A Belated Rant on Modern Art
(Pic more or less related)
I have some qualms with most of the modern art I’ve seen. I went on an off-campus, Art History trip to NYC one summer, and as it turned out my professor was a specialist in modern art, so that was all we got to see. I like to think of myself as very open to all different mediums and styles. However, I found myself rapidly getting very frustrated with the professor as he praised other students for coming up with "interpretations" of the art we saw, when they were clearly bullshitting off the top of their head.
To give you an example of the art galleries we visited, here are some of the pieces I remember most vividly:
A giant tub of cat litter the size of a kiddy pool,
A dead shark suspended in gel,
A pile of rotted furniture seemingly tossed unthinkingly into a pile,
A series of "charcoal drawings" which were just plain pieces of paper covered completely with black,
A huge room dedicated to scribbles some fool had made with his foot.
Throughout the trip the teacher and I argued bitterly, with him insisting that I was not willing to "think" and thus completely missing the point of this artwork, which is meant to be interpreted by the viewer. I think the point where I really lost it was when he took us down to Chelsea where we spent an entire hour in a room filled with at least a hundred jars of moldy urine, which the "artist" had "made" himself.
I’m sorry. I did not go to college, spend thousands of dollars, and slave away at my craft (which involves writing, drawing, anatomy, architecture, fashion, and countless other considerations) just to accept that someone collecting their own piss in a jar is worthy of the same study. This particular artist was also clearly under the influence of heavy drugs. I cannot bring myself to respect someone like that, I cannot bring myself to assign value and meaning to their art. At best they are reusing old materials, at worst they are an outright insult to people who put real time and dedication into their artwork. It’s because of people like them that artists have a bad name as lazy, insane, drug-addicted, burdens on society.
Art is a very subjective thing, I will admit this. Just because I don’t like contemplating the meaning of a moldy jar of piss doesn’t mean my art history professor might not get something truly valuable out of the experience. But what truly insulted me was his repeated accusation that I was unwilling to think about it, and that was why I didn’t have the same level of appreciation. To which I responded that I could easily make the same sort of abstract, nonsensical "art" for people to try to get a meaning out of. To which he responded, "Then why don’t you?" To which I responded, "Because I have better things to do!"
This professor mocked me for the type of art I like. He made it clear that he thought comics were a child’s medium, that they were far too self-explanatory, and that anyone with a shred of intelligence would prefer art that forces you to come up with made-up explanations for the work.
For me, art is all about storytelling, which is why I love making comics. But my favorite artwork isn’t always in comic form, I can also appreciate art that has symbolic meaning, or illustrations with a metaphorical message. I like figures with expressions that tell you who they are and what they are feeling. My goal as an artist is to connect with my readers/viewers somehow. If my message gets across, then I feel I have succeeded.
Most modern art, on the other hand, offers very little to work with as far as understanding what the artist’s intent was. In my opinion, if you need a guide to explain the artwork, then you have failed as an artist. Moreover, it seems somehow elitist to me to expect people to grasp at straws to understand what the hell you’re getting at, as if you are some kind of genius they could never possibly understand. It seems to me that these types of artists are actually lacking in the most important value of being an artist, which is that of communication.
Anyway, those are my two (biased) cents.
Loading ...
February 8th, 2010 at 11:06 am
THANK THE GODS SOMEONE ELSE UNDERSTANDS!!!! I’m a sophomore in college, my major is Art and my minor is Art History. One of my goals is to have my own comic and I’m sick of all these “art teachers” telling me my art is not art but orgasm when the see a white canvas painted white! I have to take a contemporary art class this semester and I’m with you, anybody can gather piss in a jar or paint a white canvas white. What you do takes passion and skill. My dad introduced me to your comic and you are and inspiration to me. Screw what your teacher said, comics take so much more than people realize; plot line, character creation, background, environment, patients, and so much more. Thank you for being you and having the guts to show the world your beautiful creations.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Oh man, I’m so glad I’m not the only one thinking this!! I’ve had friends that would have an air of superiority because they got a bunch of coat hangers and twisted them together and presented them as some meaningful piece of art, and mocked me for not getting it. Okay sure, they may get something from it, but I don’t – it’s just twisted metal that looks like a giant ball.
