Quote :

"For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years. The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot." As for the artists themselves, many were ex- com- munists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing. Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html


The irony here is mindbending.

11/10/2010 2:36:10 PM

indeed

11/10/2010 2:51:12 PM

haha, the CIA is fucking awesome. I'd like to go join them sometime in the future.

11/10/2010 2:54:30 PM

Rodchenko-style design and Russian avant-garde in general are pretty damn cool, though... I feel like it would have been a much stiffer competition if those movements had happened a few decades later than they did.

11/10/2010 3:04:33 PM

I've always had a strong distaste for most of what is called "modern art"

there's some truly good stuff in there, but a lot of it is self-mastubatory garbage.

11/10/2010 3:10:01 PM

^ Q.F.T.

11/10/2010 4:39:34 PM

^^ ^ agreed

11/10/2010 5:41:51 PM

I think some shit's lame

and some Lame shit is cool

and that its all subjective

11/10/2010 5:44:45 PM

Quote :

"this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US"

you think this isn't true?

11/10/2010 7:02:19 PM

^
I think it's just the opposite, actually...in America we are obsessed with individualism

and therefore we are inclined to rate "creativity" and "intellectual freedom" very highly

to the point of accepting it as "art" when some dude smears shit on a canvas

but really, it just shows that we have very low artistic standards

"intellectual freedom" and "creativity" are only valuable if you work outside the box and produce something good...we think that anything outside the box is good

11/10/2010 7:11:01 PM

you think Rothko, Pollock, and de Kooning weren't good?

good thing aesthetics is a subjective practice!

11/10/2010 7:15:53 PM

i'm out of this thread before i even get into it


[Edited on November 10, 2010 at 7:26 PM. Reason : math doesn't make sense to me]

11/10/2010 7:23:35 PM

^^
they're all right, I guess, but I prefer art that makes sense, and whose quality is self-evident

for me, this



is a bunch of scribbles of various colors, end of story

11/10/2010 7:24:53 PM

"makes sense" is a subjective statement

the value of this art is evident to some people
maybe not to you

maybe you don't like mustard on your sandwiches
does this mean that mustard is without merit?

come on, dude
grow up

11/10/2010 7:29:47 PM

the response to "art" says more about the viewer, than it does about the "art," in and of itself.

11/10/2010 7:30:27 PM

Painting
Willem de Kooning
1948

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O:AD:E:3213&page_number=3&template_id=1&sort_order=1



[Edited on November 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM. Reason : -]

11/10/2010 7:33:40 PM

^^^
A pile of dog shit is not art, regardless of how many art professors might claim otherwise. I'm not saying that Pollack is dog shit, but I'm not going to accept that something is awesome art, just because a bunch of art critics say so

the phrase "self-mastubatory" was used elsewhere in this thread, and I think intellectual masturbation has played a big role in the rise of abstract art...art critics get off on finding "genius" in strange places, and if others don't see the genius, well, that just shows that their taste is vulgar, while the critics' taste is sufficiently refined to see the beauty

it's a continuum, of course, and I suppose Pollack is pretty good, or else people wouldn't like him; but I don't think all this crap is as brilliant as people make it out to be.

11/10/2010 7:39:59 PM

If you're going to demand that quality be "self-evident," then you need to define some metrics by which to judge quality.

Personally, I would give Russia the edge, but I guess I mostly appreciate what they were doing before WWII. Malevich and the suprematist movement in general was badass as a forerunner to modern minimalism, and I think Kandinsky is an awesome example of abstract expressionism long before Pollock even took up a paintbrush.

11/10/2010 7:45:52 PM

YOU'RE SO UGLY YOU COULD BE A MODERN ART MASTERPIECE!

[Edited on November 10, 2010 at 7:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2010 7:47:24 PM

Whether or not a pile of dog shit constitutes art is also dependent on how it is contextualized, and you seem to be ignoring that, intentionally or not. I agree that a lot of critics go overboard in looking for meaning in things that isn't there, but that doesn't devalue the meaning that can be inherent in utter simplicity or randomness when properly contextualized. That meaning shouldn't need to be totally spelled out by the artist, because that would deprive the work of much of its elegance, but that does unfortunately mean that works are left open to interpretation by overzealous critics.

That's also one of the great things about art--that it's ok for people to disagree about how a work or an artist should be received. I've seen some bizarre stuff in reputable museums that I don't always love, but that's cool.

[Edited on November 10, 2010 at 7:56 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2010 7:55:25 PM

no wonder none of you got into UNC

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message.

