Why is that? Maybe if you learned a bit more about what you are so animated over, you might be surprised. My entire life has been immersed in contemporary art and design. I think you would be humbled by how hard and dedicated most of those engaged in their practice really are. Look at the life story of some of those you despise so much and see where that takes you. Try looking at Cornelia Parker and see how you get on.
xenzag, Sep 19 2021
  

       //life story//   

       Completely irrelevant to the merit of what they make   

       //Cornelia Parker //   

       From a quick glance at an image search I see a couple of things which probably have actual meaning.   

       //those you despise//   

       I said no such thing. I implied no such thing. I don't despise anyone. Although I have a certain degree of contempt for bigots and the willfully ignorant, e.g. feminists.
Voice, Sep 20 2021
  

       Think you need to chill. Meanwhile if you look a little harder at Cornelia Parker, you'll find she doesn't actually "make" anything, so she fits well within several of the work types you ridiculed. You also cannot fully appreciate the work of someone like Ai Weiwei without knowing his life history. This applies to numerous artists. Superficial judgments are the product of lazy thinking. Get that brain on the treadmill! Ha
xenzag, Sep 20 2021
  

       Have you read such feminists as Betty Friedan, or Cordelia Fine, [Voice], or do you remain willfully ignorant of them? ;-)
pertinax, Sep 20 2021
  

       I don't know about bigotry but Fine is clearly an idiot, as described in her Wikipedia article:   

       //Her second book, Delusions of Gender, argues that conclusions that science has shown that men's and women's brains are intrinsically different in ways that explain the gender status quo are premature and often based on flawed methods and unexamined assumptions.//   

       //Betty Friedan//   

       Can't recall anything about her off the top of my head. But just as you can't be a Christian without believing Jesus died for your sins you're not a Feminist unless you believe men have been oppressing women throughout the ages, a proposition that's absolutely laughable. Oh you can call yourself feminist without believing that, but I can call myself Christian whilst burning incense to the glory of my ancestors and dancing for the sun god.   

       Alternatively feminism is not an ideology but a set of theories, in which case those theories can be trivially crushed under mountains of evidence regardless of the abuse of academia that has allowed feminist articles to chase the weezle round and round a tree building article upon article based ultimately on data like a "ladies home journal" survey where n=50 and there is no collection methodology. Okay, not trivially, it's actually a massive gish gallop to oppose but it can be done.   

       //she doesn't actually "make" anything//   

       She does things and then different things come out of it, yes? Whether that's done with knives, explosives, or welding torches doesn't change that.   

       //You also cannot fully appreciate the work of someone like Ai Weiwei without knowing his life history. //   

       Balderdash. The work must stand on its own unless a biography is physically attached to it. And in that case you're probably well into "vacuous snob" territory. Sorry [xenzag] but your emperor has no clothes.
Voice, Sep 20 2021
  

       //clearly an idiot//   

       So, have you read the arguments she puts forward? Notice she doesn't say that those conclusions are definitely wrong - just that they're premature. That's a pretty restrained conclusion by the usual standards of gender-political debate, isn't it?
pertinax, Sep 20 2021
  

       [Voice] Your statement that "The work must stand on its own" without knowing more about the life events of the person who created it is simply laughable, and more evidence of shallow thinking. Some work "stands on its own" but many pieces requires deeper thinking. Don't be so lazy. Look at any piece of Weiwei's work then find out more about it by finding out more about him. This action should be repeated for most contemporay art works. As for your war with feminists..... good luck with that one. You're going to need it.
xenzag, Sep 20 2021
  

       //she doesn't say that those conclusions are definitely wrong - just that they're premature. That's a pretty restrained conclusion by the usual standards of gender-political debate, isn't it?//   

       I did notice and appreciate it. But it's like pointing out that the theory of gravity doesn't have it's math settled and we're not even sure of the operative particles yet. True but missing the point. I would have called her willfully ignorant but I was feeling charitable.   