I’m an art major and I’m dreading my later art classes where I’m going to be subjected to teachers like that. I don’t know what I’m getting at really, but I guess I’m just glad that there are others out there that share my stance on this.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Thank you! You have just successfully articulated everything I have ever felt about modern art. I don’t need to have a degree/diploma/any form of education to know that a brick pathway and a Picasso do not belong in ther same subject. I could understand a pile of bricks if they were arranged in such a way that they were actually a mosaic. But a made bed with a turd on the pillow? That’s a college prank, not art!
February 8th, 2010 at 11:48 am
For me art’s about beauty as well as communication–but the kind of modern art you speak about fails on both fronts. I mean, I like beautifully abstract art, but I greatly dislike things like jars of piss passed off as meaningful artistic communication and so on.
And, gods, your teacher’s such a philistine. He badly needs exposure to the great works of the comics genre, and even then I wouldn’t put it past him to turn up his nose at it (does he consider literature “too self-explanatory”?).
February 8th, 2010 at 11:49 am
I think that that exhibit sums up my entire opinion on modern art: it’s piss. Also the pic goes with the story hilariously well.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Excuse me. Medium, not genre. Used the wrong word there.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Hear, hear!
February 8th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“Freedom of expression” and some kind of “deliberate affront to bourgeois sensibility” are all that are required. Endless opportunity to riff on the potential meanings of the piece and its context. Self-explanatory or representational work doesn’t afford the same free exercise of the intellect; the lesser the intrinsic value in the piece, the wider the varieties of value that can be extrapolated from it.
Ultimately, an empty and self-indulgent series of inside jokes.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Meh, your art teacher’s a douche. Comics aren’t only a child medium anymore.
I’m sure Allan Moore (V for Vendetta, Watchmen to name the most popular ones) would disagree.
Those are adult comics with a deep story line, deep character development and it’s own unique art-style. And if your teacher still thinks it’s a child’s medium, then he should create a short comic. Wanna bet it’s filled with plotholes and shallow characters?
I’m not an artist myself. But I respect many great artists if they really put passion into their works. It simply shows when an artist does that.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Couldn’t agree more. While I have seen some modern art that I like or at least respect, most of it is pure crap-or piss in this case . . . The pieces that I respect are mostly sculpture where it clearly took some effort and skill to produce, even if I wouldn’t want it in my living room. But throwing a bunch of junk in the corner and calling it art? Sorry, no. I a great deal more respect for your ability to create images that speak to me aesthetically and emotionally. You are far more of an artist than pissboy will ever be
February 8th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Having read this, I can not believe what they pass off as ‘modern’ art. The exhibits you described were real?? My god…that…that is just messed up to the extreme. They’ll give anyone an art grant for a show these days. I, like those who have already commented, agree that comics are an art-form, having read a variety of them from around the world and found some stunning artwork and compelling story lines in them. I can not believe that your art ‘teacher’ would expose a class to such tripe ‘art’ and then mock you for ‘not getting it’ when he/she probably wouldn’t know good art if it sat on his/her face and wiggled! Sorry, I’m a fan of the Classical Artists myself, as well as some of the modern ones in the comic/anime genre, try Shirow Masamune for some stunning art.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I studied in graphic design and we had two class dedicated to the history of art, complete with museum visits and exhibitions. I had a lot of fun with it but most us felt the same way about modern art as you do. We wre probably biased because the whole point of graphic design is to communicate something (we were encouraged to had layers of meaning thought, so it wasn’t like it all had to be 1+1 =2, but in the end clients had to be able to understand what the heck it was about). Also been passionate about art since my early years and was always confused by modern art. I remember vividly an interview I saw on tv about this artist who had created a gigantic piece of paper and placed one black dot in the middle that you could only see from an airplane. What had me even more perplexed was the fact that he told absolutely nothing of the meaning but that he insisted it had took him days, and days to come up with it.
