Bad Art, We All Know It When We See It, Don't We?

Discussion in 'Art & Culture' started by KilljoyKlown, Feb 9, 2012.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well good for you James, I am sure you can see all things and know all things and have super human powers - even knowing where I have and have not been and what I have seen and what I have not seen. Others in this thread cannot see that variation in color, but you can. And excuse me James, did I say that I was interested in Rothko? I don't recall saying that I wanted to read up on or learn more about him? I don't think I did. Why would I want to do what you suggest?

    Additionally, after observing many of your posts over the years, I doubt the honesty of many of your posts - the truth be told. Are you familiar with the painting in question? Have you seen it? How do you know I have jumped to a random conclusion based on the most superficial examination? Ah, you don't. I suspect you have never seen the painting under discussion. Because if you had you would know that it is a very plane picture with no variation in color or texture. I further suspect you are just injecting your ego into this conversation at the expense of honesty and truthfulness for a cheap power trip.

    I would further recommend you take some of your own advice - read up on Rothko and his Black on Black series.

    I think this kind of art is junk. I cannot understand why someone would think this is art or somehow special and pay big money for it. I think this kind of art represents a certain snobbishness and silliness in our culture. When I first saw this art piece I looked closely for variation in anything and found none. And it is something I could create on my own and I do not have any talent for art and not much more interest in the topic.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Ok. The only problem here is that it's not a matter of one's "position," it's a matter of facticity.

    First, the printing process CANNOT faithfully reproduce texture, nor every conceivable color in the universe--whether it be additive (RGB) or subtractive (CMYK). And neither can a computer screen. This should be readily apparent to a five year-old--at least the texture part, if not the color bit.

    Second, an oil painting is an oil painting--it is NOT an airbrush painting. Period. And Rothko's methods and materials are more than adequately documented, including the wikipedia entry.

    Satie is one of mine as well--though I only like his piano works, the rest don't really speak to me. Actually, his music is only (relatively) simple insofar as a rote, mechanical reproduction goes--the rest involves something more than simply technique, although that is a part of it certainly.

    Agreed. And while there's no real way of "measuring" either aspect, it is utterly non-sensical to even suggest trying to measure "the difficulty of creating."

    I love difficult music and I can play some difficult music. But when I review 15 years of recorded output, the simpler stuff is honestly far "better" (both to my ears, and, apparently, to critics' ears as well.) Of course, sometimes "simple" isn't nearly as simple as it may seem--even a person with absolutely no background in music can discern a qualitative difference in a Satie piece which is performed "correctly," albeit blandly, and a Satie piece performed with substance.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    joepistole:

    It doesn't take superhuman powers to see variation in colour across the image you posted. On the other hand, I do have a degree of colour blindness, so maybe that's actually an advantage in this situation and it might mean that I can spot things in that painting that you can't. The only way to know for sure is to compare to people with normal colour vision. I wouldn't ordinarily regard a red cone deficiency as a superpower, but if you want to call it that, it's your prerogative.

    As for my judgment of your ability or capacities as an art critic, I can only go on what you write. It seems to me that you're largely wilfully ignorant of anything you regard as "modern art".

    You were quite insistent that the painting was "airbrushed". I thought you'd be keen to verify your guess. But maybe it's no big deal after all. It's ok. You can remain in your state of ignorance. It won't unduly bother me. I would suggest, however, that you stick to subjects you know something about in future; that will avoid you looking silly again.

    Meh.

    I'm aware of the painter. I have seen other paintings of his, but probably not that particular one in the flesh, so to speak - I can't be absolutely sure. There's a whole series like it.

    Let's get some more opinions, then. Hands up who can see variations in shade/colour across that picture!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    By the way, joe, the only "power" you or I have in this conversation is the power of persuasion. Are you worried that you're not coming across as very persuasive? Are you worried that parmalee has been critical of you, and now I have too, and that nobody who is themselves persuasive is jumping in to support your assessment?

    Limited as the web reproduction of the image is, I can see it, and so can everybody else who is reading this thread.

    Perhaps the most pertinent question to ask here is: who appointed joepistole the sole arbiter of what is and what isn't good art? Why are you so desperate to be right about whether this is good or bad? Do you really think that art is objectively good or bad?

    Tell me: what, in your expert opinion, makes good art? Time or effort in construction? Must it be representative? Must it be realist? Must it be older than 100 years? Must it be in a gallery? Must it be worth a certain amount of money? What are your criteria? Or, is it more a case of "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like"?

    I might just do that, for my own interest. At the end of the process, I will be even more informed than you are, since you have no such interest.

    That much was clear from the post where you introduced it into this thread.

    Consider this possibility: perhaps they don't think it is "junk". Imagine that! What is the world coming to?

    Ah! Interesting.

    How is it not snobby to turn up your nose and dismiss this artwork as "junk"? You dismiss at a word all the experts who say the opposite, and you're not even qualified in art (are you)?

    But you didn't create it, did you? Rothko did. And whose work is getting the big bucks? His or yours? Again, imagine that! What is the world coming to?

