Cool Pictures IV: The Awesomeness is Volatile

[Kaitzilla]

Modern art is the biggest scam for money ever conducted by mediocre artists.

Winner!

The biggest offender is Damien Hirst
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/jan/12/damien-hirst-spot-paintings-review

A serious multi-page analysis on these paintings which are all entirely single dots spaced in a regular pattern.
http://danielbarnes.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/are-spot-paintings-singular-or-multiple-artworks/

"The result of this is that there is nothing to be gained, either philosophically or aesthetically, by resting our laurels on the philosophical distinction between singular and multiple arts in order to make sense of the baffling fact that there are hundreds of artworks which all seem to the untrained eye to be more or less the same thing. Crucially, whilst the epistemological fact of the concept tells that there is there is a spot painting concept which guides each and every experience of a spot painting (so when looking at one we must literally recall the concept), which therefore gives us the impression of a broad, gross similarity between them, a close analysis reveals their manifold and essential differences."


More thoughts on the paintings here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...rst-s-spot-paintings-take-over-the-world.html
http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/7...se-of-damien-hirsts-spot-painting-spectacular



And finally, the super ultra hardcore analysis of the spot paintings. The real deal. Breaks out information theory!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-maidman/how-i-learned-to-stop-wor_9_b_1344773.html

This is what modern art is to me. A bunch of nonsense

 

[Borachio]

I don't see it.

Who buys the art? And why?

 

[Kaitzilla]

I don't see it.

Who buys the art? And why?

Apparently everyone. He's made over 1000 of the things.


A certain group of people craves a nearly blank canvas onto which they can pour their interpretations and get a unique emotional response. If you recognized it like this now ultra-rich painter you could cash in too.

In fact, if you said to yourself “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” and ran for President, you might even get elected.

Spoiler :

Sorry, had to say it

 

[Borachio]

In fact, if you said to yourself “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” and ran for President, you might even get elected.

Well, it's been done.

Romney made a fine pathetic attempt just recently.

I think a lot of people buy art as an investment. They like to get in at or near the ground floor while some artist is still cheap, and then cash in later. It's just a kind of gamble, which pays off if you're lucky or can spot what will be the next trend. But it's simply a bubble that sooner or later must burst.

I think, though, this applies to all art. It is, after all, just a matter of taste, convention, or the subversion of convention.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Well, it's been done.

Romney made a fine pathetic attempt just recently.
...

Actually, that was a direct quote from Obama during his campaign speeches.

Romney also tried it with a great deal less skill and ended up looking stupid. His views changed daily and people noticed.

 

[Kaitzilla]

...
I think, though, this applies to all art. It is, after all, just a matter of taste, convention, or the subversion of convention.

I disagree. If it makes most 6 year olds stop and go WOOOWWW, then there is something universal about it. Like the roof of the Sistene Chapel.

Or that scream painting that everyone can relate to.


I'd agree with your art as investment idea. That would explain a lot

 

[Meteor Man]

Cut the politics.

Spoiler :

 

[holy king]

ok.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Right! Moar Pictures!

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t276/DANE3E3/WTH-2.jpg

 

[Borachio]

Otto Dix

If it makes most 6 year olds stop and go WOOOWWW, then there is something universal about it. Like the roof of the Sistene Chapel.

Or that scream painting that everyone can relate to.

I agree.

 

[Traitorfish]

Winner!

The biggest offender is Damien Hirst

Or that scream painting that everyone can relate to.

Damien Hirst is not a modern artist. Edvard Munch, on the other hand, was. So I'm not sure what you're actually claiming with this.

 

[Borachio]

What is he then?

 

[Yoda Power]

Damien Hirst is not a modern artist. Edvard Munch, on the other hand, was. So I'm not sure what you're actually claiming with this.

Aren't you confusing modern with modernist there? I guess you would want to call Damien Hirst a contemporary artist.

 

[Traitorfish]

Aren't you confusing modern with modernist there? I guess you would want to call Damien Hirst a contemporary artist.

They're not really different things, and to the extent they are, it's just that "modern" describes a period distinguished by the predominance of modernism. Hirst is a post-modernist artist (as well as a hack and a charlatan, but that's him specifically rather than post-modern art as a whole), which is as the name suggests defined entirely by the fact that it isn't modern art.

 

[cardgame]

Show me a work of postmodernism that isn't hackery...

 

[Monsterzuma]

wat

waaaat

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

They're slabs of color.

You know, I think it was Duchamp who took a part of Butler's Scotland Forever and magnified it to the point that the drops of paint looked exactly like modern art. All painting is slabs of color and lines that delineate shapes. It's all a farce, because even your beloved "realistic" paintings are two-dimensional images masquerading as a three-dimensional image that you "see through the window of the frame." Duchamp's point with the magnification stunt is that modern art, which pretends to be nothing but what it is, is more "honest" than this perspective-based art, which is essentially a trompe l'oeil.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Right, cuz people like this have no particular talent whatsoever and obviously threw paint on a canvas to create their art.

All looks like art to me.

Those are all great but there have been some old paintings that have sold for high price that I just don't understand why.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Those are all paintings I can effortlessly appreciate. It's not the same thing as putting a bunch of squares or circles on paper in arrangements that don't provoke thoughts or stimulate the imagination apart from making people go WTH over not seeing anything into it at first glance and driving themselves nuts over wanting to resolve the cognitive dissonance.

 

[Meteor Man]

You know, I think it was Duchamp who took a part of Butler's Scotland Forever and magnified it to the point that the drops of paint looked exactly like modern art. All painting is slabs of color and lines that delineate shapes. It's all a farce, because even your beloved "realistic" paintings are two-dimensional images masquerading as a three-dimensional image that you "see through the window of the frame." Duchamp's point with the magnification stunt is that modern art, which pretends to be nothing but what it is, is more "honest" than this perspective-based art, which is essentially a trompe l'oeil.

Can't tell if serious, or trolling.

Hopefully trolling, because, with all due respect, I can't wade through this without stepping on the BS.