At least abstract artist work on their piece, with layers and layers of paint and texture, all in the goal to communicate an emotion. I personally don’t love it, but at least I get it. I think that kind of art is open to interpretation but at least there’s a direction. Open interpretation in modern art is like open ending in movies: most of the time it doesn’t work and it’s pure laziness and faux intellectualism. When I think that the governor of my country once gave the Canadian art price to a man who would take is on blood and splatter it all over canvas… Is that really what we want to show case as true and grand Canadian artist? If that man weren’t an “artist” he’d be sent to psychiatrist for self-mutilation and display of dangerous behavior! Come the fucking on.
Anyway, I guess I’m just glad someone else in the art world agrees. Oh and you’re teacher is an ass. I wouldn’t mind him as much if he had told you to be open minded about everything because he was himself, but clearly only his way is the true way. Also, I would SO have complained that my whole HISTORY of art was only on modern art. There’s so much more…
February 8th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
You know, I once saw a TV show involving an ‘artist’ who spattered multicolored paint on dead cars and then had them crushed, as a commentary on the modern disposable consumerism. That’s not “Art”, that’s a political statement, like the Truth commercials where they dumped a giant pile of body bags outside Marlboro Cigarettes HQ. I swear there are modern artists whose entire portfolio is a mockery of the art form, and they’re secretly laughing at people who draw meaning from the whimsical bullshit they sell as art.
Though it must be said, don’t knock hard drugs. Lewis Carrol was on something (opiates? Not LSD, I know), and his stuff was fantastic. I don’t get most of it personally, but it’s undeniably classic.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Wait, piles of junk and jars of piss are art?!? I got some of the former in the back of my closet and the latter…I can make that! I’m gonna be an artist!
For the record I am not in any way an artist, I’m acutally in the sciences. I do love to interpret art, but yeah, I don’t go around interpreting what my dog leaves behind.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Kind of disagree. It really sucks that your teacher was such a pretentious douche about it and kept putting down your artwork. His loss, because Sister Claire is pretty kickass. But it doesn’t mean that all highly abstract art is a personal insult. For me, modern art is definitely hit or miss, but I don’t think that just because an artwork is simple, calling it “art” is an insult to more technically proficient artists.
Consider: Embalming is a pretty amazing craft. Getting a shark to look powerful and alive while dead, like it’s a time-frozen aquarium piece, is pretty awesome. We can argue about the difference between what is Art and what is craftsmanship, but either way, I respect it. I don’t feel that this is some sort of pulled-from-my ass, bullshitty interpretation. I’m not an artist, I just think it looks cool. I have a lot of respect for anatomists, flower pressers, medical illustrators, taxidermists and morticians too, and if I didn’t have an appreciation for the slightly morbid, I don’t think I’d be reading Sister Claire.
I like simple art, too, like white paint on white canvas. It’s easy to execute, but I think it’s a performance art, rather than “fine art”. I saw a video where a man dropped a hundred dollars on a busy street, drew a small chalk circle around it on the asphalt, and walked away. For the rest of the day pedestrian traffic parted like water, like there was a mystical barrier around the unguarded money. Could “anyone” have scribbled chalk around a pile of money? Sure. But the art wasn’t the actual drawing, it was knowing how to evoke a certain reaction from the audience. In a similar way, I’d like to think the black squares “charcoal paintings” are kind of an obtuse practical joke. To thin out crowds, Barnum and Bailey once had a sign that said “This Way to Egress!!!” (the exit), insinuating, but never outright claiming, that the “incredible egress” was some sort of amazing exotic bird. I think that’s art too. I just wouldn’t want to be the person tricked.
To be honest, I don’t “get” most modern art. But I’m cool with that.
Still baffled by the moldy urine.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Most of this nonsensical modern “art” exists so pretentious douchebags like your teacher can look and say “I understand this, therefore I’m smarter than everybody else”. Anyone who doesn’t “get it” is a rube, a hick, someone to be looked down upon by the rest of their so-called “civilized” society. In reality they aren’t necessarily smarter than everyone else. They just like to think they are.