    People like you, who say "my toddler could paint a better picture than that", are a dime a dozen. But none (well, one or two) of these people are making money by exhibiting their 2 year old's latest creations in international exhibitions. Do you think there's any rhyme or reason to that? Or is it just dumb luck and being in the right place at the right time?

    Why aren't you out in your garage right now with your airbrush, knocking up a masterpiece that you can sell for millions to some gallery schmuck idiot who doesn't know real art from crap?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    When I started this thread, I had no idea that it might generate heated discussions. Because I could care less about what other people might be willing to pay for any piece of art. There could be many reasons why someone might buy any art item. One the artist might popular and sought after, so that anything with his/her name on it becomes a good investment or a status item regardless of how good the art really is. If your the artist, it's a very good position to be in.

    However most art won't have that advantage and does have to stand on quality or novelty to make it worth having.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Worth noting:

    In joe's extensive travels through the National Gallery of Art in Washington, he perhaps missed some of the other 1000 pieces of art by Mark Rothko held in the gallery's collections. Rothko, by the way, was elected to the National Institute of Arts and Letters in 1968 and was awarded an honourary Doctorate in Fine Arts by Yale University in 1969.

    It's possible, of course, that the entire Arts faculty at Yale in 1969 were stupid dolts who didn't know art when they saw it. Or maybe they just ignored Rothko's embarassing "black" series in giving him the award.

    For those who are interested, try a search at the gallery site (start here) for "Rothko". Search "images only" and look at some of his art. Obviously, the guy was a rank amateur.

    No doubt joe with be contacting Yale for his own honourary doctorate in Fine Art once he gets finished in his garage with the airbrush.

    ---

    (Edit to add even more)

    On Rothko's black-on-black paintings:

    I wonder how long joe spent looking at these paintings? 10 seconds? A minute?
     
  9. Chipz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    838

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    Apology accepted, no problem.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Heh - but that is the very point of starting such threads, is it not?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You have done well in creating a heated discussion - and what better topic to inspire the passions than an art topic? Heck, I have been arguing art topics for a solid week now, though admittedly much of that has been with actual artists......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Is there a point burried in there somewhere? The issue you are dodging is that you have not seen the painting in person and you have no idea about the veracity what you are writing. But you will not let that stop you, will you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Frankly, I don't care what you think about my capacities are as an art critic. I certianly know more about the painting in question than you do. As I have seen the original work. You have not. And that alone speaks volumes as to your biases and motivations for posting here.

    Additionally, I am not a professional art critic, and I have no desire to become one. I am just not interested. You seem to think that in order for one to have an opinion on art, one needs to have some sort credentials. Art is not a science. Art is all about opinion and perception. And for you to say that average people cannot have an opinion or perception about art, is frankly a bit silly and snobby.

    Oh good James, go right for the ad hominen. But since you have no evidence that really is all you have, fallacious arguments. Are you saying I have to have a degree in art to render an opinion? Are you saying that in order to like or dislike or appreciate an art piece I have to have some formal education in the field? If so, I think you are being really silly.

    Yeah, you have not seen the piece. But that doesn't stop you from writting and making some rather wild accusations regarding the artist and the painting in question.

    Others in this post saw the inadequacies in this picture prior to your ego demonstration. And I suggest you go back to the original image or go to some external source and find what others have said about the picture in question.

    Not at all, I don't have to make stuff up to support my position. I don't have to use illogical arguments in a vain effort to support my position.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And you have not seen the original.

    Oh good, more illogical arguments. Who said anyone appointed joepistole as sole arbiter of what is and is not good art? I don't think anyone said that. I think that is you creating another in a long series of straw man arguments.

    Are you saying I am not entitled to an opinion? Are you the one who determines who can and cannot have an opinion about art?

    LOL, back to making stuff up again and back to the fallacious argument. Tell me, just when did I represent myself to be an expert? Oh that is right, I never made that representation. That is you making stuff up again. And just what is an art expert in your view? Who is entitled to have an opinion about art? What makes one opinion better in your view than another? Art is all about opinion and perception. In my view, each is entitled to his/her opinion. Apparently in your view only certian people are allowed to have opinions about art.

    I already gave my definition and I already gave my opinion. Obviously it was something you overlooked in an effort to stroke your ego.

    Good for you, I think before you give advice perhaps you should walk the talk.

    They are entitled to their opinion. But I think it is silly. But then you appear to think I am not entitled to an opinion on the matter. Unlike the sciences, art is all about perception and opinion. And for you to insinuate that only those with degrees in art are entitled to an opinion or perception of a particular piece or the field, seems a bit snobby to me - to say the least.

    Just exactly what is an art expert James? Do you have to be an art expert to have an opinion on art? Paying big bucks for and acting like something is special when any joe or jane off the street could have produced the same work with little or no skill is silly in my book. Pretending something is what it clearly is not, is silly as well.

