Hm, I suppose that works as well given the nature of said movements. Let me amend that real quick.
Yeah, it's pretty much as you described. Of course this is based on time rather than style, as many styles/movements can fall within just one timeframe. Looking at Modernism, you have very different things going on in there such as De Stijl, dadaism, expressionism, and so on, but they're all still classified as modern art. The same applies for contemporary art, where stuff like even ASCII art can be considered, but I don't think too much can be said about it compared to some guy pooping in some cans and selling each one for hundreds of euros.Granger wrote:
Hmm, i dont really know anything about contemporary art, but from what you describe it as it sounds like a catch all for anything recent? That doesnt really sound right to me, isnt art classified by style rather than when it is made?
Would a animu kawaii xdxdxd picture from deviantart be contemporary art as long its relatively recent? (how long? 2 months? 2 years?)
Shit I bet that was already done but that was funnyLewder wrote:
call of duty post-modern warfare WHEN
yea splatoon is a thingBrian OA wrote:
Shit I bet that was already done but that was funnyLewder wrote:
call of duty post-modern warfare WHEN
I was about to say no but then I realized that you're right. I like it, but it has low time to kill, killstreak items, kids...Lewder wrote:
yea splatoon is a thing
FTFYFriendan wrote:
I like it, but it has low time to kill, killstreak items, squids...Lewder wrote:
yea splatoon is a thing
Opinion from someone who knows shit about art:Brian OA wrote:
So yeah, what do you know and think of contemporary art?
Aside from evolutionary reflexes (as in: smell of decay = avert, pain impulse = avoid), this is how all sorts of preferences work. I don't see anything bad with this. As long as its not our biology getting in our way, the most important factor will be our peers, or at a greater scope, our culture.Friendan wrote:
Each person feels different about it, but I think it's mostly due to an effect similar to confirmation bias/placebo. A person is told and taught to like it, but do they really, or are they just following what they are taught?
What people decide to throw in this giant controversial cluster, definitely got a bit crazier over the yearsBrian OA wrote:
So yeah, what do you know and think of contemporary art?
I would like some more elaboration, but for now in the way I interpret it, I disagree. The traits of a painting are irrevocably connected to the intent had when creating the painting, and to judge them independently would remove a crucial part of what I feel is the artist's most important job in contemporary art - evocation. To continue your example, Pollock's intent of expressing desolation and loneliness by splattering grey and sepia paint over a skintone-colored canvas is portrayed exactly by the paint and canvas. But it is difficult to evoke loneliness when you splatoon the fuck out of your entire canvas - I mean to say, it is Pollock's choice to make a drip painting, and that, as a trait, I can judge as incongruent with the idea or intent.Brian OA wrote:
I feel like if we're going to evaluate any decent form of art, [...] we ought to be able to look at a piece and be able to judge its idea and execution apart from any of its traits. So we could look at a drip painting piece by Pollock and say that, while lacking any commendable level of technical skill, one could at least argue that some semblance of an idea and intent is behind it. [...] Can we agree on that?
I find this a very interesting point of view, but one I ultimately can't agree with. Allow me to argue my point: in criticising a book, there are a number of objective parameters - its title is Lady Chatelier's Lover, it has 312 pages and around 34 000 words, it uses the word "narghile" instead of "hookah" or "waterpipe" on page 236. But a book also has a pacing, and that pacing can be fast or slow. It can use narrative styles to portray scenes positively or negatively. It can use familiar words, or an rare ones. It can use simple sentences or complex sentences.Railey2 wrote:
As a result of my definition of "art", I am strictly against absolute good/bad-categories for any sort of art. How good or bad art is, is something that only the individual can decide for itself, it is not expandable. It's subjective.
Well, you see, this gives me the impression that the category is fairly useless. Why not aknowledge destinct styles and put mostly prevalent from x to y on them? Again, i never really learned much about art (or didnt remember much about it) but doesnt the styles within modernism have similarities as per theme and intention or atleast a overall change in methods compared to the earlier one, unlinke contempotary art?Brian OA wrote:
Yeah, it's pretty much as you described. Of course this is based on time rather than style, as many styles/movements can fall within just one timeframe. Looking at Modernism, you have very different things going on in there such as De Stijl, dadaism, expressionism, and so on, but they're all still classified as modern art. The same applies for contemporary art, where stuff like even ASCII art can be considered, but I don't think too much can be said about it compared to some guy pooping in some cans and selling each one for hundreds of euros.