Oftentimes these are the same people who think THEY know best and THEY can tell other people what to do, how to think, etc. and in many extreme cases think guys like Saul Alinksy or Karl Marx had the right ideas–that people are basically all stupid and need to be instructed on everything.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I used to work at a publishing firm very close to the Tate Modern in London, so I got to drop in there a lot at lunchtimes. They have a big main atrium that they use for large scale art installations, some of which have been breaktakingly simple in their effectiveness. One was a huge crack in the floor that ran from one of the atrium to the other and was a couple of feet in deep in some places, enough to show the steel reinforcements of the concrete all twisted the sheared poking through, enough to warrant safety notices at all the entrances.
A couple of years ago they had a load of stacks of white boxes, about two stories tall in places, that you could walk around in. It gave the impression you were in some gigantic freezer – some looked like ice cubes, others were piled up in the corners and resembled the way fridges and freezers frost up. There were kids chasing around in it, people walking around suddenly felt cold and put hats and scarves back on (even though it was a comfortable 18 degrees C) and I thought it was great.
I went to see it again with a DeviantArt meet. Half the people who saw it thought “Meh, it’s just a pile of boxes, it’s cr*p” and walked away and the other half were amazed at what some piles of boxes could evoke in people’s minds when piled up in just the right way.
Then we went to see the rest of the museum. Funnily enough, the usual junk/human excretions/taxidermy/featureless canvas exhibits had the “meh, pile of boxes” crowd oohing and aahing about them all, while the rest of us quickly came to the concensus that these “progessive modern art” exhibits were basically rorschach tests for the imagination that these (stuck up?) people believed were cutting-edge art while ignoring anything that didn’t follow this perceptual form as dated rubbish that doesn’t make any statement.
“The emperor has no clothes” becomes “The exhibits have no self-merit”
February 8th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
i go to school in the city and i have had/am going to have to go to chelsea and the moma so many times….i dont really care what someone does for art. what bothers me is when the crap sells for millions of dollars and is basically a medium for the super rich to be richer. im sure for the most part, they dont even care that its pointless, completely innane or could have been done by and infant, they just wan to be able to put a price on it so that they dont have to be taxed on that that part of their wealth. its disgusting.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Personally, I’ve always been of the position that everything is art. However, I’ve never been terribly wild about most of the modern art that’s been coming out, and I hate that it’s bringing the other art students at my university at odds. Heck, a few years ago during my Aesthetics class, the modernistic art students decided to “declare war” (their terms) on the more traditional landscape and portrait art students. Somehow I get caught in the middle as the webcomic/graphic designer guy, and found the modern art students trying to convert me for their side. Of course, the second they found out my stance, I get ex-communicated by them and haven’t spoken to them since.
But I digress, and would just like to end with the fact that it’s your professor that’s not thinking. You can BS just as many interpretations on a impressionist landscape as you can with paint flung onto a dead cow.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
I’m gonna be in the minority and disagree here somewhat. A comment up above points out the difference to me between abstract art and commercial art/graphic design/comics (which I lump together in my mind).
Abstract art is about conveying ideas, sometimes not nice ones. The others I’ve lumped together are more straightforward and seem to be (to my mostly untrained eye) to be the next level of still life art – more akin to photographs than anything else. They hit different areas of the brain and stimulate people differently, is all.
Of course, it helps if you know what the artist is going for with his idea in the first place. Simply seeing it without knowing what they’re trying to convey doesn’t help at all, since everyone registers things differently and takes different ideas away when looking at the same object.
If it’s any consolation, though, your teacher WAS a dick and needed to be kicked in the junk repeatedly.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Right now, I am taking a Contemporary Art History class. A good majority of the “Art” I don’t think is or should be in a museum, let alone be covered in my Art History class. I guess the only real reason why I haven’t gone insane yet is because my Art History teacher is not from the generation where she believes that the only good art is Contemporary or Ready-Made or Abstract etc, because of that I can appreciate it for what the artist is trying to say with his art.
At the same time though, this class is giving me more reasons to make fun of this type of art. I cannot bring myself to ever make anything in response to the type of art, nor would I want to.
Taking this class has also given me more of a reason to dislike a majority of the artists from this era. Because of them, artists are not taken as serious as they used to before the second world war.
