NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1304#comic

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20081003.gif

Art these days seems like this.

Poetry is the same way, really. It's a shame.

That is art,
as is my fart.

This here is a poem
Nothing rhymes with poem
It is a great stanza
It's a crap bonanza

Thank you, thank you.

I know, I should become a poet.
But really, painting doesn't seem to have any substance anymore, it's just lazy to me.

I'd buy it.

This here is a poem
Nothing rhymes with poem
It is a great stanza
It's a crap bonanza

Thank you, thank you.

I know, I should become a poet.
But really, painting doesn't seem to have any substance anymore, it's just lazy to me.

Then you just don't get it maaaaaaannn! It's sussposed to be abstract maaaaaannnnn! You need to think outside the box maaaaaannnn!

Then you just don't get it maaaaaaannn! It's sussposed to be abstract maaaaaannnnn! You need to think outside the box maaaaaannnn!

No you don't get it! I WAS a painter, the school's rejected me, I was too outside the box for them! I drew squiggles, they said they were bad. I drew ducks. They were bad! I drew self portraits, they're heads exploded!

No you don't get it! I WAS a painter, the school's rejected me, I was too outside the box for them! I drew squiggles, they said they were bad. I drew ducks. They were bad! I drew self portraits, they're heads exploded!

Did you stick a crucifix in a glass jar of urine?

Or how about starving a dog, so that you can raise awareness about animal abuse?

*yawn* How many centuries have people been saying this sort of thing for now?

"What is this 'impressionist' shit? Paintings are supposed to be clear and crisp and realistic, obviously! Art these days is terrible!"

"What is this 'writing in English' shit? Anything worthwhile should be written in Latin, obviously! Poetry these days is terrible!"

"What is this 'cave paintings of things that haven't actually happened' shit? Cave paintings are supposed to depict hunts we went on last week, obviously! Art these days is terrible!"

*yawn* How many centuries have people been saying this sort of thing for now?

"What is this 'impressionist' shit? Paintings are supposed to be clear and crisp and realistic, obviously! Art these days is terrible!"

"What is this 'writing in English' shit? Anything worthwhile should be written in Latin, obviously! Poetry these days is terrible!"

"What is this 'cave paintings of things that haven't actually happened' shit? Cave paintings are supposed to depict hunts we went on last week, obviously! Art these days is terrible!"

The difference here is that the style is to completely lack any style, creativity, and purpose.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1304#comic

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20081003.gif

Art these days seems like this.

Poetry is the same way, really. It's a shame.

Fail. The creator of the comic strip actually has a valid point that would make a powerful work... or a piece of 'ironic' comicstrip work which subverts the concept in order to hide the fact the author lacks either ability, or confidence in it.

The difference here is that the style is to completely lack any style, creativity, and purpose.

Ah, yes. That comment is completely different from contemporary criticism of, well, basically every artistic movement ever. Yup. Completely different. Mm-hmm.

Speaking of things that are completely different, you know who can't paint for shit? That "Van Gogh" dude. Seriously, his attempt at a "starry night" looks like a bunch of big gloppy swirly blobs of paint! What's the point of that, huh? Terrible! Just terrible!

Makes you wonder about the "big if" if some Austrian amateur painter had actually gotten into art school, eh?

As for art - mmh. I really enjoy oil on canvas from the old masters, but anything that pleases my eye (or ear) is okay.

And some stuff? Meh. Whatever.

The difference here is that the style is to completely lack any style, creativity, and purpose.

No, the difference here is that someone obviously thinks they just invented Dada.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1304#comic

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20081003.gif

Art these days seems like this.

Poetry is the same way, really. It's a shame.
ya know, if you dont like avant-garde art there is plenty of great stuff out there that you will like. why whine about the minority of celebrated art that you dont like?

"They say that modern painting is the panacea for all the ills of modern life. Yet everyone still buys the painting that matches the couch!" -Bette Midler

Did you stick a crucifix in a glass jar of urine?

Or how about starving a dog, so that you can raise awareness about animal abuse?

Um, no... :)

The difference here is that the style is to completely lack any style, creativity, and purpose.

Actually... had someone actually painted that they would have done something nobody has ever done before. Meaning they were being creative... their purpose could have been to either prove that they believe that art is at a decline, or that anyting if viewed the right way can be interpreted as art.

Art must be left up to the interpretation of the artist. Otherwise it's not art.

The difference here is that the style is to completely lack any style, creativity, and purpose.

How can I say this succinctly? Ah, I've got it:

Sez you.

Art must be left up to the interpretation of the artist. Otherwise it's not art.

Actually, the percipient has a lot to do with interpretation, too. Once the artist is done creating, it's out of his hands, both literally and figuratively. The artist cannot control how the work is perceived.

Actually, the percipient has a lot to do with interpretation, too. Once the artist is done creating, it's out of his hands, both literally and figuratively. The artist cannot control how the work is perceived.
While entirely true, my point was actually that an artist pandering to the tastes of others isn't creating art.

I wonder if running naked through Charlotte, NC during rush hour while screaming "Wheeeee!" can be considered Art.

I'm trying to express how we're just all going insane.....being trapped in our little roles....and in our death machines.....

*hopes that they buy this*

Art must be left up to the interpretation of the artist. Otherwise it's not art.
I've got a better idea, from now on all art will be left to the interpretation of a man named Dave who will determine the artistic merit of each piece.

Things that aren't art:
Self-Portraits
Anything made by Dave's asshole brother-in-law

Things that are art:
Heavy metal album covers from the '80s and '90s
Ducks named Trevor

So maybe that wasn't as good an idea as I thought.

I wonder if running naked through Charlotte, NC during rush hour while screaming "Wheeeee!" can be considered Art.

Usually that's just streaking. Mind you, it could be performance art. The naked body has been used more than once during performance art sessions.

No you don't get it! I WAS a painter, the school's rejected me, I was too outside the box for them! I drew squiggles, they said they were bad. I drew ducks. They were bad! I drew self portraits, they're heads exploded!

Are those portraits for sale? There are some heads that need exploding, and I need plausible deniability.

I know, I should become a poet.
But really, painting doesn't seem to have any substance anymore, it's just lazy to me.

Oh come off it.

So some few people get big press doing something stupid...which generally, is the actual POINT of the piece they've created...and suddenly you're going to start whining about the bygone days when art MEANT something?

You forget that Salvador Dali filled his car full of cauliflower?

There is plenty of good art out there...'good' being defined as 'what you like'. Don't be a douche and pretend otherwise. It's pretentious as fuck.

While entirely true, my point was actually that an artist pandering to the tastes of others isn't creating art.

Not true. It is still art. Just art that conforms to social norms.

This is exactly the problem I'm adressing. So many artists (or poets, or what have you) are all trying to be so edgy and different that they refuse to use conventions that work and are good. I'm not demanding that every piece of poetry or art look or sound the same (I'm not actually demanding anything, for the record). I'm suggesting that it's ok to use styles and conventions that already exist: it's ok to be little bit like everyone else if what they did was good. If you're too busy being edgy and new you lose meaning because you don't have anything familiar around which the audience can orient themselves. Which is why you don't see many poems like: "#3joaiw37a9faf / 3afjfsjau9kjl*#WR / &98#&$ / [etc.]". It may mean something to the poet, but it means absolutely nothing to the audience.

Once again, I fall back on my argument from the last artsy thread I posted in: Anyone has every right to call something they create art. I have every right to call it crappy art. They cannot demand of me that I accept their work as good just because they call it art.

Ah, yes. That comment is completely different from contemporary criticism of, well, basically every artistic movement ever. Yup. Completely different. Mm-hmm.

Speaking of things that are completely different, you know who can't paint for shit? That "Van Gogh" dude. Seriously, his attempt at a "starry night" looks like a bunch of big gloppy swirly blobs of paint! What's the point of that, huh? Terrible! Just terrible!

This a million times.

Seriously folks, just about everyone viewing art at any time in history would say the same sort of things Rhynod is saying now, and they were all wrong.

Oh come off it.

So some few people get big press doing something stupid...which generally, is the actual POINT of the piece they've created...and suddenly you're going to start whining about the bygone days when art MEANT something?

You forget that Salvador Dali filled his car full of cauliflower?

There is plenty of good art out there...'good' being defined as 'what you like'. Don't be a douche and pretend otherwise. It's pretentious as fuck.

It's just as pretentious to pronounce that someone's opinion of a piece is not a valid opinion. Why is it that you are more qualified to say what is good and what is not?