[Edited on November 10, 2010 at 8:02 PM. Reason : buncha uncultured hicks from montanasville NC]

11/10/2010 8:01:50 PM

JeffreyBSG demonstrates his vast knowledge of art criticism and his years of training in aesthetics by misspelling Jackson Pollock's name

calling something art doesn't mean it is great
or even good

but it is still art

11/10/2010 8:13:30 PM

Quote :

"If you're going to demand that quality be "self-evident," then you need to define some metrics by which to judge quality."

ftr, I said I prefer art whose quality is self-evident. however, I do question the merit of a piece of art whose "quality" is inscrutable to anyone but an expert. regarding metrics, the only metrics I can think of are "do I like it?" and "does humanity as a whole, or some relevant subsection of humanity, like it?" obviously these are not absolute metrics...there probably ARE no absolute metrics, hence this discussion.

^^^
yes, in some contexts, a pile of dog shit could be art. and I see what you're saying about context and about how the artist can't spell it out explicitly and still maintain the art's integrity. but I think that a lot of times, the meaning is so hard to see, and requires so much consideration of context, simply because it isn't there. I must admit, however, that the historical context could make some of this stuff a bit more comprehensible.

11/10/2010 8:14:09 PM

do you like this better than this

11/10/2010 8:18:20 PM

I can agree with this:

Quote :

""makes sense" is a subjective statement the value of this art is evident to some people maybe not to you maybe you don't like mustard on your sandwiches does this mean that mustard is without merit?"

and I can agree with this:

Quote :

"the phrase "self-mastubatory" was used elsewhere in this thread, and I think intellectual masturbation has played a big role in the rise of abstract art...art critics get off on finding "genius" in strange places, and if others don't see the genius, well, that just shows that their taste is vulgar, while the critics' taste is sufficiently refined to see the beauty"

The acme of Warhol's social commentary was that he'd give people shit, and simply because it was a Warhol, it was "great". Content meant nothing, interpretation was based purely on status.


Art is nothing more than an aesthetic extension of the vulgar competition for power, resources and respect that drives every other conflict in mankind's history. To pretend it is otherwise is to deceive oneself.

11/10/2010 8:18:59 PM

^^ I'm not going to be quizzed on TWW on what you perceive to be my artistic sensibilities

11/10/2010 8:19:57 PM

but you will take the time to communicate that you will NOT be quizzed on TWW

harumph!

11/10/2010 8:21:12 PM

yep...it's the principle of the thing

11/10/2010 8:21:55 PM

I concede to your superior intellect and unwavering principles

you are correct

non-representative art is absolute hogwash

and drunk driving is good

11/10/2010 8:23:52 PM

didn't you tell me to grow up earlier ITT?

11/10/2010 8:24:41 PM

you lowered the bar

I say good day to you, sir!

11/10/2010 8:25:41 PM

11/10/2010 8:26:13 PM

Quote :

"ftr, I said I prefer art whose quality is self-evident. however, I do question the merit of a piece of art whose "quality" is inscrutable to anyone but an expert. regarding metrics, the only metrics I can think of are "do I like it?" and "does humanity as a whole, or some relevant subsection of humanity, like it?" obviously these are not absolute metrics...there probably ARE no absolute metrics, hence this discussion. ^^^ yes, in some contexts, a pile of dog shit could be art. and I see what you're saying about context and about how the artist can't spell it out explicitly and still maintain the art's integrity. but I think that a lot of times, the meaning is so hard to see, and requires so much consideration of context, simply because it isn't there. I must admit, however, that the historical context could make some of this stuff a bit more comprehensible."

This is good stuff, I think we're starting to hash out some common ground. Tying your two paragraphs together, I would say that a lot of what you're considering inscrutable doesn't require expertise to appreciate. Rather, it just requires interest. Historical context is huge for certain movements, so the average joe could probably get a lot more out of certain artists if they invest enough interest into art as a whole to do a bit of study about how that artist fits into the evolution of art history.

That's why there are whole classes called "art appreciation." It's not so much that those classes try to teach appreciation by inculcation or dogma about why someone is an important artist; they try to educate about the context an artist worked in, both artistically and historically. Some art is a reflection of the values of its contemporary society, whereas other movements are a conscious rejection of the society it was created in, and understanding the cultural environment an artist was influenced by can go a long way towards understanding the meaning of a work. That level of comprehension doesn't require expertise, just a little bit of education.

11/10/2010 8:36:57 PM

I have indeed always associated art appreciation classes with "inculcation and dogma," as you say. But this business about "context," as it pertains to abstract art, makes all kinds of sense. I guess abstract art is, by definition, not easy to understand, but I can totally see the artist expecting his educated audience to be familiar with the society in which he lived, and to interpret his work in that light, through which it would become clear(er.) I've actually learned something from TWW today.

11/10/2010 8:53:56 PM