So maybe if your teacher wouldn’t have been so closed minded, then you might not have that much of a dislike for this type of art. But if i had to go to a museum for a class trip and pay a lot of money to see art I didn’t care for, then I would be really angry too.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
This is entirely based on your description, but here is my interpretation. What you have here is a bunch of lazy no-talents who seem to be more intent on proving Phineas Taylor Barnum right.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:41 am
I have to say that I disagree with you. I hold a belief that anything that has been touched by man is art… for example, a rock lying on the ground in the middle of nowhere is not art, but when a human takes that rock and puts it somewhere, it could be called art. Even though the art that you speak of (specifically the charcoal squares and the piss jars) is simple and even disgusting, it is still art. However, just because it is art does not mean that we have to like it.
I think that finding the deeper meaning of art that I appreciate is half the fun of the piece. It can be cool to stand and speculate about a piece. As an art student, I also find it frustrating that people can become popular or even famous artists by painting a canvas a solid color or collecting excrement in jars when I spend hours and hours working on one piece, but unfortunately you cannot control what the masses choose to like. I can understand why the jars of piss can become popular- its different, disgusting, and has a high level of shock value. Something that is controversial is sure to draw the people’s attention, no matter how much effort went into it.
I also think that you should keep context in mind. I grew up viewing absolutely stunning works of Medieval and Renaissance paintings, but I did not understand even half of what was going on in the paintings until I studied the context and the symbolism that was popular in the era that the piece that was created. Without this knowledge, the “Merode Tryptich” is just some pretty lady sitting at a table with an angel looking at her. You only get a whiff of what the painting is about. So, ff we apply knowledge about the cultural and historical significance of urine, you can find meaning to this rather unsanitary piece of art. For example, the jars of piss could be representative of Howard Hughes’s battle with agoraphobia (he is shown peeing in milk bottles in the movie The Aviator), or a commentary on the amount of waste we put into our bodies through chemically processed foods. The work can tell a story, we just need to apply our knowledge of current events and history to understand it.
There could also be a cultural misinterpretation. For example, Chris Ofili’s work, “The Holy Virgin Mary,” caused a huge stir in New York in 1999, because his piece showed Mary surrounded by pictures of genitalia and the piece rested on 2 blobs of elephant dung. Ofili was not trying to offend Christians with this painting. In Africa, the traditional representation of women in art and sculpture is to use representations of their fertility, and elephant dung is held sacred in Zimbabwe. By using these unusual elements in his painting, Ofili was translating a huge part of western culture in the context of Zimbabwean culture and art.
In conclusion, modern art is just as valid as any other art, but like any other art, one does not have to like it. However, there are many things that should be kept in mind while viewing it, such as historical and cultural context.
This went on much longer than I intended. Sorry….
February 9th, 2010 at 3:54 am
is seems rather hypocritical that a professor would demand that you open your mind to modern “piss art”, but keep his closed to comic art. that being said, is really pisses me off when some one can sell their piss for what i make in a year.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:58 am
I once had a talk with a prof of mine (I am a medical student – and he was the physics prof XD) about how the university’s colour-concept was “art”. The concept simple being that each floor has it’s own colour and the auditoriums each have their own colour too (doors, tables and seats all in that colour, the walls as well, to some extent). It kinda makes me angry because a preschooler could have done that. It’s the same with most of those scribbly paintings.
I don’t necessarily think that all abstract art is bad, some modern art is really kind of pleasing to the eye, but if I see that a red circle on green canvas is bringing in thousands of dollars to the “artist” I’m wondering what I’m doing wrong with my life that I’ve got to work at least 40h a week to make a living while I could be painting red circles. I don’t see any meaning in that. There could be instances in which simple geometrical forms in different colours still form a good composition, but usually that still involves thinking and some modern art doesn’t look like someone thought about it.
I’ve also seen modern art that I find kinda cute and funny though others might not (photos of the impressions different chairs leave on a naked butt, anyone?), but all in all I like more obvious art with subtle hints way better. All this potty humour taken to the extreme doesn’t get my mind stimulated, my brain isn’t working when I look at it. And I really hate to see that some of this is spreading to literature, too, already.
February 9th, 2010 at 4:13 am
Your story is one of the few examples of when I’m glad I took art classes in a fairly small and conservative college in Arkansas. As far as I knew none of the teachers put much stock in Modern Art. At least not to the extreme that a jar of piss is art. The downside was the program was fairly limited and there wasn’t much variation that could be had in what was offered.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I like your two cents, Yamino! That’s how I feel about art, too!
