Left or Right of me.

[Lexicus]

the opposite is true

Well, that's interesting. I'll take your word for it, I'm far from being immersed in the art world.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

maybe like this it's more correct:

"modern" art has gained a more mainstream following and popularity, and simultaneously rejections of "modern" art have, too. essentially, people are more divided.

 

[AmazonQueen]

maybe like this it's more correct:

"modern" art has gained a more mainstream following and popularity, and simultaneously rejections of "modern" art have, too. essentially, people are more divided.

How much of this is to do with mass media?
Impressionism, cubism, surrealism they all caused a storm in the art world when they appeared but I doubt the average person had much exposure to them. Now the Turner Prize is national news in the UK.

How much to do with commercialisation of modern art?
If Saatchi hadn't been buying up Hirst and Emin as quick as they could produce work would anyone have noticed them?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

How much of this is to do with mass media?
Impressionism, cubism, surrealism they all caused a storm in the art world when they appeared but I doubt the average person had much exposure to them. Now the Turner Prize is national news in the UK.

How much to do with commercialisation of modern art?
If Saatchi hadn't been buying up Hirst and Emin as quick as they could produce work would anyone have noticed them?

exactly.

commercialisation of the art world, needless elitism, unjustified feelings of superiority, injection of the "culture wars", employment of frankfurt school critics by the CIA, weaponized social art, the seemless integration of art into hyper-capitalism, virulent spread via the internet causing a flood of "effect over substance" art, the love affair of art vis a vis design and market psychology. an incredibly complicated meta layer has formed and everything is so referential we hardly know where and why we are pointing anymore. one could point towards post-modernism for this, but that would be wrong. you have to think about what the central driving force between art exposure is, and it's obviously market forces and powerful people. we as observes exclusively see the art that makes it into media, catalogues and exhibitions, and it's often the same people behind all three. support your local art scene

art in the age of mechanical reproduction, death of the author and simulacra and simulation are essential texts to scrape the surface of this colorful, vibrant mess. I personally don't think art in the old sense (painting, sculpture, performance and exhibitions) is in a bad state at all, in fact I think it is thriving compared to creatively bankrupt forms of expression like video games, blockbuster cinema and others. one just has to look at the recent Documentas for example, but the art world, or more specifically the art market and the institutional side is completely and utterly ******. it's nefarious.

 

[Farm Boy]

You are, all of you, either to the left or the right of me. You know who you are.

Here I am?

 

[Synobun]

exactly.

commercialisation of the art world, needless elitism, unjustified feelings of superiority, injection of the "culture wars", employment of frankfurt school critics by the CIA, weaponized social art, the seemless integration of art into hyper-capitalism, virulent spread via the internet causing a flood of "effect over substance" art, the love affair of art vis a vis design and market psychology. an incredibly complicated meta layer has formed and everything is so referential we hardly know where and why we are pointing anymore. one could point towards post-modernism for this, but that would be wrong. you have to think about what the central driving force between art exposure is, and it's obviously market forces and powerful people. we as observes exclusively see the art that makes it into media, catalogues and exhibitions, and it's often the same people behind all three. support your local art scene

art in the age of mechanical reproduction, death of the author and simulacra and simulation are essential texts to scrape the surface of this colorful, vibrant mess. I personally don't think art in the old sense (painting, sculpture, performance and exhibitions) is in a bad state at all, in fact I think it is thriving compared to creatively bankrupt forms of expression like video games, blockbuster cinema and others. one just has to look at the recent Documentas for example, but the art world, or more specifically the art market and the institutional side is completely and utterly ******. it's nefarious.

 

[Lexicus]

Video games are being squeezed out of existence by the profit motive, it's terrible. That's why we get unfinished games, rushed to deadline, that half the time are just reskins of previous games in the franchise.

 

[Hrothbern]

With art and especially with modern art
It is important to distinguish between what the artists wants to make, and the skill he shows to make it.

The layman spectator is mostly putting (too) much of his opinion on the skills. "I would not able to do that even if I..."
And the layman inclined to have the opinion that he could copy that piece of (modern) Art => it is "no Art"

Much paintings of the past were like snapshot pictures. Important people wanted their portrait done, as realistic as possible but with some cosmetics as well to make them look better, with symbolic elements to show context.
The layman spectator has a bit the same: how well did the artist catch that person, that naval sea battle, that army, that fox hunt, etc.
Most Art of the past is just that: craftsmanship.
But some were not satisfied with making "just a picture" and added lots of symbolics (open or hidden) in their paintings, like Leonardo Da Vinci, or Jeroen Bosch, etc. Some made already more abstract Art elements in part of their paintings where it did not hinder (the order of the buyer) like Rembrandt, or like El Greco (the picture added below).
I would say that modern Art has always been surpressed in the past. From the practical reason that paintings were ordered to a craftsman. From the lack of photo cameras. From surpressing unorthodox opinions.

If the picture, in your head, you want to make is of a great artist, but you lack the skills of the techniques used, it fails.
If you have great skills of the techniques you use, but lack that special picture in your mind, it becomes shown craftmanship, artistic but no art.

When Albrecht Dürer made his famous Young Hare around 1500...
What was it ?... Art ?...... hm... it was certainly very skillful... yet..it has warmth... those light areas very difficult to catch real good.... it feels together... it feels real... he could walk away.... "Observational Art"
Can everyone do it ?
I bet Dürer practised a lot, like all those poor souls wrestling with their skills. Never, ever you get on paper, linen or wood what you have in your mind. Practising with straight drawings done the most to learn shapes: see and do.
The craftsman: "My hands can make what my eyes see"
Everybody can get far with Observational Art when willing to struggle through heaps of studies and attempts.... Some get very far.... Few can add that touch that it feels even more alive or "good" than a photo picture.

Now...Observational Art is "not much more" than a completed study.
There is mostly no background, no great composition effect, no vision, no message, no provoking, no overwhelming, no atmosphere, no world where you disappear in, etc, etc.

Albrecht Dürer: The Young Hare

El Greco: one of the twelve apostles
He died around 1600, and his unique style was overwhelmed by more naturalist styles becoming popular. But around 1900, modern Art, his style got attention again.

 

[Hrothbern]

exactly.

commercialisation of the art world, needless elitism, unjustified feelings of superiority, injection of the "culture wars", employment of frankfurt school critics by the CIA, weaponized social art, the seemless integration of art into hyper-capitalism, virulent spread via the internet causing a flood of "effect over substance" art, the love affair of art vis a vis design and market psychology. an incredibly complicated meta layer has formed and everything is so referential we hardly know where and why we are pointing anymore. one could point towards post-modernism for this, but that would be wrong. you have to think about what the central driving force between art exposure is, and it's obviously market forces and powerful people. we as observes exclusively see the art that makes it into media, catalogues and exhibitions, and it's often the same people behind all three. support your local art scene

art in the age of mechanical reproduction, death of the author and simulacra and simulation are essential texts to scrape the surface of this colorful, vibrant mess. I personally don't think art in the old sense (painting, sculpture, performance and exhibitions) is in a bad state at all, in fact I think it is thriving compared to creatively bankrupt forms of expression like video games, blockbuster cinema and others. one just has to look at the recent Documentas for example, but the art world, or more specifically the art market and the institutional side is completely and utterly ******. it's nefarious.

Incl Art as money laundering object. So very useful these days.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ferocitus
Owen Glyndwr
Hygro
inthesomeday
Lexicus
Ajidica
Cardgame
Hrothbern
Zardnaar
Estebonrober
AmazonQueen
shadowplay
Synsensa
tjs282
Bootstoots
El_Mac
Catharsis
Truthy
BenitoChavez
Timsup2nothin
UlyssesSgrant
rah
Bernie14
onejayhawk


Do we need to start adding people who won't add themselves? Or have we sufficiently wandered afield into art appreciation to change the thread title?

 

[Lexicus]

This list is deeply dissatisfying to me, both because people are really in the wrong order and because I knew from the beginning that all the people I really wanted to see on it wouldn't touch this thread with a ten foot pole.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This list is deeply dissatisfying to me, both because people are really in the wrong order and because I knew from the beginning that all the people I really wanted to see on it wouldn't touch this thread with a ten foot pole.

I don't really see that much out of order. There's obviously some people who are pretty close one way or the other and there could be debate about exact order, but I don't see anyone who is wildly out of place. Like you, I figure the people who haven't participated include the ones who would have made it interesting, because they would be the ones who would probably misplace themselves.

 

[Hrothbern]

I don't really see that much out of order. There's obviously some people who are pretty close one way or the other and there could be debate about exact order, but I don't see anyone who is wildly out of place. Like you, I figure the people who haven't participated include the ones who would have made it interesting, because they would be the ones who would probably misplace themselves.

Well
invite them by naming them with a @ in your invitation.
Doing that once does not seem unmannered to me

Perhaps there are some that do not want to see themselves on that left-right scale, because left-right is only left-right

 

[Lexicus]

I don't really see that much out of order. There's obviously some people who are pretty close one way or the other and there could be debate about exact order, but I don't see anyone who is wildly out of place. Like you, I figure the people who haven't participated include the ones who would have made it interesting, because they would be the ones who would probably misplace themselves.

It's actually more annoying because it's somewhat close to the right order than it would be if it was totally out of order.

Here's my list:

inthesomeday
Lexicus
Owen Glyndwr
Hygro
Ajidica
Cardgame
Ferocitus
Hrothbern
shadowplay
AmazonQueen
Synsensa
tjs282
Bootstoots
Estebonrober
Timsup2nothin
El_Mac
UlyssesSgrant
Zardnaar
Catharsis
Truthy
BenitoChavez
rah
Bernie14
onejayhawk

 

[Timsup2nothin]

See, that shuffling among the people who are close to the leftward end doesn't really seem to change the list that much...IMO.

 

[inthesomeday]

Okay it’s starting to frustrate me that everybody puts Tim so far to the right.

Dude is an outstanding leftist whether he wants to admit it or not.

 

[Lexicus]

See, that shuffling among the people who are close to the leftward end doesn't really seem to change the list that much...IMO.

Nah, you and Zardnaar were the most substantial changes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Okay it’s starting to frustrate me that everybody puts Tim so far to the right.

Dude is an outstanding leftist whether he wants to admit it or not.

I'm not shy to admit much of anything, but in a realistic view I can't think of anyone showing to the left of me who I would disagree with.

 

[inthesomeday]

I’d put you between Ferocitus and Hrothbern

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nah, you and Zardnaar were the most substantial changes.

LOL...I actually hadn't noticed that you moved me...blind spot.

As to @Zardnaar...yeah, if I had noticed him putting himself there I'd have probably argued the point.