I feel I wasted a couple of hours at an art museum today

cantdrv55 · 03-29-2008, 01:04 AM

I'm convinced that most of the people muttering to themselves at the museum were saying the same things I was saying such as:

"What the fuch is that supposed to be?"
"Why the fuch is that art?"

and lastly

"I want my ******* money back!".

I feel I wasted 2 hours of my life at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. We're on vacation so we decided to tour some of the sites in the city and this museum was in the "must see" list in the guide book. I swear some of the art **** on display could've been painted by children, maybe even by blindfolded children. I guess I am just not cultured enough. I do like the classics though like those at the Louvre or Uffizi.

Here's one that was on display at the SFMOMA. Tell me what you think of it. I think whoever bought these panels painted white was swindled. I can't believe this **** is even considered art.

http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/singular_forms/highlights_1a.html

911pcars · 03-29-2008, 01:23 AM

Art is subjective. Not everyone has to like it. I wonder if it would be considered art if everyone liked it. Same with everything that has a point of view. Some folks like Rauchenburg. Some folks prefer Elvis on black velvet, fancy spoons or old metal lunch boxes.

Looking at different types of art might, in the end, broaden one's appreciation for other types of personal expression. YMMV.

It's a good sign you ventured into a museum at all.

Sherwood

911pcars · 03-29-2008, 01:24 AM

Wayne,
Go to sleep. It's late.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by 911pcars

Wayne,
Go to sleep. It's late.

What he said. As an artist you're probably a great engineer

widgeon13 · 03-29-2008, 03:07 AM

I thought the Peter Halley was just fantastic!

(One shouldn't have to pay to go to a museum, WTF???? especially for shlt like that)

DanielDudley · 03-29-2008, 03:50 AM

As far as art goes, the less I like it, the faster I walk. But if I see one or two that I like, I'm good on the experience.

Sorry the museum was a bummer. Now you have to do something fun to make up for it.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 03-29-2008, 04:49 AM

i was just at one of harvard's art museums where art is clearly art. It was a great experience.

I have only one criterion that must be met when qualifying a piece as art: a high degree of skill must have been used in its creation.

an object created without skill is merely a manifestation of one person's imagination, whether it's aesthetically pleasing or not.

imcarthur · imcarthur's Garage

I seriously doubt that much of what we label & prize as 'modern art' will be appreciated 100 years from now, let alone 500. Imho, true art must stand the test of time. Will Pollock's splotches have any significance in 2508? But I bet you 'we' will still be admiring Renoir & Mozart will still be played.

Ian

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

2 things:

For modern art, I prefer "Marlo's"

and from Full Metal Jacket:

"You're so ugly, you could be a modern art masterpiece."

Shaun @ Tru6 · 03-29-2008, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-beard

2 things:

For modern art, I prefer "Marlo's"

absolutely! what a sweetie,

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

no, not that Marlo.

here is a hint

djmcmath · 03-29-2008, 07:04 AM

Quote:

In the summer of 1951 Robert Rauschenberg created his revolutionary White Paintings at Black Mountain College, near Asheville, North Carolina. At a time when Abstract Expressionism was ascendant in New York, Rauschenberg's uninflected all-white surfaces eliminated gesture and denied all possibility of narrative or external reference. In his radical reduction of content as well as in his conception of the works as a series of modular shaped geometric canvases, Rauschenberg can be seen as presaging Minimalism by a decade.

The White Paintings shocked the artistic community at Black Mountain, and word of the "scandal" spread to the New York art world long before they were first exhibited at the Stable Gallery in October 1953. While generally misunderstood at the time, the works were highly influential for Rauschenberg's frequent collaborator, the composer John Cage. Under the sway of the Buddhist aesthetics of Zen, Cage interpreted the blank surfaces as "landing strips" or receptors for light and shadow, and was inspired to pursue the corresponding notion of silence and ambient sound in music. His response, 4'33" (1952), consisted of the pianist sitting quietly at the piano without touching the keys for four minutes and thirty-three seconds so that incidental sounds in the surrounding environment—such as the wind in the trees outside or the whispering of audience members—determined the content of the piece.

Does anyone else read this and say, "It's the Emperor's New Clothes" all over again? What kind of foolish culture have we become, where someone can sit blankly at a piano for 4 minutes and declare it "art?" Have we fallen so far, and is the hour so late?

Dan

rouxroux · 03-29-2008, 07:04 AM

For the audio buffs: "Hey look honey, someone mounted some magneplanars on the wall...idiots"!

For everyone else: "I've got dropcloths with more artistic content than that"!

KaptKaos · 03-29-2008, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

i was just at one of harvard's art museums where art is clearly art. It was a great experience.

I have only one criterion that must be met when qualifying a piece as art: a high degree of skill must have been used in its creation.

an object created without skill is merely a manifestation of one person's imagination, whether it's aesthetically pleasing or not.

By today's definitions, art is not as you describe. Art today is more antagonistic. The goal of many artists is to challenge your beliefs and convictions. I would consider it activist.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 03-29-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaptKaos

By today's definitions, art is not as you describe. Art today is more antagonistic. The goal of many artists is to challenge your beliefs and convictions. I would consider it activist.

Artists today are lazy with little to no talent. What do you do when you have no talent? "Challenge beliefs and convictions" In other words, "if you don't 'get it,' you're a philistine."

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaptKaos

The goal of many artists is to challenge your beliefs and convictions. I would consider it activist.

I have Pelican OT for that.

KaptKaos · 03-29-2008, 07:38 AM

I don't necessarily agree with art and artists that do this, but that's my understanding of their perspective. I am not an artist, so YMMV.

JavaBrewer · JavaBrewer's Garage

Too bad Wayne deleted his early morning posts.

The modern stuff does not speak to me. I've seen a large 10'x 8' canvas painted all white with a single color stripe 1' wide painted across it. People were oooohhhh and aaaahhhhhhing over it. That stuff is not for me.

imcarthur · imcarthur's Garage

Here you go . . . paint like Jackson Pollack . . .

See Emulator

Ian

HardDrive · 03-29-2008, 07:51 AM

I enjoy art.

I don't always understand what an artist was going for with modern pieces, and frankly I feel some of it is crap. But I also see some modern pieces and installations that are brilliant and though provoking.

svandamme · svandamme's Garage

there's a lot of junk out there
the type of junk you can't part out

Like that american "artist", who produced a blanc canvas, estimated value a million bucks or something... i'm like WTF??? every friggin art supply store has blanc canvas's!!!

Then at an exhibition in France, some chick got her lipstick out , and put her lips on that canvas

Frankly, her act was more art then then what the dude had "produced"
yet she got some legal problems because of it... i mean, what do you expect, a blanc friggin canvas!! The whole point of canvas is that you put something on it to look at!