February 9th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
I went to an art school, saw just the kind of things you’re talking about and came to a conclusion:
The purest form of art is the art of the bullsh*t.
If you could give an esoteric explanation, or some deep emotional appeal, there would be SOMEONE who bought it.
I exploited this by doing an n-body simulation of a galaxy for my senior project.
A little coding, a few days of calculating, plug the data into a renderer, spend the next 3 weeks coming up with an explanation re-describing gravity as “subtle shades of connectedness”.
Funniest A ever.
February 11th, 2010 at 12:12 am
hey you..
so i think we’ve already chatted on this topic before, but yeah i half agree. i think that its been summed up a few times in here with the other people who said the same thing that the teacher was really one of the biggest outlying issues, and not in every situation, the art.
but to say more, i think your comment on the drug abuse and shock and awe techniques in the modern art community are really making a bad name for the rest of us. n ot per se that i discourage drug usage for art, but abuse is the problem, especially when you find yourself collecting pee for lofty reasons,.
so i can’t be all the way taken out of disagreeing with you for some certain reasons., one of those reasons is that i make modern art. and youve seen some of it. the difference between my sometimes non objective and metaphorical paintings on found materials and someone else’s unpainted found materials is really the question at hand. i piss on most philosophy buffs, but i do have to side with them on art being a real bitch to hammer into a real definition.
my only thing to finish with. frank gehry said. sometimes a line is just a line, people cant always hammer dead meaning to a dead shark iin gel. but that doesn’t make it less awesome for the geeks in the audience.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
I wholeheartedly agree Yamino
February 12th, 2010 at 3:32 am
I’ve heard a tale of, I believe, Stephen King… or at least of someone associated with dark and mysterious novels. Apparently he was a guest speaker at some kind of writing class, and read a poem or short story to the class. One of the students attempted to “interpret the imagery” of the story in a dark and mysterious way. His response was to the effect of, “What are you babbling about? I was in a mood and went for a walk. I saw this and that, and I felt better.”
I agree with you on most of this. And the bias extends to motion pictures as well. From Hollywood’s point of view, “cartoons” are for kids, even though many of them contain as much violence as the Normandy invasion, minus the blood and the fatalities. The Japanese of course have no such hang-ups, as exhibited by anything from “Bleach” to “Witchblade” to “Bible Black”. And yet…
It bothers me that “Invasion America” (1998) did well enough as a prime-time summer series to warrant its continued airing (or rather, re-airing) in the fall, but poorly enough as a Saturday morning cartoon that the WB network cut it without finishing the run, and never ordered a second season of it. (Nor was it released on video; in fact there is no mention of it on the Dreamworks website *anywhere*.)
It bothers me that a rather boring (and subtitled) French movie about a woman who gets involved with a man who’s old enough to be her father (except that her father is old enough to be *his* father) gets 4 stars out of four from a local (New York City area) paper’s movie reviewer, while an action-adventure or comedy which did amazingly well in the box office and eventually got a sequel or two, was panned by the critics.
It bothers me that someone I had as a housemate complained while watching the Oscars one year that he didn’t think animated films should be eligible for Academy Awards, because in his not-so-humble opinion, voice actors don’t really act.
As for “modern art”, the psychodelic culture and “starving artist” lifestyle is considered hip and mod, and unfortunately that goes back well over a hundred years. It’s way beyond time they got over it, but unfortunately, the arteeeeeeesteses are stuck there, and the “hip and mod” keep oohing and aahing over the same drug-addled wasting-away that plagued the rock-and-roll scene in the 1960’s. They’re not oohing and aahing over the music, either; they’re doing it over the wasting-away part. Because it’s better to be getting eaten alive by drugs and sickness and starvation than it is to have a single molecule of lipid left in your system to insulate against cold weather or neural short-circuiting. It’s a crying shame that those with patronage money to spend find the same things awe-inspiring while allegedly stone-cold sober that people once only found amusing while they were stoned on pot or tripping on PCP.
