Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[Faith No More]

---

So Faith, by which standard would you judge something like that?

---

I would judge it by the standard of the integrity of the creative process involved and the message sent. This appears to be nothing more than cheap imagery used as a gimmick to elicit an emotional reaction, not the emotional burst of creativity expressed through technicality that I've been saying art is.

---

BTW, Jenny, I also think your paintings are fantastic.

[abaris]

And yet, things like that obviously find their customers. High paying customers as this example shows.

A tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23, 2007;[5] in October 2008 tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250. The cans were originally to be valued according to their equivalent weight in gold — $37 each in 1961 — with the price fluctuating according to the market.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

But what about a Mondrian? It's as simple as can get.

[Faith No More]

And yet, things like that obviously find their customers. High paying customers as this example shows.

But what is your point?

[Alex K]

There's something in me that I could never rate such a technically simple picture with, say, the best of the old dutch masters and their refined technique and ideas for example about lighting and shadow in the case of Rembrandt and followers. That being said, wife and I spent a day at Tate gallery st. Ives last year, where they exhibit a woman who collaborated with mondrian and prodiced very similar works. We had a guide who explained to us the biographic backgrounds and formal developments that took place between mondrian and her, and it was a very enjoyable way to spend a rainy afternoon. So there's that...

And yet, things like that obviously find their customers. High paying customers as this example shows.

A tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23, 2007;[5] in October 2008 tin 083 was offered for sale at Sotheby's with an estimate of £50-70,000. It sold for £97,250. The cans were originally to be valued according to their equivalent weight in gold — $37 each in 1961 — with the price fluctuating according to the market.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

But what about a Mondrian? It's as simple as can get.

[abaris]

But what is your point?

My point has never changed. There is no standard for art. It's a form of expression for the individual doing it. Sometimes it finds a paying audience, but most times it doesn't. For every celebrated artist, there a thousands of no names lining the road. If art finds it's audience is also largely dependent on contemporary tastes and marketing. And art critics are part of the marketing machine. They're experts on technicalities, but everything else is still taste.

The only art forms that have to find an audience, no matter what, are movies and video games, since there's a lot of money involved in their creation.

[Faith No More]

My point has never changed. There is no standard for art. It's a form of expression for the individual doing it. Sometimes it finds a paying audience, but most times it doesn't. For every celebrated artist, there a thousands of no names lining the road. If art finds it's audience is also largely dependent on contemporary tastes and marketing. And art critics are part of the marketing machine. They're experts on technicalities, but everything else is still taste.

The only art forms that have to find an audience, no matter what, are movies and video games, since there's a lot of money involved in their creation.

If there is no standard for art, then how would you respond to my claim that my three year-old's self-portrait is just as artistically valid as The Last Supper?

[abaris]

If there is no standard for art, then how would you respond to my claim that my three year-old's self-portrait is just as artistically valid as The Last Supper?

If you like it, it is for you. And that's what I'm all about, it's subjective.

[downbeatplumb]

There's something in me that I could never rate such a technically simple picture with, say, the best of the old dutch masters and their refined technique and ideas for example about lighting and shadow in the case of Rembrandt and followers. That being said, wife and I spent a day at Tate gallery st. Ives last year, where they exhibit a woman who collaborated with mondrian and prodiced very similar works. We had a guide who explained to us the biographic backgrounds and formal developments that took place between mondrian and her, and it was a very enjoyable way to spend a rainy afternoon. So there's that...

And yet, things like that obviously find their customers. High paying customers as this example shows.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

But what about a Mondrian? It's as simple as can get.

It seems fairly pleasing as a piece but I rather think that give me a ruler and some paint and I could come up with something similar in an afternoon.

This may be ok to pay a couple of quid for and hang on the wall but great art it is not.

And don't get me started on Tracy f'ing Emin and her unmade bed.

[Cato]

I don't know enough about art to comment, except to say that my favorite artist was Warhol, specifically because his whole M.O. was "everything is art, everyone's an artist, just because it can be mass produced doesn't mean it isn't, let's burn this bitch down!"

As a side note, never explain that this is why you love Warhol to an art major. Turns out they don't like being told "I can be just as valid an artist as you, even with the degree."

Sorry Summer, missed this yesterday. Thanks for sharing, I didn't know this about Warhol. I love his anti-establishment attitude and would certainly consider him an artist; I just personally don't like his output.

[Jenny A]

Of course, because ultimately art comes from an emotional connection with the medium that allows you fluidly manipulate it into a creative expression.

Emotional connection with the medium? Really? Many artists do have an emotional connection with their mediums be that word, the violin, their own voice, oil paint, marble, wood, or their own bodies as in dance. But that rarely, if ever, is the point. It's emotional connection with the subject that's necessary.

But that just proves my point that standards can be set for what is and isn't art, because you can evaluate a piece of art by looking at how developed that emotional connection was and its influence upon the final product.

At best you can evaluate how much emotional connection was conveyed to you by the final piece. Art is about communication, otherwise it's just a form of mental masturbation which may be very exciting for the creator, but is not necessarily all that interesting to anyone else.

]You see, evaluating art isn't just about the final product. It's also about evaluating the process involved

I strongly disagree. If the result is not good, the fact that the process was a journey (even a deep emotional one) for the artist won't make it any better art. You are mistaking art therapy for art.