       //many pieces requires deeper thinking.//   

       And by "deeper thinking" you mean "inventing arbitrary reasons why that obviously ugly set of blobs is actually something amazing" No thanks, I never lie. Not to anyone else but most especially not to myself. It's trivial to invent arbitrary, subjective excuses for bad "art" and all I need to do is point out that they're arbitrary and subjective. That you can do the same thing regardless of the thing being called art. Give me a coffee mug and I can invent a back story that would make dozens of art critics proud. Your emperor has. no. clothes.
Voice, Sep 20 2021
  

       Great. I'll look forward to seeing your coffee mug in some international open submission show. Go ahead and submit it and let's see you proving your point. Most submissions only make a modest charge. Try EVA as a starter. It's the international biennial in Ireland. They show 80 pieces out of a submission counted in thousands but once they see your 'mug' and read of its backstory how could they possibly not include it. It's so easy (according to you) So go for it!
xenzag, Sep 20 2021
  

       //Go ahead and submit it and let's see you proving your point//   

       But my point is that my mug will NOT be accepted as art, just for different reasons than you would expect it not to be accepted. If the same mug were submitted with the same backstory by a person who comes pre-blessed (say if I were to give it to you and you were to submit it) it would be accepted.
Voice, Sep 20 2021
  

       What does "pre-blessed" mean? Show me an example of "pre-blessing".
xenzag, Sep 20 2021
  

       // Show me an example of "pre-blessing".//   

       linked. If an unknown artist make those Boafo paintings no one would give them a second glance.   

       Tell you what, if you agree to have someone who has already sold abstract art to present it as an interesting find I'll make the crushed pencil doodle and a backstory with all the right buzzwords for an anonymous artist. If you're right it will receive enormously less attention than other similar work they present. If I'm right you can keep the sales price.   

       At the same time I'll make a doodle in a different medium and send it to an open submission show. I predict the one I send in with my actual name and backstory will be rejected out of hand, but the one you have presented will sell for a significant sum.   

       What can you lose but some self-delusion?
Voice, Sep 20 2021
  

       What do you know about Amoako Boafo and how they became so respected?
xenzag, Sep 20 2021
  

       Don't care. His art has the same value whether it was made by a man rich or poor, educated or not, and with or without name recognition. The sort of person he is is completely irrelevant to the quality of his art. Most especially the challenges and inequities are irrelevant. If the art is beautiful it is beautiful whether it was made with great effort and study or whether some talented fellow whipped it up in an afternoon.
Voice, Sep 20 2021
  

       I'm with [Voice]. "Expensive" art is only expensive because some person is willing to pay more than some other person to own it. It's like Gucci handbags etc: they get made for cheap in China, shipped to Europe where the "label" is attached, & then get sold for heaps. They're not "worth" a lot, just people are willing to "pay" a lot (often misguidedly...).
neutrinos_shadow, Sep 20 2021
  

       Also the statement the author is attempting to make is irrelevant unless it's clearly part of the art. If you have to read the little card it's not clear.
Voice, Sep 21 2021
  

       Price is a different issue to quality. Everthing in monetary terms is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, but that has nothing to do with critical respect. People pay a lot of money for trash art, like Damien Hirst now makes, but they also pay a lot of money for excellence like Weiwei.
xenzag, Sep 21 2021
  

       //Weiwei//   

       I see a mishapen lump, but I also see other work that I think should have universal appeal and meaning. His silver finger is unoriginal and banal, as is his smashed vase. But I think the Coca Cola vase is original and meaningful. Anyway I stand by my declaration that anything intended to make the statement, "it's art if you think it's art" isn't art.
Voice, Sep 21 2021
  

       The problem (of course) is that art is completely subjective. Unfortunately, a lot of "art critics" don't realise this.
So while [xenzag] might think a piece is worthy of time & expensive, I might think "last time I saw something like that, I got my panel-beater to fix it".
neutrinos_shadow, Sep 22 2021
  

       //His silver finger is unoriginal and banal, as is his smashed vase.// What do you know about the smashed vase series? To judge work like this purely on what you see is to totally fail to understand it. Do you not want to understand it? That's ok. Just say "I don't understand this type of work and I can't be bothered trying to". If you do understand it, have a go at explaining it and why you don't like it. After this I give up. I actually don't really care much what you think or don't think about anything. Given what you've said, I'd read your dislike of my own work as a clear compliment.
xenzag, Sep 22 2021
  

       //To judge work like this purely on what you see is to totally fail to understand it.//   

       To pretend there can be important parts of a work that aren't actually parts of the work is to misconstrue it.   