And many of the ones who aren’t stuck in that particular acid trip seem to have a tendency to knock the things that popular culture finds entertaining, because it’s too “low brow”. How they manage to avoid tripping over cracks in the sidewalk because with their noses so high in the air that they can’t see what they’re stepping in, is beyond my ability to comprehend.
As for your ex-professor…
Ask him some time if he finds the same enjoyment in listening to sportscasters recite a running commentary of a game of chinese checkers in AES128-encrypted Swahili. If he says anything other than “Yes”, he’s a hippo crate (whose actual contents I will leave to speculation). And I’m sorry you had to suffer through his more-on-ick attitude.
Better yet, send him a copy of “Atlanta Nights” by Travis Tea (http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/atlanta-nights/117402). I’m sure he’ll love it. And you’ll enjoy laughing at him as he sings the praises of a book which was intentionally written as badly as possible, by a collection of science-fiction-and-fantasy authors (and one computer program) as a plot to avenge the defamation of their genre by a vanity press that *still* claims not to be one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Nights) Proceeds benefit the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) Emergency Medical Fund.
For those of you who are still suffering through this, may I suggest considering a *slight* change of major? The arteeesteses may consider Graphic Design to be “selling out”, but its got a lot of the same skills involved, it’s commercially viable so you don’t have to choose between living in your parents’ basement and starving to death on the streets (no offense intended to those folks who still live in their parents’ basements, provided you’re not deliberately sabotaging your potential ability to move out), and you still get to make a career of producing pretty and interesting pictures. (Speaking as someone who once considered majoring in advertising, because I used to design and lay out ads at my high school paper.)
Would this be a good time to point out that the branch of the computer industry which is currently pushing the hardware performance envelope the hardest is… video games?
Or that there’s a strong corellation between music and math?
Anyone see the “Pinky and the Brain” episode entitled “Pinkasso”?
BTW, Fresnel, Charles Dodgeson wasn’t high on anything but advanced mathematics and the (strictly platonic) company of a few delightful young ladies-in-the-making, with whose entertainment he was periodically made responsible.
Theo, do you still have the source code for the program you used to put that galaxy together?
February 12th, 2010 at 7:39 am
I am unable to comment on your rant on modern art because I do not believe I have the correct mind set to be able to fully analyze and evaluate art of any kind. Although I will say this, I laughed uncontrollably for probably 5 minutes when I saw how the Sniper’s Jarate picture was related to your rant.
February 14th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Art is 100% interpretation and subjective. Every person looks at something and ultimately gets something different. Your description of your instructor’s reaction reminds me of what my dad likes to do. To him, his opinion is proven scientific fact and God himself would get an arguement from him about anything. I simply tell him that if he’s not willing to listen to me, then I’m not willing to listen to him.
Why are you still taking classes anyway? Clearly this (cough) ‘instructor’ (cough) isn’t adding anything to your artistic pallet (pun intended…maybe…lol).
On a note about the picture, at least the Sniper’s Jarate has some practical purpose.
AND…horray for really long responses! WHOOOO!!!
February 16th, 2010 at 4:36 am
I totally agree that moldy piss in a jar is – not worthy of being called “art” and put in a museum, to put it mildly. I also think that your professor should go and eat his hats, boots, and anything else that is moldy and leathery for the remainder of his life, because if he doesn’t teach his students about ALL the forms of art, with as little bias as possible (because asking for no bias would be too much), then he isn’t a good professor.
The fact that he [publicly] ridiculed your personal art preferences was also exceedingly un-professional of him, which is another reason he should be fired. The fact that he actually prefers moldy piss in a jar to [your] colorful, interesting, MEANINGFUL artwork is just – insane!
I mean, I’d pick the latter in less than a tenth of a heartbeat if it came down to what I’d rather look at/learn about/study/admire/etc. etc. etc. And to add on to that, how much work, time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears does it take to piss into a jar, close it up, and label it “THIS IS ART” – in comparison to how much work, time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears it takes to draw one PAGE – one PANEL! – of a webcomic like yours? There IS no comparison.
I’d rather learn about your art, from you, and ponder about any foreshadowing or hidden meaning or whatnot than even consider peeking at some idiot’s piss in a jar. The audacity of some people… and what they call art… ugh.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
I just graduated school with the major of art education – considered the lowliest of all the art majors since we are not actually “artists”. And it is painful to be excluded from the various cliques and to be assumed untalented. I was temporarily a graphic design major for that very reason – I had been persuaded I would no longer be an artist if I became a teacher. I dropped the double major when the graphic design student advisor told me that double majors in art education were never successful in the graphic design courses {aka she didn’t want me in the program}.
My courses in art education changed my perspective of all art. I know when I was in high school I was repulsed by most postmodern art and I felt that modern art was child-like. But since that time I have grown to appreciate the simplicity of modern art that the outrageousness of postmodern art. Ive had experiences with some artwork that simply could not have occurred if the work was visually attractive. Funnily enough, my favorite postmodern artist is actually Damien Hirst (the shark guy). I think if you look up more of his work online you will find something you like. I personally love the shark and am very jealous you got to see it, but perhaps you would prefer some of his paintings or his butterfly works.
I think the real problem of modern/postmodern art is its accessibility. Today it is taught in a way as if these artists are “geniuses” and better than other art forms. This makes many people who do not like, or who do not spend enough time with a work to feel as if they don’t “get it”. And oftentimes many people become suspicious of these works – wondering if they were made simply to make fun of them as a viewer (which, honestly, some of them are).
Teachers need to be more honest about modern and postmodern art when they bring it up. It’s not always good. It’s rarely genius. It’s not always meant to be enjoyed. I don’t think it is effective to look at a series of modern works, say a line or two about them and move on. These works more than any other need to be talked about. The discussion elicited from them is the real art – not the rotting cow and growing maggots.
As an artist I prefer less traditional artworks because they can always surprise me. When I look at a beautiful painting, I am not always affected by it because I am too busy looking at the workmanship and thinking “I could do that”. “Oh, that’s how he did that? I’ll try that out sometime.”
Looking at work I would NEVER create myself is liberating. I can simply enjoy it or hate it or both.
I think you need to talk about a work you hate with someone who is completely awestruck by it and spend a good half hour discussing it. Neither of you are allowed to attack the other person in any way – just the art. Those conversations always turn out to be good. You might even like the artwork in the end.
February 28th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
I think that the value of modern art varies with the definition of art itself. I personally think art is not about skill, or beauty, or about some BS meaning that pretentious art snobs come up with and refuse to share with the rest of us. I think art is about feeling. When you look at a piece of art you FEEL something. It mightn’t be a good feeling, but it’s there, and you have to interpret what about it makes you feel that way, what combination of personality and experiences makes you react either positively or negatively. And good art is simply art that speaks to something universal in everyone. Art for me is a gateway for learning about myself- why I react to things the way I do, and how that is similar or different from others. So maybe with that definition jars of pee does have some artistic value? it certainly provokes discussion and thought, and folks would definately have strong feelings about it (although that’s just me playing devil’s advocate, I sure wouldn’t want to be trapped in that room with that pee!). But if you define are as telling a story, or evoking beauty, or having to be technically difficult to create etc you would be seeing things from a different point of view. Your teacher was not very good at his job if he didn’t realize there are different interpretations of art, and he’s a jerk for fighting with you rather than explaining why he liked things so much so you could see things from his point of view. and he’s a small-minded douchbag for talking trash about comics when he obviously hasn’t seen one since he was a kid.
February 28th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Only slightly related to this conversation, but too fabulous not to mention:
all Vincent Van Gogh’s letters to his brother are at the link below. They contain a lot of sketches for what would later become his most famous paintings and a lot of his thoughts on art.
http://www.vangoghletters.org/vg/letters.html
“The feeling for and love of nature always strike a chord sooner or later with people who take an interest in art. The duty of the painter is to study nature in depth and to use all his intelligence, to put his feelings into his work so that it becomes comprehensible to others.
But working with an eye to saleability isn’t exactly the right way in my view, but rather is cheating art lovers. The true artists didn’t do that; the sympathy they received sooner or later came because of their sincerity. I know no more than that, and don’t believe I need to know any more.”
{Vincent Van Gogh b. 1853 d. 29 July 1890} [252]