Schizophrenia.com

Is abstract art bs?

Lounge
#1

Here is something I don’t feel heart-sinkingly empty about: Art. Gatekeeping a genre out from the entire whole. My history of western art class teacher called Jackson Pollock’s work “dribbling into the air bs.”

It’s a pretty mainstream tendancy. There’s already a rebuttal to similar views from the nineteenth century:

“It should be remembered that a picture - before being a war-horse, a nude, or an anecdote of some sort - is essentially a flat surface covered with colours assembled in a certain order,” - Morris Dennis

At the same time it seems it would be easy to criticize White on White that sold for $15M at a 2014 auction.

I can understand that even more ridiculous things have happened in the name of abstract art, like this one:

4 Likes
#2

I think art is very subjective, and people like what they like. I also think there is a problem with certain artists relying more on the branding of their name than on trying to make nice things. But really, if someone wanta to spend 15 million on a white square, isn’t that their business? I might think it is very stupid, but to that person, maybe the piece spoke to them.

I don’t believe the piece actually spoke to them. I think they made an investment based on the name of the artist. I think they guessed that the piece would appreciate in value. That is kind of the paradox of art for me. I want to live in a world where artists can make a living off their art. That means people with disposable income need to find value in art. But when people with excessive disposable income find excessive value in the bare minimum effort, it makes everyone else think art is stupid, and makes them less likely to buy the $50-$100 paintings. That means the famous names in art (usually upper class people who come from legacies or went to expensive schools) stay famous and it is very hard for new artists to make it.

Long way to say I don’t think abstract art is the problem. I think the problem is billionaire investors deciding arbitrarily what art should be valuable based on things other than how good the art looks.

7 Likes
#3

Jackson Pollock bs? You need a new art teacher. The only distinction that matters is between good art and bad art, both of which come in all shapes and forms.

1 Like
#4

Also, I shudder to think about some of the atrocities that have been done in the name of figurative art, from Jack Vettriano to Thomas Kinkade.

#5

Lmao but without Kinkade, what would we put on jigsaw puzzles?

2 Likes
#6

I legit just woke up my partner laughing at that.

3 Likes
#7

I’ve never seen a puzzle outside a nuthouse, I see now they were no hallucination.

2 Likes
#8

Puzzles are like, the one single non-screen activity Starlet actually gets excited about.

3 Likes
#9

I hate to say this but yes a lot of abstract art is complete bs.

Prestige and money are the primary goals for a lot of it.

4 Likes
#10

Omg it always leads to the rich again. Plutocracy of the art world. And it sounds and feels true. Someone affluent can and would buy the banana taped to the wall for whatever reason because it might be the one that gets them some fame for having it. Meanwhile, a potential great artist’s work would get walked by and passed by because the artist couldn’t get an influential person to buy their art and get good exposure for it.

But wait. If that banana can make 120k, and if that artist indeed made minimum effort, it would be tempting for me to… I mean a future great artist… to do something even more outrageously lazy just to sell on that merit for some fat stacks with little risk. Others see it sell for an obscene amount and it becomes a cycle.

And then everyone ignores the ones that put their humanity and time into their work. They lose to the hype because that’s the world we live in. Ah well there’s still Patreon if there’s any left for a niche we can carve.

@seksoempirico This was five years ago and that teacher, being a fine arts afficianado, didn’t appreciate abstract, dada, and some other forms. I would say, he had a criteria for something to actually count as art.

He also looked like hulk hogan because of blond hair, mustache, and baldingness but that’s an observation.

1 Like
#11

It can be. You would likely be right about banana on wall. White on White counts for setting 15M precedent.

1 Like
#12

Yes, but you can only get away with the minimum effort if thereis prestige attached to your name. Meaning your parent was a great artist, you went to a great art school, etc. You could not tape a banana to a wall for 125k because a billionaire with more money than taste would not see your name and tell his art dealer “buy me the next @screwercs work, no matterthe cost or what it looks like”

2 Likes
#13

I would have prestige of my parents being great artists and me going to a great art school… had I been lucky. Need to working on feeling good enough to work out of motivation emptiness so I can challenge despair iso-lation and then exit the inspiration poverty and then finish my portfolio and then venture a Patreon start which will happen whenevember. Back to the rich and abstract art, then the already suc-cessful are likely to prosper because it’s evidently or seemingly rigged. Unless someone can go viral, which is as likely as winning the lottery. And then it’s short lived and viewers will move on to the next.

That art by Jackson Pollock shows he developed a technique. It’s very expressive, more than many of the fine art I’ve seen in that class. I would say abstract art got it’s reputation tarnished over time by greed and decadence. But in the 19th century it was escaping the demand that art needs to resemble the real world.

It’s a visual expression of the artist’s inner mind that doesn’t need to resemble something we can identify.

2 Likes
#14

I have gotten really into pourover art on tiktok. It’s where they just pour cups of paint on a canvas and then hit it with a hair dryer or spin it or something. It is very abstract but very pretty.

3 Likes
#15

And it doesn’t have to be the sistine chapel in order to say something like some artists would demand it be.

3 Likes
#16

Art is subjective, as they say.

Most of the time, artists just want to illicit a reaction out of patrons.

Good, bad, confused, etc.-- it’s all about how art makes one feel.

With that being said, some “art” is shiit.

5 Likes
#17

That being art that doesn’t let us feel anything because it lacks expression. Or perhaps you mean literally :nauseated_face:

2 Likes
#18

I understand Art being conceptual. However, for me personally I want to see the expression of a true artist, with real talent. Not the Mind drivel of a child with no Talent

1 Like
#19

Some art simply illicits the reaction of “wow, this is complete and utter garbage.”

But it’s still a reaction, so ultimately that piece of art is doing what it’s meant to do-- reach a person in a certain way.

1 Like
#20

20210225_110711
20210225_1107113264×2448 1.05 MB

20210225_110700
20210225_1107003264×2448 1.19 MB

Here is a conceptual piece that I bought from a local artist. For me, it signifies the human struggle to dig ourselves out of a hole while carrying our baggage with us.

The main thing for me, is that it is executed with great skill and the conception is quite clear for me

A pile of dogshit on the floor with a flag stuck in it, just ain’t art

2 Likes