       // If you do understand it, have a go at explaining it and why you don't like it//   

       I didn't know there's a whole series, I was just talking about the one where he's apparently or supposedly destroying an expensive vase. "Here, watch me destroy expensive thing" doesn't make any kind of statement that hasn't been made thousands of times just as well. Keep saying that stuff about the artist changes the work, but it won't make it so. If there are important parts of the work that aren't actually displayed in the work well, they're not part of the work. It's like writing a novel and then claiming it's actually good because of the author's feelings while he wrote it. Or singing and then saying it was excellent music because of what the singer was feeling at the time.   

       That which is not in the work is not in the work, not part of the work, and cannot factor into any measurement or understanding of the work. You don't get to point at things that aren't included and say the work should be judged based on those things.   

       I don't know which of the artists you've discussed are you, but abstract art that doesn't have appeal unless you know the artist has no appeal at all.   

       As for the silver middle finger, "fuck you, viewer/art critic/world" has been done by every emo teenager to put on black pants and eye shadow. Saying it with a silver finger isn't better than saying it with a golden toilet, which isn't better than saying it by writing the words.
Voice, Sep 22 2021
  

       I went to a relative's house and in their shed there was a smashed vase, it was very beautiful, lying on its side on the dirty concrete floor, at the foot of the wobbly woodwormy cabinet where they kept their spare teapots, still with the brittle brown dead flowers and rim of limescale inside where the water had dried out months before. Does that make my relative an artist for owning the smashed vase, or does it make me an artist for finding it and appreciating its decaying beauty? I think I took a photo of it. Maybe I didn't. Is that false memory an artwork? Is this halfbakery post (which may or may not be true) an artwork? Is this letter W an artwork?
pocmloc, Sep 22 2021
  

       I don't know whether the vase was art, but your prose is. In my opinion such a picture would be art if it can stand on its own as meaningful or beautiful. I would have said "and beautiful" but Weiwei's Coca Cola vase changed my belief on that point.
Voice, Sep 22 2021
  

       I think that what you are critiqueing here, [voice], is a very transient conceptual and linguistic usage. As soon as we go back a few generations we find the word "art" is connected into its etymological roots and its embedded meaning cross-culture. Consider artisan, artefact, zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, the artful dodger, artificial...   

       I thin the essence of art is guided human work, skill, technique. In a way art is the same thing as technology, it is a body of embedded information that acts as a recipe for acting on the world. So, the art of wooden-bowl-turning on a pole lathe is a body of technology, a tradition of inherited skill, the artisan knows how to select materials, how to make or choose tools, how to set up the workspace, how to apply the tools to the materials, how to use hand eye co-ordination to effect the material changes desired, to produce the finished result, viz. a wooden bowl. If the bowl leaks, or splits, it is rejected and thrown on the firewood pile.   

       So from that point of view there is nothing artistic about smashing a vase. Neither is there anything artistic in finding a stone and bringing it home, or sitting looking at the ocean, or giving yourself a funny name. But making a stirling engine, or baking a loaf of bread, or sewing a seam, is art, artifice, artificial, technology, skill.
pocmloc, Sep 22 2021
  

       At a certain point you simply give up trying to explain globes to flat earth believers. My final offering to dispell the disrepectful ignorance about Weiwei is this Guardian article in the link.
xenzag, Sep 22 2021
  

       I don't think that's a great metaphor. In the case of sphere vs. flat earth there is actual evidence which suggests we live on a sphere. In the case of art, if one person looks at something and says "That's art" and another looks at it and says "That's not art", it's a fruitless debate because there's no objective way to say that one person is right and the other wrong.
hippo, Sep 22 2021
  

       My point remains that mere "looking at" is not sufficient to enable understanding to fully take place. What value systems are engaged in the act of looking? How have these values been informed? "I know what I like when I see it" is for monkeys selecting bananas.
xenzag, Sep 22 2021
  

       Humans are a kind of monkey, and bananas are incredible wonders of evolution and biochemistry.   