I want to say the whole deviantart animu thing has some historical merit seeing how it represents the mass escapism and social schism going on in our society, but I don't think it has too much artistic merit even in if we recognized animu as a strict artistic style.
You can not define a word with itself. Its just pointless, as you end up defining nothing this way, it does not make clear what art is.Railey2 wrote:
This has led me to the conclusion that art is best defined as "that which is thought of as art."
In this case its valid, because the term in question is so abstract that it doesn't fit anything. The only thing you can say about art is, that it is something that gets categorized.Granger wrote:
You can not define a word with itself. Its just pointless, as you end up defining nothing this way, it does not make clear what art is.Railey2 wrote:
This has led me to the conclusion that art is best defined as "that which is thought of as art."
You could have a similar problem with beauty: "that what is considered beautyful" but that explains nothing, instead you can do "something considered attractive/good looking" which atleast shows the intention behind it even if the definition leaves room for subjectivity.
It seems like our disagreement is just us talking about different things, namely you bringing forth a descriptive interpretation of good/bad (based on parameters like legibility), and me criticizing normative good/bad categories.Wojjan wrote:
I would like some more elaboration, but for now in the way I interpret it, I disagree. The traits of a painting are irrevocably connected to the intent had when creating the painting, and to judge them independently would remove a crucial part of what I feel is the artist's most important job in contemporary art - evocation. To continue your example, Pollock's intent of expressing desolation and loneliness by splattering grey and sepia paint over a skintone-colored canvas is portrayed exactly by the paint and canvas. But it is difficult to evoke loneliness when you splatoon the fuck out of your entire canvas - I mean to say, it is Pollock's choice to make a drip painting, and that, as a trait, I can judge as incongruent with the idea or intent.Brian OA wrote:
I feel like if we're going to evaluate any decent form of art, [...] we ought to be able to look at a piece and be able to judge its idea and execution apart from any of its traits. So we could look at a drip painting piece by Pollock and say that, while lacking any commendable level of technical skill, one could at least argue that some semblance of an idea and intent is behind it. [...] Can we agree on that?
Can you define "trait", and explain how it is separate from execution?I find this a very interesting point of view, but one I ultimately can't agree with. Allow me to argue my point: in criticising a book, there are a number of objective parameters - its title is Lady Chatelier's Lover, it has 312 pages and around 34 000 words, it uses the word "narghile" instead of "hookah" or "waterpipe" on page 236. But a book also has a pacing, and that pacing can be fast or slow. It can use narrative styles to portray scenes positively or negatively. It can use familiar words, or an rare ones. It can use simple sentences or complex sentences.Railey2 wrote:
As a result of my definition of "art", I am strictly against absolute good/bad-categories for any sort of art. How good or bad art is, is something that only the individual can decide for itself, it is not expandable. It's subjective.
Not everybody will read a book at the same speed, and not everyone will speed up or slow down at the same chapters, but that doesn't mean the pacing is wholly subjective. Some people will know the word "narghile", others won't, but that doesn't affect its presence in the text and the way it influences the pacing of the book.
In criticism, the objective will often meet the subjective. When I say that I find the presence of an Indian word strange (for instance, because the character that says it is described at "a dim-witted Dutch gentleman" when we first meet him, and the scene is set in England) I make a subjective claim, but it is based not only on my own experience. I know, as someone who reads a lot of English literature, that the word "narghile" will not be strange only to me, but to a lot of readers, and it will make a lot of readers slow down. I know all that regardless of whether or not I personally knew what a narghile is, and regardless of whether or not I liked the use of the word. The opposite criticism may also be true: someone may say that the word "narghile" is used well in that passage, but that opposite subjective criticism rests on the same inter-subjective parameters. I feel that this kind of intersubjectivity is a very important concept in allowing us to criticise all things with a subjective attribute, not only art.