Well... What you people are forgetting is the importance of context when talking about art. If you see a picture with random lines as a JPEG on some musician's forum it's completely different than having the same picture on a wall somewhere where it's supposed to be. All those pieces were created with some kind of point or idea, and if you bothered to find out what that purpose could have been then maybe they won't seem as silly anymore.

I'm just saying it's pretty naive to say that art is stupid because you don't happen to get it. (for the record, I don't understand abstract art either, so let's not get into any long argument here, please.)


In my opinion the definition of art is "If you feel it's art, then it's art (to you)". E.g., I'm sure just about everyone here would agree Devin's music is art, but elsewhere you're bound to find people who say it's "silly and stupid".

All those pieces were created with some kind of point or idea, and if you bothered to find out what that purpose could have been then maybe they won't seem as silly anymore.

I say Mondriaan had a big hole in his wall and needed to cover it up

Why did this piece of art make success:

is that the artwork from the last silverchair album?

Malevich was pretty good, you have to be talented to paint big fuck off black square and convince the world it's best thing since the last good thing. Well that's not exactly the talent most people expects from a painter, but still. If I remember correctly (and am too lazy/not willing to kill the discussion by looking into the wikipedia) he even has/had big wooden cube on his grave.

In other words, modern art is just bunch of utter pollocks.

I dont know who Silverchair are, but i wikipedia'd them and had a look

Its not exactly the same, but im sure it was based on that piece of 'art'.

Relating to grrrv's post:

I think if the artist thought of the context of a painting BEFORE he paints it, then fair enough.
But what you cant tell is if some of these people wake up one morning and say "hmm, i think i'll be crazy and paint a black square and see if it gets into a museum" - and then once it does, start coming up with 'meanings' within it that they didn't originally think when actually painting it.

This all relates to John Cage's "4:33" - if you haven't "heard" it, go on youtube and watch and orchestra "play it".
Theres a clear argument of whether you can call it music or not. Its such an iffy subject, i cant decide myself.
On one hand its stupid. Of course it isn't "music" its just silence.
But what about when you listen to a long song?... and right in the middle there is a 3 second pause before a riff? You still count it has part of the song...
And what about soundscapes etc. - birds tweeting, rivers flowing. Is it ambient music? Or just sound?

If you 'burnt' John Cage's song to a CD, would anything actually happen to the CD?
When you play it, does your CD player send information to your speakers telling them to be quiet?... or does nothing happen?

Yep I know about John Cage. Not sure whether to call 4:33 music or not, but it's definitely art It's purpose was to generate discussion about the nature of music and silence, and you gotta admit it was pretty damn successful

The Mona Lisa. What an awful load of bollocks it is that it's considered such a masterpiece. I saw better paintings in the D'Orsay galleries, let alone in the Louvre! Terrible shite. And maybe it would've been good if it wasn't behind a big thick pane of glass. And you didn't have to view it from about eight feet away.. The Venus di Milo wasn't all that shit hot either... I guess its just the hype that soils them even more when you realise you've seen better things elsewhere.

I didn't not like the Mona Lisa, but I did find it really anticlimactic that it was kept behind a thick ass, glass window; not to mention being surrounded by other sweaty, pushy tourists. I know it's for the better, but it just really took away from "oh my God, I'm looking at the Mona Lisa!"
Anyways, hope you like the other stuff you see.

My girlfriend has autism.

General Error is uncool. Who is he, and why is he messing with our forums?

General Error is uncool. Who is he, and why is he messing with our forums?

Because he loves you. Oooooo... *pinches Biert's cheeks*




Email sent to Doug again.

General Error is uncool. Who is he, and why is he messing with our forums?

Because he loves you. Oooooo... *pinches Biert's cheeks*




Email sent to Doug again.

I think he may have done something about it, it's alot faster now, close to normal!

General Error is uncool. Who is he, and why is he messing with our forums?

Because he loves you. Oooooo... *pinches Biert's cheeks*




Email sent to Doug again.

I think he may have done something about it, it's alot faster now, close to normal!

Just wait for America to wake up again. It's been like this for a few days now, Europe-daytime=OK, Europe-nighttime=General Error.

Europe-daytime=OK, Europe-nighttime=General Error.

Yep

Though i haven't seen the General Error thing, its just been really slow at nights for me...

Well... What you people are forgetting is the importance of context when talking about art. If you see a picture with random lines as a JPEG on some musician's forum it's completely different than having the same picture on a wall somewhere where it's supposed to be. All those pieces were created with some kind of point or idea, and if you bothered to find out what that purpose could have been then maybe they won't seem as silly anymore.

I'm just saying it's pretty naive to say that art is stupid because you don't happen to get it. (for the record, I don't understand abstract art either, so let's not get into any long argument here, please.)


In my opinion the definition of art is "If you feel it's art, then it's art (to you)". E.g., I'm sure just about everyone here would agree Devin's music is art, but elsewhere you're bound to find people who say it's "silly and stupid".

I can understand this. As I have progressed further in my art, I've been more accepting of modern art. But it still goes over my head why someone would pay for anything as uninspired as something like this:

I can understand that an artist may have some reason for making a sculpture like that, but for heaven's sake, why does it need to be so big and bulky and dare I say, "in the way"? I'm sure lots of people could come up with lots of different replies to this, but for the most part, modern art just seems to be the way to go if you want to express yourself without having to explain yourself.

And don't get me wrong, there is some modern art that is really appealing to me, but the size and scale of most of the pieces seems to be the focus instead of the actual meaning sometimes.