       Perhaps a useful way of analysing this discussion would be from an anthropological point of view. There are groups of humans who ascribe value to objects or behaviours; semantic categories are assigned according to behavioural norms within those groups. Membership of and admittance to these groups could be studied, as could the nature of the behavioural norms and expectations.   

       There are (and in the past have also been) other groups of humans in the world who use similar terminology or semantic ranges to describe different kinds of behaviour.   

       From an archaeological point of view, the material traces of human activities persist after the human activity itself has stopped, and indeed after humans have stopped talking or thinking about those activities. This can happen on any timescale from minutes to tens of thousands of years.
pocmloc, Sep 22 2021
  

       In my humble opinion, 'art' should engage and move the observer. Be it awe, or loathing, or beauty, or wonder.   

       Sorry [xen] I don't want to have to learn about the angst of the artist to appreciate their art.   

       Art, real art, should speak for itself.   

       In all of my works of art I have hidden my signature. It's in there somewhere... but it does not stand out. Should my art ever become famous it will not be in my lifetime.   

       I want no kudos for it.
I'm just a conduit.
  

       That's how you keep your sanity btw.
You don't make art. It makes itself through you.
  

       See?   

       //In my humble opinion, 'art' should engage and move the observer// Yet again that’s a learned process based on a set of learned values. It's banana hunting. It's similar to saying that a book is no good because it's been written in a language you don't understand. We learn what we like looking at through a process that involves many moving parts in society. That process can be deepened and developed, and continually challenged. Doing so adds other food to the banana only diet.
xenzag, Sep 23 2021
  

       I have some books of art history.   

       Some of the earlier pages show artefacts dug up by archaeologists. The observer has no knowledge of the life of the artist, and has had little or no opportunity to learn the values of the societies that produced them, and yet, to use the words of [2 fries], they engage and move the observer.   

       So, [xenzag], are those objects not really art? And is it wrong to ask of art that it should be able to move an unknown observer from a different culture, as those objects move us? And, if so, why is it wrong?
pertinax, Sep 23 2021
  

       From where did the observer learn to attach these values to that which they see? All value judgements are learned behaviour. Extend the learning and you can expand your experience. There are equally plenty of unearthed objects that may only be appreciated when you know more of their origin and creative background. A rusty nail that turns out to have been bashed through someone's hand/wrist can become an object of awe and beauty once its origin is explained.
xenzag, Sep 23 2021
  

       // rusty nail that turns out to have been bashed through someone's hand/wrist … //   

       Definitely wrist. Hands with nails through them tear off when the crucifix is put upright.
a1, Sep 23 2021
  

       My, what an invigorating discussion!   

       [xenzag] and [Voice], fascinating. It's good to hear both sides of the argument, so thanks. I understand a little better than before.   

       And a + for the idea.
Frankx, Sep 23 2021
  

       Thanks - now what finish have you selected for you car?
xenzag, Sep 23 2021
  

       [xenzag]; counterpoint:
You see a piece of art, & like it; praising the artist credited, & look for & praise their other works. Later, you learn that the "credited artist" actually stole that first piece. Does that mean your initial response of appreciation was wrong? What about your thoughts on their other works?
neutrinos_shadow, Sep 23 2021
  

       [n_s], see link on copying, borrowing, stealing.
a1, Sep 23 2021
  

       //all artistic merit is relative//   

       then all art is meaningless. But is isn't. QED
Voice, Sep 23 2021
  

       It proves my point, as your initial reaction was based on poor research into the deeper aspects of the work. Now go find a better banana. My students do better than this, and I bat them back like ping pong balls with helium in them.
xenzag, Sep 23 2021
  

       Ah, I think I see the problem - we have different understandings of what "looking at art" means.
neutrinos_shadow, Sep 24 2021
  

       There are not deeper aspects to the work, as you have pointed out many timed by saying you don't understand the work if you only look at the work.
Voice, Sep 24 2021
  

       //what "looking at art" means.// Looking at anything shows you the exterior surface. If that's where your judgement stops then you're going to be eating yellow rocks as well as bananas, and buying lots of repro art that's churned out by painting factories in China. These places can generate exact replicas of any painting, but if your judgement stops at the door of only looking, then you will still love the Van Gough replica and not care about the tough life and anguish of the original artist.   