    Right, I didn't create it. I have better things to do with my time. There are things that I can do that more reliably produce wealth than buying lottery tickets or throwing paint at a canvass and calling it art. And imagine that, you are again trying to effect yet another personal attack. I think the number of fallacies you have to create, speaks loudly about the inadequacy of your arguments.

    Perhaps we are a dime a dozen. But we are the people that ensure your grocery store is full of goods every week. We are the people who ensure that when you and your family are ill, they are treated. We are the people who create jobs for you and your friends. And we are the people who educate your children.

    Oh I think there is a reason to the success of this kind of art. It is called luck and a good marketing organization coupled with the vagaries of humanity. If you can market you child's art as some master piece then you too can enjoy the success of Rothko.

    Because I am not one to market myself as something or someone I am not. I make lousy art and I am not afraid to say so. And I think I have already answered this question. Why would I want to create something that I cannot take pride in? Answer, there is no reason I would want to produce something that I could not take pride in or appreciate. So I am not in the garage or anywhere else slopping paint on a canvass.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2012
  12. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    So apparently this guy is still insisting that the Rothko is airbrushed? Wow.

    Kinda like that time a bunch of people challenged Joe for his making a psychiatric diagnosis of a fucking guy he'd seen on television!, on his authority as having once been an army medic! And of course, he called all his challengers "tea partiers," or some such idiotic thing.

    Well, sorry Fraggle, but Joe is a fucking idiot. Period. And he's also pretty damn right-wing, imho--so if I'm a "tea partier," guess that makes him... a Nazi, I guess. (Not sure what's more right-wing than the tea party.)

    Got any support for your airbrush contention, you Nazi idiot?

    Also, are you gonna reveal the secret behind your magical printing device which reproduces actual textures and every subtle color variation faithfully?
     
  13. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Lol. Guess I missed the "wild accusations" about Rothko--can you remind what those were?

    Or is it simply the suggestion that the painting was done in oil as was every other freakin' goddamn painting in the series?

    Being as you saw a single Rothko at the National Gallery and hated it, what made you allofasuddenlike decide to become the esteemed Rothko authority that you are?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Or is it simply that you are too much of a pathetic child, going on something like 60 (70?), to simply acknowledge that you are mistaken?
     
  14. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 13, 2012
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Good big lettering is always a good substitue for reason. Now show me where it says anything about how it was applied to the canvass. It doesn't.

    In reality, it matters little about how the paint was or was not applied to the canvass. The fact is it was applied as if it were airbrushed. With respect to art, I could care less about how it is applied. The artist could paint in his/her sleep or upside down. I don't care. What I do care about with respect to art is the appearance and the perceptions it generates in those who view it.

    And with respect to this particular painting, any wall painter could have done as well Rothko.
     
  16. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Lol

    Righhhtttttt, Rothko airbrushed his oils--what was I thinking? (That's sarcasm, yet again, [deleted].)


    And now, "reality" doesn't matter--can I quote you on that, [deleted]?
     
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Bad Art can be deadly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    OK, the story's nonsense, but would you have this painting in your home?

    ...................................Seville ignored the superstitious priest and looked after the boy. The paintings of the little sad orphan made Seville fairly rich, but one day, his studio was mysteriously burned to the ground. Seville was ruined, and he accused the little Don Bonillo of arson. The boy ran off crying, and was never seen again. Then, from all over Europe came the reports of the unlucky Crying Boy paintings causing blazes. Seville was also regarded as a jinx, and no one commissioned him to paint, or would even look at his paintings. In 1976, a car exploded into a fireball on the outskirts of Barcelona after crashing into a wall. The victim was charred beyond recognition, but part of the victim’s driving license in the glove compartment was only partly burned. The name on the license was one 19-year-old Don Bonillo; could this have been the same Don Bonillo who had been the subject of the Crying Boy painting eight years earlier? We will probably never know, as no friends or relatives ever came forward for the body.

    from http://phantasmaunloaded.blogspot.com/2010/04/curse-of-crying-boy-painting.html


    re ROTHKO.
    Most definitely not bad art.
    An artistic Genius.

    @joepistole

    His work is about the human anguish of the history of the 20th century.
    Darkness painted onto darkness.
    We seem hell bent on repeating that experience in the 21st Century,
    so his work is increasingly important.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2012
  18. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The Green woman dilemma. Is it good bad art, or bad good art?
    Or is it good good art, derided because of popularity?
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2012
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It's bad art, as is the crying boy, because it's deliberately created for mass appeal. On velvet.
     
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No, not the one posted by cosmic, the one with the bunny coming out of a parsnip.
     
  21. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    I love Mark Ryden. His stuff always reminds me of Hoffman and the Brothers Grimm for some reason.
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well using my definition of good art. It is good art, because it took some talent to paint it - assuming it was painted or drawn. I cannot, nor can your average Joe or Jane on the street create something like that painting. Personally, it is not something I would buy.
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    A very good painting. It definitely required skill to create. Though I probably would not put in my home. I can think of better subjects other than a crying orphan - nothing against crying orphans. I was an orphan myself.


    Well you and I are going to have to disagree about Rothko.
     

Share This Page