       That's definetly "it". I'm not explaining this anymore. If you still don't "get it" then good luck next time you're privileged to be in the presence of a Christo and think these thoughts "I don't get it, anyone could do that"
xenzag, Sep 24 2021
  

       So is this view of "art" related to the cult of relics in some Christian churches? If you have St. Archibald's femur, you can be blessed and healed by being in the presence of it. An exact lifelike replica of St Archibald's femur doesn't have the same supernatural powers no matter how convincingly made.   

       If the exact convincing replica of Van Gogh's sunflowers doesn't have the same meaning as the original, this seems to be because of some direct connection to //the tough life and anguish of the original artist//. But two possible things spring to mind. Does Van Gogh's penknife or underpants share in this connection? And what about the tough life and anguish of the Chinese production line worker(s) who created the replica? Does their anguish not also attach to the replica artwork?   

       If the exact replica and the original were put in a pot and tumbled together for a long time, and then taken out, how would anyone be able to tell the difference? Is there a scientific test for the anguish or is it more like water-divining?   

       Is this connected to homeopathy, where the 10-million-diluted sewage doesn't matter but the 10-million-diluted calendua petal does?   

       Just asking questions - happy for all of them to be proved wrong or stupid.
pocmloc, Sep 24 2021
  

       Not that I'm qualified in any way, but "I know what I like..."   

       Some pieces of art bring pleasure because viewing them, you feel that you have shared something with the artist - some idea, thought, some human feeling - has crossed the void between us, and affected me the viewer.   

       That applies for other arts too - for me, music particularly.   

       That doesn't necessarily require "beauty", (and certainly has no relation to commercial value) - and my judgement is purely subjective. For artists that I like, I also want to know more about them - perhaps to understand some subtlety or context that I miss otherwise.   

       There are lots of modern and contemporary artists who's work I don't like, or don't understand. Some that I have initially disliked/not understood, once I know more about the artist and context, I see in a different light.   

       One of the best things about going to a gallery is finding a piece you know nothing about, and going "hmm, that's interesting - I wonder who this artist is - what they're saying and why?"   

       Very many (very good) artists never win any prizes, sell works for '000s or get shown at swanky galleries. That doesn't devalue what they do or the art they make.   

       In the same way - if I sometimes pick up a guitar and play it, you cant say "you're not a musician and that's not music" - you can tell me you don't like my music, sure, and you can tell me I'm a poor musician - totally right - but that doesn't stop it from being music.
Frankx, Sep 24 2021
  

       //All value judgements are learned behaviour.//   

       This claim is more interesting than it first appears.   

       On the one hand it can be shot down with a simple syllogism, something along these lines:
1. This claim, as applied to art, would imply that no art would be able to exert any cross-cultural appeal.
2. At least some art does exert at least some cross-cultural appeal. Therefore
3. This claim is false.
  

       On the other hand, the claim doesn't really belong in the world of syllogisms, or first-order predicate logic, does it? It belongs to a quite different epistemological model.   

       More specifically, it reminds me of this passage in the book "Introducing Semiotics" by Paul Cobley:
"[…] the real is actually the intersubjective meaning arrived at by a community in semiosis. One way to think of this community might be the notion of a research hothouse of semiosis."
  

       Before I go any further, [xenzag], would it be fair to locate your position somewhere in the region described by this sort of semiotic theory, or am I just putting up a straw man here?
pertinax, Sep 25 2021
  

       Will explain it more (for the last time ever ever) when on my laptop and not on iPhone. Meanwhile read the link article in the last two links.   

       John Berger in particular nails it perfectly.
Ways Of Seeing.
xenzag, Sep 25 2021
  

       The epistemology of relativism is perfect: just ask any relativist.
Voice, Sep 25 2021
  

       I asked a relative, but they said they hadn't a clue about beetles. But they told me they knew what they liked, and they liked what they knew.
pocmloc, Sep 29 2021
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle