+SystemEquation aye the problem is that the price label of a realization is being placed here and a justification for calling it art... a dumpster of life is art ... whats wrong is whats right ... total confusion... the willingness to consider the absurd to discover something profound. sucks as an inspiration though .
+SystemEquation This is absurd, it's like saying, why the general public don't understand quantum physic, well do you bother reading about it, did you do some studies in quantum physic, do at least read some paper on the latest issues in the field, do scientists who work on research and are trying to find different kind of things to explain or put our world in perspective, needs to justify themselves ? no . What happened, just like for art or philosophy is that art broke free of slavery, or making art for the elite , for monarchy, and the church and actually pushed the limits and questionings of feeling itself , esthetic and or point of views / reflexion on different aspects of our society. are there artists that don't really care about that yes, are there that do, yes, are there that are playing by the rule of a new elite, the art market, and the market itself who's pushing art to be more and more conservative, yes, and how many people bother to think or understand what they see ? well guess what, artists made studies, for at least 5 years in most cases, and most of the time didn' t got any attention (and financial support) before a decade of work (thats how dedicated some are). the fact that everyone don't understand art, or a book on the latest sociology/ philosophy/ quantum issue is an educational issue, what tools society really gives us to think and how we use them if we use them at all.. people who do the work, artist, scientist, or others in other fields aren't to blame for that. It's hard enough to just keep working and pushing further. just think about it. and think if the entire society was always blaming you, for the work you do, especially when most of the time you had to sacrifice a lot just to do things. And if you knew anything about art, you'd knew that modern art (which stops in the mid 50's), contemporary art begins after.
+s3lfFish Couldnt agree more. The general public´s sensibility about art is still heavily rooted in Romanticism and the notion of taste. Surely, if they dont LIKE what they SEE, then it cant be art.
+Ian Albert Exactly. Contemporary nonrepresentational art and installations require a lengthy manifesto to justify their existence. One can't listen to them; they don't say anything. But the artist is a blabbermouth who has a large manifesto that explains the pieces in words that fail to attach to the pieces themselves. The manifestos explaining any piece of contemporary nonrepresentational art could actually be stand-alone speeches declaring the artist's unbidden opinions on matters unimportant to anyone but the speaker.
+Enzo Compañ Badillo Yes, because math and science are objective. You can't spend 10 minutes talking about a scientist's life and influences, then declare that their incorrect formula is now correct because it's saying something important. Art is about opinions and science is about facts.
No. "Contemptuary"Art is not a spoiled child seeking attention. It's a spoiled Artist seeking attention. The examples used are not indicative of good Conceptual Art, but rather examples of Art as Celebrity. P.S.,... Contemtuary Art is elitest. It takes pride in it's alienation. I'm not offended easily especially by Art, however when it is given monetary value, that's what is offensive.
art has always been elitist imo (for the exception of pre-historic arts) but yes, 'high' modern & contemporary art have taken it to a whole new level. created untouchable market leading to unfathomable prices and is just overall a very alienating phenomenon from a sociocultural perspective despite the artists' best intentions for inclusivity. these current high arts are way detached & inaccessible that the more common arts in our popular culture seem much more genuine and grounded in comparison.
There is much good in here, and I am a fan of contemporary art broadly speaking. But, two points. 1) The message is a bit patronizing: if you would only listen, you would see the value. Can you modify that message so that those speaking against a work have the potential to be "right" in what they are saying? For 2) How do you distinguish a good piece of contemporary art from a poor one? If contemporary art has the potential to be bad, then those speaking against the work have the potential to be right.
Matt Rouge There is no bad Art you seek the right answers to the wrong questions - Art is journalism - the collective movement speaks of the shallowness of today's world - sterile world - the value placed on the collective movement - is the value of the Money Punk - Now, balance of infrastructure of composition of color - form - juxtaposition - can only be understood by those who speak, write and understand the langue of "Art" - the Artist - to include the "critic" who actually understands the Art movement - Picasso (paraphrasing) - "If I give you a book in English and you do not speak or write English does not mean the book is not filled with wisdom and value - In my opinion one should look at an Artists collective body of work, not just one piece of work to gain some insight - To some it up Andy Warhol said, "I am deeply superficial" (like the painted faces & the cans of soup with marketing labels - ROLEX tick tock ) Would it not be fare for you to say, "I don't understand this modern "Art" and I don't care for it". That we can all except and respect.
I want to assemble all the "modern" artists in one room and tell them: "postmodernism was fun we had a good 60 years but it smells. Let's move on." I am actually burning to see a new movement arise like it did with Pop or abstract expressionism. I have not the slightest clue in what direction it will go. Probably a counter culture of traditional high-skilled craftsmanship with a fresh twist.
it's already going in that direction fortunately! hence the popularity of figurative art and the plein air landscape movement, or the visionary artists who have gained popularity recently. we long for tradition once more!
The title is "What's wrong with contemporary art?" but then she spends most of her talk criticizing the viewer and the culture for not "listening" to art. She should then call it, "What's wrong with contemporary culture?"
no. she basically characterized the art being discussed as art that is 'misbehaving' or 'being bad'... but gives the twist that art which breaks all our expectations of art may actually have a surprise attached... serving a higher purpose in the art put forth than just a quick second long visual experience... creating an interaction instead... or leading us to see ourselves in action... i disagree with this... you are missing the 'twist'' that ties the title and talk
When I listen to Mozart, I don't need to know the meaning. I like it because its beautiful.The piece is worth studying for people concerned with the subject i.e. music,but even people who don't know what a chord is will appreciate the music. That's art
Art is so the way it is so ordinary people feel they are capable of doing it themselves saying "I could become an artist too!, This is so easy!" and their self esteem is lifted.
yes Dani every time I try and pluck a violin I feel I am In heaven. Until I see a real Violinist in a concert and I feel like shit.. Same goes for wanna be artists who want to Rembrandt's and come down to earth when they see the real stuff I
Most of the main Art schools here in the US should be called self defense academies, they teach you how to defend garbage and argue validity into it. Good artistic skill never needs its' author defending it.
Just because something can spur philosophical thoughts doesn't mean that it is art. A tree can lead to philosophical thoughts about one's place in the world, or where one's strength comes from. However I wouldn't call a tree art. A tree is a blank canvas to place thoughts upon. I won't attempt to define art. However contemporary "art" is not art.
so what if art is defined as something that can spur philosophical thoughts? then would you call a tree art? but of course you don't agree with that definition because you don't even know the definition of art. As you said you wont attempt to define art, and then goes on to say what 's not art. The real problem you have is with art in general, not just contemporary art. because according different definitions that you and everyone would define art, contemporary art would qualify.
I know how to listen, that's not the problem. When galleries go through great lengths to promote works that have no merit whatsoever, that's what's wrong. Art isn't valuable as children expressing their whatever, if the expression doesn't have artistic merit it's called trash. Yes, everything means something to someone, congratulations art world you've discovered what we all knew at age 2. I can handcuff a dead rat to a manhole cover and call it "Urban Development" and that will mean something to someone but most people will call it crap, because it is. The moment you put a $3 million price tag on it, dedicate a room in your gallery, and give me prizes for it that's just lying to people saying their tastes don't matter and rightly people are going to be a little insulted that you think they're stupid for trying to trick them into appreciating crap with accolades. She threw eggs because she disagrees with the philosophy that it's OK to lie to people saying "blinking lights" is worth some sort of art prize. Egging the blinking light room did absolutely nothing to reduce the worth of the art, because there wasn't any to begin with, so her philosophy was proven victorious and you art nuts just completely missed it and thought it was envy.
Allen Williamson Not at all. Art galleries have that role because they link the work of their chosen artists to a larger audience; they are the arbiters of merit and they don't choose at random or by popular vote so they are 100% culpable for the decisions they make. I'm saying they're doing a horrible job making these judgments and I believe the weight of evidence supports my opinion. You can eat whatever they feed you if you want, I'm not preventing anyone, but I intend to think for myself and provide an opposing voice when it appears necessary. I think an art culture that glorifies insulting its audience is in danger of self-destruction and needs truth and honesty more than anything.
The Art mafia controls their worthless asset.The masses treat it as a novelty and not "real art" They are simply trying to create a false market on a worthless product. They can,t afford the good stuff.It takes too much skill and effort and is expensive to produce. In a throw a way economy it serves their purpose in feeding the Art economy with Art materials ,Students to Cheap Art Institutions for students not prepared to spend the time and effort to learn all the Art making skills. Better to feed these institutions with as many students they can con and promote the odd one with multimillion dollar rewards so that people can see how easy it is to become a famous artist. Everyone thinks they can do as well as some of the mediocrity so they pay heaps to join the list of wanna be famous artists on low ability and studentship
My general rule of thumb is: If the viewer has to spend more time to research and interpret the work than the artist spent on making it, it probably doesn't belong in a museum.
If you validate and explore the light bulb, aren't you obliged to validate and explore the egg being thrown at it? Both are forms of expression. And isn't the egg more visceral and honest than the intellectual dance routine that created the bulb? I have to say that I really don't care for the bulb, but I do like the egg.
I thought exactly that when she told that story but this woman is a fairly lightweight and institutionalised curator who is not engaged at that level. In fact there is a great history of art physically attacked for various reasons and these acts make interesting history in themselves; from the suffragette attack on "Venus at her Mirror" by Velazquez to a student throwing up on a Mondrian www.nytimes.com/1996/12/04/nyregion/student-says-vomiting-on-painting-was-an-artistic-act.html . The attack on Creed would have flattered him. Though he is an interesting prankster he is not so much a contentious figure as the others. The egg was a response to the lack rather than the content.
In all honesty contemporary art seems like an abuse of the relationship between the viewer and the piece. Contemporary art is basically saying hey I'm going to use minimalist skills in this work and you, the viewer, should rack your brain over some message or idea that I am trying to convey that does not actually exist. You should also pay me hundreds of thousands for causing you to look introspectively at yourself. Total scam
I only like contemporary art when the artist actually puts effort to it and have meaning to it. But now I only look at TH-cam artists because they seem to have talent than art that just have random dots on it.
actually... i would say a more accurate summary of what is being done is that boundaries of art are being pushed, and questioned, and tested, and challenged, and tried... It was a breaking out of a rut of tradition of what art 'must' be. In the process, it has led to art that gives you a shove regarding what it is about, rather than the nice picture or product from the traditions of art of the past... What do you paint when you don't feel like a bowl of fruit... or feel that the world needs another painting of a realistic bowl of fruit... and have heard the history of artists who challenged the system? The challenges started with wild color, for example... but then challenging 'what art is' took on a life of its own... where philosophical questioning often became more important than the 'product' for those in the art conversation. It is a whole set of factors that led to this point in art.
I mean all arts a scam, it’s all just manipulated material, Rembrandts are a scam, they all are, it’s all just the value we ascribe to them. That’s always been kinda funny, how people think they’re supposed to arrive at some moment of meaning or idea of in front of Art, it will fail you most of the time there, what is fun though is to look and think about stuff. Contemporary art has many faces, it is all types of thing, not just minimalist, which is cool, lots of access points for everyone.
I feel like if at any point a person stands in front of your work and they get nothing from it you've failed. The personal connection is found through the on sight resonance. I shouldn't have to go and make a connection first to appreciate it. If you see it and feel nothing it failed bottom line. You shouldn't look at work and feel like you're being ripped off because the artist didn't feel like making their work speak. What she calls listening I call grabbing for what isn't there.
The issue is that you're assuming art is made for all audiences and all audiences are equal judges of art. Whether you like something or not is a subjective and personal opinion. However, being able to "appreciate" something requires oftentimes more than just a pure visceral reaction to a piece and needs history, knowledge, and background. This is true for all art from visual arts to architecture to music to poetry to novels and films... An uneducated mine worker may see a piece of art and be moved by it without knowing why, and that's great. That same uneducated mine worker may see a masterpiece and feel nothing (whether because it didn't personally connect with him or he simply doesn't understand the history and context, the background, the artist's intentions, etc.). That is not a useful metric to judge whether art is good or not, or whether that piece of art is successful or not.
ravel111 I get what you're saying and to a degree I agree however I think there are pieces that upon sight can be appreciated this appreciation can become greater after having context but context wasn't needed in the beginning Guernica was like that for me... Perhaps I wasn't very clear because I wrote really comparing the feeling of being ripped off by art vs appreciating it without any middle ground context but what I meant in the latter portion is more of the artist giving you something within the art piece I believe that one should be able to leave with something more than questions, and confusion for example a sense of having seen great line work, great colors pallets etc. and if a person doesn't get that but instead leaves feeling ripped off the art has failed that person idk about you but I certainly would feel this way if someone's emotion reaction to me piece was nothing more but the feeling of being ripped off
Damien Hurst's "Dead flies" exhibit (not sure what the actual title is) at first I thought was stupid. A bunch of flies getting zapped. But then watch his documentary and listen to what it shows: life and death in an art gallery, right in front of your eyes your watching life and death. That's something to think about...how we allow watching flies die in public but would be appauled at almost any other species.
So Joe Schmo hangs a bug zapper in his backyard and he is now a great artist because he contemplates the dying flies as he sips his beer. I don't think so. It takes no talent whatsoever to hang a bug zapper. Perhaps if Hurst had painted a picture of the bug zapper and the dead flies one might consider it art.
I think you're giving the "idea of art" too much credit. It's not some holy grail...it's the effect it causes. So Joe Schmo hangs a bug zapper and contemplates the dying flies...great! But many people don't...and that's what art brings to them...when they see it in an art exhibit, they see the act highlighted...it makes them consider the ordinary extraordinary...that's the function of art. And your idea of "painting it" is how we used to view art...art changes and doesn't need to be limited to a reel of canvas anymore...(this is coming from a guy who regularly paints also...I don't think our modern perspective is limited to only traditional ways of expression.)
since Duchamp, nothing really new has been done. When Duchap started with his ready made, it was a revolutionary idea. it made people reflex on what is art or not. Now, galleries don't want us to question anything, they want us to assume that if it's in the gallery, it's ¨art¨ and whatever the price they put on it is fair. it's mostly a money laundry scheme. There's some genuine good contemporary art, but it's rare to find it
Jane Deerth's condescension towards the "intolerant parents" who don't know rubbish from art is infuriating, but her comparison of Contemporary Artists to misbehaving children is spot on. However, what she fails to ask is: What do we need Contemporary Artists for, when the world is already full of misbehaving children?
Sure you can! You don't think there is an art to being lazy and getting away with it? Its the ones that can pull it off are the masters. BTW, A famous CEO actually admitted that he prefers to hire lazy people, they're the ones that get the work done smarter instead of harder.
If the visual aspect of the work is a far second in importance to the philosophical aspect, then the artist has chosen the wrong form of expression. The artist should be writing an essay or book to explain the idea. An artist can hide his/her poorly researched and understood ideas in the form of contemporary art.
I disagree with what this woman says, that the onus is on the viewer to find interest in the work as opposed to the artist presenting his idea in an interesting and engaging way to the viewer. To say that making unintelligible visual works is what's "right" about contemporary art is an exercise in double speak. That is what's wrong with contemporary art: only the people who have drunk the kool-aid "get it", where as the majority of us are left scratching their heads.
There are a lot of people who don't know the difference between 'Contemporary' and 'Conceptual', and Jane Deeth is obviously one of those who display no understanding of her own misunderstanding!
Maybe this woman should start listening to others. She demands that her perspective be understood while at once denying the perspectives of others. She demands that her definition of art be accepted, while denying the definitions of others. Like all intellectuals who subscribe to a discourse, she is condescending as fuck by branding people incapable of understanding her discourse rather than seeing them as having a merited, negative, understanding of her discourse.
Patrick J. Szucs Jr. put a candle on an elephants shit and anyone who see it will say "what the fuck is this shit ?" and walk away...no inspirational no nothing, they will just walk away . Basically people on the whole don't like shitty things, and modern art is so shit people are bemused why it is even called art.
Very well put. This applies to argument and difference in general; the same tactic is used with politics, religion, philosophy, economics, and any kind of art.
This was definitely what I was looking for, someone explaining how to look at and interpret contemporary art, I was beginning to give up on trying to understand it.
This is, quite simply, the worst TED talk I've ever seen. Her main point--that we need to listen to the artwork--could equally be applied to the sidewalk or to a dumpster behind Denny's. How does it in any way validate the crappy works of art she speaks of? A mind-numbingly bad speech by someone too self-satisfied to notice that the emperor has no clothes.
What you seem to be overlooking is the context of the work. Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive... at the time his work was seen as crappy. Even though it fitted the accepted norms of mediums, canvas and paint, it did not fit the accepted approach or finish. Like the expressionists they twisted the meaning and approach of art. Now in context we see and read these works quite differently because our culture has moved on collectively. Van Gogh did not actually need validation at the time he lived, his works exist as masterpieces regardless, though obviously need to be or have been "listened to" have become so loved by so many. Duchamp started the readymade and as he suggested he did not want to do what others had done by simply creating retinal or visual gratification art. Why paint a painting like Raphael? It has already been done... The question is what is our society about now? What is there to learn from it? Must we only represent it in a traditional artistic sense? These "crappy" works you refer to had/have a point in context to the conversation in art and culture, as such they may be very much the opposite of "crappy". Art if you want to define it as such may well be in a sense "crappy"... kind of like our contemporary culture. So why are you surprised? Though in reality the concept of exhibiting ones own bed is a as wonderful as any art that has ever been made. Just simply stop and consider what it would be to put your own bed in a gallery space. What meaning would that have for you? Would you be happy for people to see your dirty sheets? Embarrassed by the used tissues on the floor? There is a power in such a work, maybe even far greater than that of the Mona Lisa.
Why is there ALWAYS a group of people that feel that certain art is not art? Art just does not consist of nude models, religious imagery or landscapes, if certain art is not to your taste, then move along and look for what you like.
yeah I really don't understand it. Like art always tries to follow a specific movement and obsessed with 'the next thing'. However, books ,movies and music have so many genres. I am really hoping that in the future people can relax and realize that there can be different genres.
So can anything be art? Dog shit, trash, even pictures of people's anuses? (yes that has happened). The problem with the word "art" is that anything can be art. When anything can be, nothing is really art.
Kool Kat That's not up to me to decide, that's up to the public to decide, because if someone was able to stuff feces inside a can, call it art and sell it, well don't blame the artists, blame whoever buys that shit. (no pun intended)
gp5 don,t really think anyone likes this type of Art. They go to see it out of curiosity and walk out convinced all art is garbage. Why go to university or art school to really learn nothing but come up with some stupid ideas no one is interested in. We have been going through a sad faze in art history. If you don,t like these beautiful images go to a junk yard and try to make some art sense of what you see. Its cheaper than going to the Lourve
ancient artist Right, but what I'm referring to is certain art, lets say Basquiat, a lot of people don't consider his material art, he never went to an art school or had any formal education in art yet he's considered one of the best artist by many. I'm not talking about the pretentious material that certain people want to pass off as art.
The gist of Ms. Deeth's argument is that the viewer of what she calls "art" has the responsibility of examining himself or herself and adapting his or her views to the artist's view or philosophy-- at least to some degree. The responsibility of the artist to the viewer is not mentioned. Thus the following question comes to mind. Why is there ALWAYS a group of people that go out of their way to offend others and then label them as Philistines for being offended? The problem with the offenders is that they do not want us to "move along". They want to rub their misbehavior on our faces. We can avoid the unmade bed, the on-and-off light switch and the shark in formaldehyde and ignore their pointlessness, but that does not satisfy some contemporary "artists". They hurl public insults and they play coy about their motives. They pretend to have high brow intentions while deliberately insulting our tastes and values. We'd like to move on to worthwhile things-- but the high brow vulgarians don't want to let us do so.
Art is only well known because of the value collectors and museums give it. People with money give it value. Its politics plain and simple, money buys exposure. Once again its billionaires who tell us who to give our attention to. If that one person didn't buy the giant shiny balloon animal for 55 million NOBODY would care. But because a single piece sold for a ridiculous sum because ONE person with money liked it, we're given the impression that there's merit to the art. Nobody gives value to art but YOU. All the crap you see in museums really is just that, its garbage...But at least one person happened to like it.
+SilentMott If the garbage makes people think about their life and give them some sort of feeling, then isn't the garbage at least kind of useful in a way? I agree that it shouldn't be nearly as valuable as it is, but it's not complete garbage in my opinion.
Artie Fishel But why is it "art" when its expensive? Why isn't it just meaningful garbage? I just think that art has lost any meaningful display of thought AND skill. Its just any boob who lost a family member and has a set of crayolas in the drawer. Actually here's the BIG picture, when you've created something that anybody can find ANY kind of meaning in, haven't you completely failed in communicating what you wanted to communicate? Isn't art created to mean someTHING instead of "whatever you get out of it". If you think hard enough about anything, you can get some kind of meaning out of it, but when a billionaire pays money for it, all of a sudden we should ALL pay attention to the big black stripe on a white canvas. I call bullshit.
Yea that's true. I think art should be about both skill and meaning. Every single human on this earth can portray meaning, but only talented ones can do it in skillful ways. Contemporary art is my least favorite type of art but I still think it should be considered art to some degree.
The problem is that people want art so much to correspond to their personal expectations about what art should be. The problem is that people expect art to be something they should understand, sometimes with a minimum effort. The problem is that people confuse understanding with liking.
What happened to 'a picture paints a thousand words'? With modern art, a thousand words seems to be required to paint a picture. Art should stand on it's own merit- it shouldn't need an essay to convince us that it is art.
The best bit in this whole video (for me) was near the end when she touches on the idea that contemporary works of art demand more from us than, say for instance, the classical works of the "old masters". They demand more from us in that they ask us to really engage with the work of art, and they have the potential to speak to each person on a level that's intimate and unique to that viewer. The work asks each of us to explore issues and ideas about ourselves; how, what, and why we value what we do. This is something the works of the "old masters" simply don't do. When I look at the Mona Lisa, yes, i, as someone with a fair amount of fine art education in my background, may be able to get more out of it than say, your average viewer with no real art historical knowledge, etc. But the difference between what i can get out of it compared to the average, "uneducated" viewer, is really not that great, compared to the difference between us when we engage with one of these more contemporary works of art. In other words, contemporary art has the great advantage of being able to put everyone on the same level in this sense, where my knowledge and background in the fine arts is not terribly important anymore. What matters is my own personal experiences, my emotional, conceptual, and psychological context. In this sense, we all are on a level playing field with modern art because we all have emotional, conceptual, and psychological nature that we bring with us, and no one person has an advantage in this respect. And what modern art really demands of us is that we engage with that context; our own personal natures as individuals (as well as members of communities, families, etc.). The Mona Lisa doesn't demand this of us; it merely requires our ability to appreciate "realistically" rendered images, which practically speaking, anyone can do. Not sure if i'm expressing myself as precisely as i'd like about this, but i hope people understand the idea i'm trying to point at here.
I completely agree. I think that some contemporary art also faces another challenge in addition to the shift in the mindset, namely, the vulgarity of it. For example, when we are exposed to the unmade bed, it invokes some distastefulness within us, perhaps because it shows ordinary aspects of life-that we normally try to hide-displayed on a pedestal. Most people are afraid to think about it in depth, perhaps in fear of the truth, and the inevitable fact that once they see the light, they must change their lives.
Jeff C I think you may be overestimating the critics here. Most critics (i.e. laypeople) i talk to seem to just dismiss it out of hand, as opposed to actually absorbing the work, reacting with fear (of what it might mean) and THEN finally rejecting it. Rather, i don't think most people even take long enough to engage with the work to get afraid or have any kind of reaction except "Well, I could do THAT". I think people still look at art as a very narrow type of "skill" instead of a, as Jane puts it, philosophical invitation. Art has gotten much more philosophical, and most people, by and large (at least in my experience) are just not philosophically inclined, or have an outright dislike for it. Most people seem to regard philosophy as a waste of time, mental masturbation, cheap tricks, etc. So perhaps people's distaste for modern art is fundamentally explained by the fact that modern art is highly philosophical, and what people really detest is philosophy.
Wittgensteinism I think maybe you are overestimating people's ability to recognize philosophy (haha being slightly facetious here). In my opinion, people often say that there is no meaning/no philosophy in a pile of trash or something because they do not recognize it. They might be able to recognize philosophy in Magritte's work, but not in Hirst's (or whoever else is good I dunno). The thought pathway in my first comment is something I think is unknown to most people, but at the same time, still done by them. We might not know the mechanisms of how we breathe, yet we all know how to do it. This is only my opinion though, which pertains to larger questions about nature. And also, there are plenty of people that react in the way you said, or the way I said, or entirely differently, so I'm incorrectly generalizing the population into one mindset. I'm sure there are philosophers who hate contemporary art too who have another justification for their dislike.
All those things you mention, modern art does not even do either! They leave you with emptiness, they do nothing at all. Some people might make you believe contemporary art does ask you questions and confronts you etc, but thats just nonsense, and just ideas you heard from others. The older arts they something significantly better than contemporary art, which is, the hand of the artist is still there. The artist carefully touched every part of the canvas or clay to organize his artwork. You can feel the presence of the artist even after centuries. Mona Lisa is not my favorite artwork, but there was another portrait made by da vinci, and the eyes in that portrait were completely alive. The woman in the portrait of centuries ago was still present and alive in that painting. Also contemporary art completely lost the idea of beauty
...in the old days , images had a lot more impact on people as they were intended to do. They weren't bombarded with commercial images in their eyeballs as we are today.
Shitting on a canvas tells a story tooo. Someone handled shit and spread it on a canvas. Great story! These nutjobs out in force thumbing down every video calling their shit, ummm, shit.
***** Yep. You don't need to be a "creative" to realize that. Contemporary artists today - their works are mostly trash which reflects the modern decay.
***** Fair enough - you are entitled to your view. For me, modern art is the genius of: Picasso's Cubism,Italian Futurism,the French Surrealists and the Dadaists - all culminating in Jackson Pollock several decades later.There's been nothing of note since Pollock. In abstract drip painting art reached its apotheosis. There was, and is, simply nowhere to go after that.Since the 1950s modern art has just been ironically and self referentially playing with its past and pissing in the wind in my opinion.
Saying an artist is pretentious is laughable. Is a doctor pretentious because you don't understand what they are doing or when a mechanic fixes your car? The problem is that art IS NOT for everybody. I don't make paintings for schmucks like you. Hahahahah. You can't afford it anyway. So keep the door shut and keep the trolling alive.
Many of the comments written here ask whether one can tell a good piece of contemporary art from a bad one. The answer to this is surely 'Yes' in regards to almost everything we consider art before the 20th century. Let's take impression as an example, which was controversial in its time. A Monet surely can be seen as requiring more skill and being more thoughtfully painted than the average joe could put together. Yet, the controversy at the time was that the works were considered too 'sketchy' and like a rough draft of a more finished and polished piece. So why do we now sometimes find them to be more profound and brilliant than the masterful and meticulous paintings produced before them? One reason is because the Impressionists were getting at something new in art that hadn't been done before. Namely, they were painting their 'impression' of a scene: the lighting, glare, and blurry quality included. Instead of a real representation of precisely what a scene 'objectively' looks like, they painted their perpection of a scene instead - the sun bouncing off a lake, or water lilies flowing together in color and palette. Modern Art (one of the movements before you see the contemporary art of today) brought in an even more abstract view. Works were devoted to just one or two colors, a few lines, or some simple shapes. Again, the art community asked why? Now there is none of the beautiful impressions and perceptions the impressionists saw and recreated. What beauty or value can a painting of just a few colors be? Well, an exploration of mood, of color, and of line and shape are some possible answers. Modern artists explored the raw power of individual colors, of sizes, of clashes between shapes and intersecting lines. The smooth feeling of a curve vs. the hard edge and barrier of a straight line. We again saw its beauty and power, and we again recognized which artists were truly discovering these aspects, and which were mere imitators. And now, arriving in the 21st century, art has again turned its sights. One broad answer to the kind of art that is being produced is an exploration of concept, of philosophy, and of the groundwork of 'what art is'. Instead of exploring perfect representation (the old masters), impressions, or abstract form, Contemporary artists explore the notion of what an art piece is and can be, which by its very definition is going to stand on the borderline of what is and isn't art. Can a whole space be art? Does a signed object become art? Can vandalism be art? Can art be ugly, tasteless, blank, empty, disgusting, audience-created, shocking, or even completely pointless? If a work fails to evoke these questions, if 'listening' to it provides no original ideas, if there is nothing to be discusssed about it, then it will die out and be considered a failure. But if it provides a spark, if it gets people talking, and if curators, buyers, and critics like it, it will rise to the top and be accepted into the art world. Not many can make art that reaches this criteria, and it isn't just a crapshoot. There are artists which get us talking, and those that leave us flat, and because of that, a new trend in art now exists all over the globe.
+Jozef Lewitzky Jozef to me it is all about New galleries not being able to afford the quality Art produced by Artists who put the hard yards in learning the fundamentals of producing quality Art. So they have become lazy and create new Art markets which they can afford to buy and flog it off as Art. People trained in the Contemporary Art Schools have not had the opportunities to learn the good stuff so they promote the philosophies you are promoting. Keeps Art industry moving by employing Art teachers without these skills who intern tell their students they are doing wonderful stuff. Thus the circle of mediocrity keeps going.. Unfortunately the humble average Joe doesn,t buy it and the Art Status goes downhill. Foolishly most contempt artists are the victims of one of the biggest art scams of the last century.
Those are very good points ancient artist . My point is only that there may not be such a conspiricy going on. Every generation has been moving art in new directions, and this approach is the new generation's
+Jozef Lewitzky Josef Everything is basically disposable today. Artifacts of any kind seem to have little value. Some 50% of Galleries have closed down in Australia over the last 10 yrs. Most blockbuster exhibitions are always the old masters.
+Jozef Lewitzky - Good points. But sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.* And a pile of trash is just that. *For those who do now know, this is a referrence to a painting depicting a pipe titled 'This is Not a Pipe' by Rene Magritte. "The present reeks of mediocrity and the atom bomb. ” - Rene Magritte And, now, a whole lot of non-biodegradable rubbish.
+Jefferdaughter Hi Joseph, A fairly famous footballer in politics recently said about a govt policy "you can polish a turd for a long time . But it will still be a turd" The Art mafia still don,t get it. Garbage is garbage irrespective on how hard you want to sell it
I went to museums with my best friend and his dad. His dad is a abstract expressionist and owns his own gallery and will stand at a painting in a gallery and talk about it for minutes at a time so everyone can hear and understand. Like all aspects of life there'll always be people, unfortunately elitists who will be heard above the rest, that don't understand. This speech is irrelevant.
This video/lecture is mis-titled. From the lecturer's point of view the question is "What's wrong with contemporary art audiences?" Not 'what's wrong with contemporary art'? That wasn't answered...and I'm not sure she thinks there is anything wrong period. Interesting nonetheless.
Contemporary art/artist: "It's not about how the art looks like, but the message it is trying to say. It's not about the money either, but it's for sale because I've been clueless to treating my passion as a job, but I've been a starving artist for 20 years so I hope you have some pity for me and purchase my piece for the low price of half a million. thank you"
I think this video is significant in today's day and age where it seems people don't take the time to fully examine anything anymore, much less art. Contemporary art for the most part goes so far out of the norm that the only feeling/idea that can be drawn is indirectly by the viewer themselves. If people don't take the time to look at it, they won't be able to understand or appreciate it. However what this woman fails to realize is that just because something is contemporary and 'carries a philosophy' doesn't mean it's a good piece. "The Lights Going on and Off " is a bland and arbitrary piece of contemporary art in my opinion. How well you execute your idea is just as important as the idea itself. Even if your style is 'out of the ordinary' and doesn't follow traditional art rules, if you fail to make something that doesn't connect with the viewer on some type of level you've failed. People that make pieces as dumb as that are whats giving this field of art a bad name.
i have yet to see any good contempt art. Very poorly executed,poor skills, ideas often not worth the effort. Kids that go to these type of art schools are exploited by teachers who can,t paint and are getting a salary brainwashing these students that they are doing "Cutting Edge " art. Sorry but you are lied to .No future doing this stuff. maybe ok as therapy. Thats all
No my friend, I'm afraid it is you that has been lied to. Either: 1 that type of art just isn't for you, or 2 you've just not had the opportunity to see anything that speaks to you on an emotional/mental level. You're full of shit on the whole 'teachers exploiting students' thing. Take it from somebody who's been to art school, there are parameters and guidelines that they make you 'fit inside'. You do get a modicum of freedom in your projects but your grade is based overall on how well you meet the standards of the assignment you've been given. In the end the only time your art gets exploited is if its something marketable. Most contemporary art is so 'weird' that there really isn't a commercial demand for it. If you're doing a painting, photograph, sculpture, w/e and the first thought that comes to your mind is "I want to make money" then you're not an artist. You're a businessman. To an artist, ALL art is therapy. That's why we create it. No matter how weird it may seem to the average joe, it holds an inherent meaning to the person that created it. We have an emotion or idea in which we want to bring to life. No REAL artist is thinking in terms of "I'm just going to slap some shit together and call it art." There's always some initiative to create it. Just because it goes over your head doesn't mean its 'talentless.'
SloughMusic I know a Masters contempt student who phoned a tutor to ask what colors do you mix to make a red. That is a masters student. That person will become a master when graduates. Can you believe it? Would a real master not know that you cant mix a primary color. Rembrandt and co would roll over in their grave to see how this modern day therapy masters are running around trashing their heritage. You are well and truly brainwashed if you think this stuff can be called Art. Its a bit like me doing a weekend workshop on nutrition and calling myself a Doctor. I know heaps of ex Contempt art students coming out of these art schools really disappointed and then having to enrol in real Art schools to learn the fundamental skills of Art.so they can use these skills to properly express themselves.
***** Contempt art survives on telling you that everyone is an artist without having to put any energy into learning skills. Thats why they suck thousands of students in to pay huge course fees to come out of Art school without any technical Art skills. Meanwhile the so called Art teachers who have few Art skills themselves, earn a salary without teaching students anything. They get students to write a 20,000 word essay getting them to try and explain what their "art work" is about to a bored "anyone silly enough" to listen
I have to say, though, if your friend didn't know that red was a primary color, I think that's their fault more than the school system's. I mean, I've known that red was a primary color since elementary school, and I'm pretty sure every art class I've had since has gone over the color wheel.
i have been painting and drawing my whole life,visual art is about emotional effect ,what you see and how to express,it is not about thoughts what you listen and what to express.
As near as I could figure, her point was that man is suppose to serve art, but art is not there to serve man. However, if you want my investment of time and/or money, then you have to meet my expectations. I have no obligation to spend even one microsecond paying attention to your "art". Effort, skill, and something other than a tired old social justice message better be included.
no. she said art 'that is behaving badly' can converse with you... such as to consider your reaction to it... to learn from your reaction... such as if you are a neat freak, for example. Maybe art can speak to you in more ways than you expect it to do is what she was saying
I think leaving out the money issue is a BIG omission. I'm a working artist myself, and my gripe with--for example--Tracey Emin's 'Bed', isn't that it's 'not art' but that its noticeably less interesting and well executed than equivalent works by the Kienholzes or Louis Bourgeois. But for non-artist friends, I sense their objection to the kind of pieces profiled in this Ted Talk is not that they're 'too weird' or 'not-art' but that they sell for huge amounts of money. I think any short talk on the contemporary art world needs to address this because its a valid and interesting problem; one we ignore at our own peril.
Gav, but a number of people find Emyn's work interesting .and who is to say that non-artist aren't blessed with the critical skills to analyze her work through. There is something in your argument that you can't articulate but I don't think you figured out what it is. Money is at the centre of everything. And Emyn's selling her work very well . its a business .
Gavin I know many "artists" who did contemp art with installations which they did at art schools allstuffed under their houses not knowing what to do with them. Lots of contemp art students are wasting their money and time learning no skills and regret going their for the rest of their lives. Big con keeping art schools in jobs and "artists" the big losers
Contemporary art is not a movement or type of art. It merely describes art being created in the now, as apposed to ten, twenty or thirty years ago. It should not be explained, if you can't relate to it, then it's not for you, move on to something you can relate to. There is a lot of art in the world.
9:10 She chose to throw eggs at it? Well, then it must have been a performance! No, but seriously. There is contemporary art that is good and that actually can speak to people who don't have a degree in art, but sadly most contemporary art isn't like that. I wouldn't have a problem with that and most of the time I simply ignore bad modern art, but sometimes there are reasons to get angry about it. Example: My school went to an art exhibition in honor of the Expo in Milan in 2015. The theme of the Expo was "Feed the Planet" and it should have been about ideas helping to make food accessible to the poor, environmental friendly food etc. (that the Expo mostly failed in conveying this message is another story). Anyways, as soon as we reached the part of the exhibition about modern art, we were able see the exact contrary of that message in many different pieces of "art". One artist, for example, had put a lump of mozzarella into a chariot, calling it "Mozzarella in carrozza", which is basically a pun about an Italian dish with the same name that literally means mozzarella in a chariot. And that's it. That's the whole message of it. And the museum was putting a new lump of mozzarella into that chariot everyday. Do you know what a waste of food that is? Another artist had build a house out of bread. I don't need to say more about this. These things really made me angry, because it just shows how little respect and gratitude we have for being able to eat as much as we want to. So in some sense these works had a meaning, but it wasn't intended by these artists...
So what she is saying is that WE must "listen" to the "bad behavior" of Contemporary Artists. Awww….the poor babies have something to say and we're NOT LISTENING! BAD BAD BAD people. Shame on us. How did the world get to be so crazy. A pile of poop in the middle of an Art Gallery…and there is something wrong with US for not wanting to look at it, engage it, or think about "what is good about this "art".
***** I go to as many art exhibitions as I can see. Most is of very poor quality. Teaching standards are very substandard. No wonder their is little interest by the general populace. Some of the stuff I see people buy i find unbelievable. Rubbish. The public generally have little appreciation of fine art. Have you seen people walking around with parading their recently acquired tattoos. showing them off as if they are high quality art pieces. Lot of it is absolute junk and they are stuck with it for life.. I can,t beleive how pathetic some peoples tastes are. The modern art movement has really contributed big time in dumbing down the fine Arts.
The problem isnt with the art its with the viewers .people want to roll into a museum and understand everything like they understand tv,movies,amusement parks,and their friends.Its a game and the best way to play it is to enjoy Art because you DONT understand it.Have you ever seen that guy in a museum talking about the art so everyone can hear?Its a really arrogant way to be.Whats cool about it is that life is hard to understand but we try to enjoy it anyway.Art is the same.Now you can study it and you will enjoy it more..but its impossible to fully understand a work of art.its a mystery why we even do it. She has points to be made but in the end shes wrong to even try to explain it.If you dont get it dont go to a Museum.Its not for everybody and thats ok.I dont get soccer or chess..but I dont whine about it.
I think she did a good job at trying to open people up to approaching contemporary art. I am an art student and really struggling with contemporary art , even when I see a lot of it in my school.
eartianwerewolf I love conventional art which involves skills and talents...coz yea not everyone can draw and paint...actually I took degree in biology and decided to further my study in art so i can learn to improve my skills in drawings but what I see are just contemporary arts and I was like..what is this?? Am I so far behind in art? And I took a look at my hand drawings and paintings and I feel like..'are these not valuable?" since everyone in that campus go for contemporary art..and now I am so confuse and a bit frustrated for my research topic that I should use for my art project soon...should I stick with my conventional paintings or should I go for contemporary art too like others...but I'm always love the conventional ones but with my level, I don't think it's strong enough....T.T
eartianwerewolf check out the art school in Academy Florence and enrol in it .You will save money rather than wasting it doing contempt art and then being broke and not able to study the stuff that makes a real Artist.You will not regret it.. You will not learn anything in playschool
mira diba Mira you are on the right track. Australian art schools are stuck in a rut.If you want to learn Art to a professional status I think you need to venture overseas. The Florence Academy of Art is full of Mature age students who have struggled with getting no where in doing contempt art and are going back to what they originally wanted to go and learn this stuff to a professional standard. The stuff you are asked to do is merely play therapy and keeping teachers with little to offer in employment. Check out Florence Art Academy
I can't sing at all but by what you're telling me lady, the problem is with the audience not listening properly. Excellent! I get it now... so, I've recorded a song. It's of me burping. These are the best burps anyone has ever heard. I've called it 'A little bit of indigestion' by me, the artist known as 'Ava Burpsing'. I'll get my coat. I'm off to Sony!
I enjoyed Jane's talk. Nobody is obliged to buy, look at, or appreciate whatever is being called art these days. It's entirely a personal experience. If something is total rubbish in your eyes, at the very least it can make you laugh. Some artists are just trying to make a buck, but others have a life-enhancing philosophy or perspective. Our own reaction to the art can be so revealing. For that woman to throw eggs at the light installation means it must have hit a nerve ... but which one?? I'm fascinated! Where were these eggs from; did she have them in her handbag already; what did the hen think of her eggs being used in an act of violence; have the vegans had their say?
It's incredible to me that people spend their lives trying to get other people to "like" contemporary art. Aesthetic beauty is easily recognizable, and it is immediately effective. She should find something else to do with her time.
People have been complaining about modern art since the Impressionists. The art world is much larger now and international in scope. As with music , film or TV, you have to figure out what you like amidst all the stuff you don't. In art more than anything else, the variation and selection is enormous. Generalizing about the state of art is impossible. And trying to ascertain the meaning of art is often not the point. We don't ask that of instrumental music or architecture. Enjoy it or not. We don't simply say we don't like contemporary music. We find what we like and listen to that. It's not that complicated.
The child's "bad behavior" metaphor can be used for modernism, because the modern artist did not want to grow up, to mature, thus their constant search for the "new" (see Kuspit's online article "The Problem with Youth"). In postmodernism or contemporary art, however, art is not "new", nor "bad" but "Neo" and "tamed", including Tracey Emin''s domestically "arranged", deliberately "messy", and pretentiously "emotional" bed.
Art has no agency. People do. The purpose of art is to bring people together, make them think or talk. Contemporary art is one way to do this for a sector of society. If it brings communities together to engage , then fine.
It's a complicated topic, but I consider art like something that gets in your senses and makes you feel something, you don't have to reflex a lot about it or to be an expert, you just understand the message of the painting, picture, song or poem, because artists have the ability to translate the emotions. When most people have a problem to understand it, that means that the way used to translate is wrong... Just saying. (sorry if something is wrotten incorrect, i'm learning english)
In my opinion if an artist wishes the audience to listen and to engage in a philosophical conversation, then he/she must use the visual language to welcome the audience and lure it into this conversation. If the artwork fails to do so, or moreover makes it way too difficult for the audience to understand or witness the meaning behind, or to even identify it as art, then the artist is bad at communicating his/her ideas through visual language. Such people may still offer great amounts of wisdom or philosophical questions. Then why not write a philosophical thesis or a book about it instead of lying in bed or setting up an automatic light shutter? There is a reason why philosophers like Plato, Confucius, Kant are not labeled artists, because the value of their thought was depicted in words so that the audience could read and listen to what they have to say. They understood that its the value of the thought they are emphasizing and not the (art) object that would lure the audience into the conversation. Otherwise the art object in my opinion must be able to tell that the artist put his mind, heart, effort and time into delivering what it's supposed to deliver. The audience should be able to tell that the artwork is radiating the artist's soul. Only then may such art truly be recognized world-wide as a masterpiece. Whether Matisse or Rembrandt, the execution may vary, but it still lures the masses to listen to the artist's soul.
From my experience conceptual work is not a scam, because for the most part the artist isn't trying to trick anybody into buying it, that isn't their reason for making the thing in the first place. Stupid people get offended by it because they think its trying to trick them or that its trying to be pretentious. the fact that everybody on here is debating the fact that its economically a scam have already thought of work with such a limited perspective that they will never really have any sort of interesting experience with the art. A lot of this work is really referential of events and ideas in history, art history, philosophy, etc. that many viewers aren't aware of (esoteric). Most people don't pretend to know anything about molecular biology or genetics... shame that everybody thinks they are so goddamn smart that they have it all figured out with art.
The issue here is that the inquiring gaze proposed is merely gazing on an already consumed truth. We are treated like children going to see the strange goings on in a church "why is that man hanging off a piece of wood?" "Why is that man in a dress?" "Why is there so much gold behind him?" The fact that someone else has already decided that there will be a hanging man, a man in a dress, and a lot of gold on show. Really, the questions of the child are immaterial, and the role this woman plays is just like a Sunday school teacher "But isn't the church nice? If we listen very carefully, we can hear the hanging man talk to us in our heads...", and all the other indoctrination. I'm sure that she thinks that she's doing something marvelous, but in fact, she is eating someone else's food, shitting someone else's shit.
This is basically true, I was interested to see a Ted talk on it but was very disappointed that she was an apologist for the failings of the art world - which she blames squarely on the public not listening - what obligation do the public have to listen pray tell? the issue is not that or even the art but the status conferred and the market interest, that is what has changed art - along with everything else.
Well, there are as many definitions of art as people who are thinking about it, but i think i got it right :P : For me art is an easily understandable visualisation of something that gives you alot of knowledge in a single look, and showing more usefull information in the background within the proper context, for that matter. For example, a name of a virus contains alot of information, but it is encoded within years of molecular biology studies, so the name of the virus is not an art, bit, on the other hand, showing how viruses attack a living cell, infest it's dna and so forth, containing some acurate details of the cell itself IS an art, and a really great one! And it takes alot of effort to such thing realistic, and to show only the nessesary parts (because if you actually picture it - you need alot of cleaning so you can show only the processes of interest - and that's a real artwork!) So if an image or any artwork shows me alot of usefull information, easy to understand (it may contain, emotions, historical data, high risks, scientific information etc.) and if i can see it in the right perspective (so my brain knows where to put the knowledge) it is art! If it just throws my thinking off balance, well... everything in our modern world is trying to kick your balance of thinking and understanding somehow...! How is that good? How is that usefull? To think outside the box is one thing, to think outside of reality is another! We picture so little about the actual real world that we live in, that we will never run out of outside-the-box ideas that are actually inside the reality!
Examine those 'don't likes'? Sometimes, there is nothing to examine. Does it affect my behaviour? Of course it does. It makes me laugh and cry out of madness. Why laugh? Because someone actually placed it in a gallery. Why cry? Because it is considered as an art. There is simply no artistic value in it. You're defending something that degrades art in general, something that pushed many people away from galleries and what makes real artists depressed. In my town nobody goes to galleries no more. Entrance is free. The reason is that there is rarely something good to be seen. People cannot look at it and appriciate skill, they cannot connect themselves with one dot, they cannot stand in front of a blank canvas or a white mug for 1 minute and pretend there is something mystical about it. Many times they would ask the one who made it what does it mean. Many times the 'artist' would respond "oh, I cannot explain it to you". If you have to be an artist to 'see' what is on the canvas, then that is not an art. If I have to stand 20 minutes in front of a painting asking myself questions and giving answers, instead of enjoying the work, skill and/or knowledge then there is something wrong. I want to get inspired and asked myself questions because the work showed me a different world not because I do not understand what he/she ment with one line. I want to feel ENVY of how skilled and knowledgeable the artist was. With 'contemporary 'art'' I feel insulted!
Iwent into a contemporary Art museum the other day , looked around this huge space and asked a staff member where is the exhibition? She said There it is on the wall. I looked up and saw a few fluorescent tubes put on the wall in a zig zag pattern. I scratched my head and walked out the nearest door amazed that someone had the nerve to call that Art.
I'm literally 1:13 in. I know the answer. IT STINKS! IT SUCKS! There is no skill involved. Skill is the key. The absolute worst piece of are I've ever seen was from a guy who put paint on the top part of a wall and let it all drip down the side of the wall. I remember thinking "I'd be more impressed if he'd just properly painted the wall.
The art world of today is as trendy as it was in the past. Just because the aesthetics and trends are different doesnt make it not art. Creativity is creativity. The value is up to all to decide. Now if you are seeking fame and your art style is not the same as other successful artists, it doesnt help to degrade them. Degrading and dissing other people's art will never get you success. You will just turn people off. Better to focus on your own work and find like-minded people who support it rather than dissing the taste of more famous folks. If you want to rub shoulders with these famous artists than try to understand where they are coming from not saying its just trash.
I feel like all this contemporary art is merely the immature reaction of an entire group (contemp. artists) to the reality of what art is today. Good artists don't sell paintings; they sell stories. They become concept artists, graphic designers, and CGI specialists. Good artists in todays world make amazing works for fantastical stories. Look at the sketch of Rivendale and tell me that isn't art. Look at the reality of Pandora and tell me that isn't art. Look at the teeming expanse of the Witcher's Northern Kingdoms and tell me that isn't art. The places, characters, and worlds in these stories are made from scratch by artists. That is where the good artists have gone, and what's left busies itself with lazy ventures for white collar cons.
I love how much people hate it. I think if we all loved this art it would lose its appeal. But the entire comment section is saying its bad it needs to go. I disagree. Beauty is subjective and should not conform to your expectations.
Interesting coming back to this talk Very few people seem to like this type of art, yet it is still vigorously promoted I can, understand why. I often ask what contemporary art advocates like about a piece of work and most really struggle to come up with anything worthwhile. Some try and regurjatate the sales lines without any thing convincing to show there is any merit in it Even to Dark Ages around 1200 ad had merit in their Art Historically the last 100 years or so will be seen as an Age of Decadence in our Atr history
Nice try, but I still find a huge percent of contemporary art to be a waste of time. This lady that you mention at some point expressed it very well: at best, it's philosophy. Now don't misunderstand me, philosophy is a great thing.....the only problem is that even if one of its main occupations is to deal with art, it's not art itself. If someone wants to make a philosophical statement, then he could/should write a book. Art has common borders with philosophy but it's something else, something independent and self-contained. And contemporary art, I believe, has gone pretty far away from this special territory. My opinion.
"If someone wants to make a philosophical statement, then he could/should write a book." I agree with a lot of what you say, but that statement _really_ rubbed me the wrong way. The written word is a great form of communication, but it is by no means always the best way. Especially when it comes to communicating complex systems. (which is usually not what contemporary art is about, but just sayin')
I am a fan of some contemporary conceptual art, so I am glad that someone has the guts to defend it. But this defense perhaps goes too far. There was little discussion of what is actually wrong with contemporary conceptual art. Her argument boiled down finally to blaming the viewers for not listening to the artists. If an artist wants to be heard, they need to say something that an audience might be interested to or surprised to or - and don't groan too loudly - shocked to hear. Some contemporary conceptual artists communicate effectively with their audience, and others don't. And either way, the audience that wants to puzzle out what is intended by a contemporary conceptual artist is often a very small slice of humanity.
I liked this talk. The way I see it is she's explaining that contemporary art has more to do with you the observer than about the art piece, so if you see something ugly in it then it's highlighting an ugly thought that's going on in you, the observer. It's kind of like imagining that maybe this is the messy stage of art's history where everything we do with it is to deconstruct art and ourselves. So contemporary art is slightly off of perfect, just so that we can dissect what makes art and what doesn't, and what goes on in our minds to make it so and why.
She brings up the point, one makes a judgement about a piece within seconds and then doesn't examine the judgments made. People look at art and say they are scenes that are common and seen before, without a deeper examination. A life examined isn't worth living. Problem is, if the scene is so common it has already been examined hundreds of times before seeing it in a gallery. I went to the local museum of art today, and found little inspiring, when it came to modern art. I couldn't tell if the artist had studied, or had any real skill. Yet, I've also seen many modern pieces where I could see that each stroke was intentional, and part of the artist's soul was in the piece. The problem with modern art is anything can be called art, with no objective way of judging its merit.
Modern Art -- like Postmodernism -- boils down to playing word games: shuffling semantic labels around to give the appearance of being profound.
+SystemEquation
aye
the problem is that the price label of a realization is being placed here and a justification for calling it art... a dumpster of life is art ... whats wrong is whats right ... total confusion... the willingness to consider the absurd to discover something profound.
sucks as an inspiration though .
Yeah right on, willingness sucks!
+SystemEquation This is absurd, it's like saying, why the general public don't understand quantum physic, well do you bother reading about it, did you do some studies in quantum physic, do at least read some paper on the latest issues in the field, do scientists who work on research and are trying to find different kind of things to explain or put our world in perspective, needs to justify themselves ? no . What happened, just like for art or philosophy is that art broke free of slavery, or making art for the elite , for monarchy, and the church and actually pushed the limits and questionings of feeling itself , esthetic and or point of views / reflexion on different aspects of our society. are there artists that don't really care about that yes, are there that do, yes, are there that are playing by the rule of a new elite, the art market, and the market itself who's pushing art to be more and more conservative, yes, and how many people bother to think or understand what they see ? well guess what, artists made studies, for at least 5 years in most cases, and most of the time didn' t got any attention (and financial support) before a decade of work (thats how dedicated some are). the fact that everyone don't understand art, or a book on the latest sociology/ philosophy/ quantum issue is an educational issue, what tools society really gives us to think and how we use them if we use them at all.. people who do the work, artist, scientist, or others in other fields aren't to blame for that. It's hard enough to just keep working and pushing further. just think about it. and think if the entire society was always blaming you, for the work you do, especially when most of the time you had to sacrifice a lot just to do things. And if you knew anything about art, you'd knew that modern art (which stops in the mid 50's), contemporary art begins after.
+s3lfFish Couldnt agree more. The general public´s sensibility about art is still heavily rooted in Romanticism and the notion of taste. Surely, if they dont LIKE what they SEE, then it cant be art.
Postmodernism does NOT exist. ;)
What's wrong with contemporary art? The artists aren't making anything that can be appreciated without a 10 minute lecture or a degree in modern art.
+Ian Albert meh
+Ian Albert hell. yes.
+Ian Albert Exactly. Contemporary nonrepresentational art and installations require a lengthy manifesto to justify their existence. One can't listen to them; they don't say anything. But the artist is a blabbermouth who has a large manifesto that explains the pieces in words that fail to attach to the pieces themselves. The manifestos explaining any piece of contemporary nonrepresentational art could actually be stand-alone speeches declaring the artist's unbidden opinions on matters unimportant to anyone but the speaker.
+Ian Albert Should maths or science be different?
+Enzo Compañ Badillo Yes, because math and science are objective. You can't spend 10 minutes talking about a scientist's life and influences, then declare that their incorrect formula is now correct because it's saying something important. Art is about opinions and science is about facts.
I was expecting a critical analysis of modern art. I listened to 14 minutes of nothing.
Funny, that's similar to exactly what's wrong with modern art!
perhaps we need to reclassify these pieces as non-art works of visual philosophy.
"Non Art" ? Perhaps we should reclassify you as a "Non-human" more a demonstration of a lack of imagination and respect.
or maybe it isn't a worthy art
sam wich would you pay my son if he drew you something.. I didn't think so.this is embarrassing that people that this shit seriously.
non-art-art Now go make a thesis xD
At least he's not willing to indulge a shit imagination.
There's 12 minutes I'll never get back again......
Good.
No. "Contemptuary"Art is not a spoiled child seeking attention. It's a spoiled Artist seeking attention. The examples used are not indicative of good Conceptual Art, but rather examples of Art as Celebrity.
P.S.,... Contemtuary Art is elitest. It takes pride in it's alienation. I'm not offended easily especially by Art, however when it is given monetary value, that's what is offensive.
fudgepellet if you can call them artists
art has always been elitist imo (for the exception of pre-historic arts) but yes, 'high' modern & contemporary art have taken it to a whole new level. created untouchable market leading to unfathomable prices and is just overall a very alienating phenomenon from a sociocultural perspective despite the artists' best intentions for inclusivity. these current high arts are way detached & inaccessible that the more common arts in our popular culture seem much more genuine and grounded in comparison.
There is much good in here, and I am a fan of contemporary art broadly speaking. But, two points. 1) The message is a bit patronizing: if you would only listen, you would see the value. Can you modify that message so that those speaking against a work have the potential to be "right" in what they are saying? For 2) How do you distinguish a good piece of contemporary art from a poor one? If contemporary art has the potential to be bad, then those speaking against the work have the potential to be right.
Matt Rouge how do you tell a contempt art is finished? I never can tell
ancient artist
When it's lookin' groovy.
Matt Rouge then it will never be finished mate
ancient artist
Then further potential for grooviness shall remain. Win-Win.
Matt Rouge There is no bad Art you seek the right answers to the wrong questions - Art is journalism - the collective movement speaks of the shallowness of today's world - sterile world - the value placed on the collective movement - is the value of the Money Punk -
Now, balance of infrastructure of composition of color - form - juxtaposition - can only be understood by those who speak, write and understand the langue of "Art" - the Artist - to include the "critic" who actually understands the Art movement -
Picasso (paraphrasing) - "If I give you a book in English and you do not speak or write English does not mean the book is not filled with wisdom and value -
In my opinion one should look at an Artists collective body of work, not just one piece of work to gain some insight -
To some it up Andy Warhol said, "I am deeply superficial" (like the painted faces & the cans of soup with marketing labels - ROLEX tick tock )
Would it not be fare for you to say, "I don't understand this modern "Art" and I don't care for it". That we can all except and respect.
I want to assemble all the "modern" artists in one room and tell them: "postmodernism was fun we had a good 60 years but it smells. Let's move on."
I am actually burning to see a new movement arise like it did with Pop or abstract expressionism. I have not the slightest clue in what direction it will go. Probably a counter culture of traditional high-skilled craftsmanship with a fresh twist.
+pilotstyle123 If you take the recent Turner Prize winner as an indication, you're almost right.
+pilotstyle123 Problem is, none of those "artists" have any real artistic skills, so they couldn't create any real art.
There is pop surrealism now
it's already going in that direction fortunately! hence the popularity of figurative art and the plein air landscape movement, or the visionary artists who have gained popularity recently. we long for tradition once more!
+pilotstyle123 entirely agree
The title is "What's wrong with contemporary art?" but then she spends most of her talk criticizing the viewer and the culture for not "listening" to art.
She should then call it, "What's wrong with contemporary culture?"
no. she basically characterized the art being discussed as art that is 'misbehaving' or 'being bad'... but gives the twist that art which breaks all our expectations of art may actually have a surprise attached... serving a higher purpose in the art put forth than just a quick second long visual experience... creating an interaction instead... or leading us to see ourselves in action... i disagree with this... you are missing the 'twist'' that ties the title and talk
Lots of art is not made with the purpose of being seen in a museum, but is just made for yourself
@@cchemmes2096 Yes, she's being deceptive.
When I listen to Mozart, I don't need to know the meaning. I like it because its beautiful.The piece is worth studying for people concerned with the subject i.e. music,but even people who don't know what a chord is will appreciate the music. That's art
I Completely agree
Yes 😀👍🏻
If you listen to Don Giovanni and don't understand the meaning you are insulting Herr Mozart and Da Ponte.
Art is so the way it is so ordinary people feel they are capable of doing it themselves saying "I could become an artist too!, This is so easy!" and their self esteem is lifted.
yes Dani every time I try and pluck a violin I feel I am In heaven. Until I see a real Violinist in a concert and I feel like shit.. Same goes for wanna be artists who want to Rembrandt's and come down to earth when they see the real stuff I
Most of the main Art schools here in the US should be called self defense academies, they teach you how to defend garbage and argue validity into it. Good artistic skill never needs its' author defending it.
Just because something can spur philosophical thoughts doesn't mean that it is art. A tree can lead to philosophical thoughts about one's place in the world, or where one's strength comes from. However I wouldn't call a tree art. A tree is a blank canvas to place thoughts upon. I won't attempt to define art. However contemporary "art" is not art.
well said
Avarickan nice.yea I see nature as art but not philosophy. I feel bad for the people that waste their money on this crap,we have no standards.
Avarickan absolutely no * a tree is the most finest art.
so what if art is defined as something that can spur philosophical thoughts? then would you call a tree art? but of course you don't agree with that definition because you don't even know the definition of art. As you said you wont attempt to define art, and then goes on to say what 's not art. The real problem you have is with art in general, not just contemporary art. because according different definitions that you and everyone would define art, contemporary art would qualify.
there, that's a great contemporary art. congratulations.
I know how to listen, that's not the problem. When galleries go through great lengths to promote works that have no merit whatsoever, that's what's wrong. Art isn't valuable as children expressing their whatever, if the expression doesn't have artistic merit it's called trash. Yes, everything means something to someone, congratulations art world you've discovered what we all knew at age 2. I can handcuff a dead rat to a manhole cover and call it "Urban Development" and that will mean something to someone but most people will call it crap, because it is. The moment you put a $3 million price tag on it, dedicate a room in your gallery, and give me prizes for it that's just lying to people saying their tastes don't matter and rightly people are going to be a little insulted that you think they're stupid for trying to trick them into appreciating crap with accolades.
She threw eggs because she disagrees with the philosophy that it's OK to lie to people saying "blinking lights" is worth some sort of art prize. Egging the blinking light room did absolutely nothing to reduce the worth of the art, because there wasn't any to begin with, so her philosophy was proven victorious and you art nuts just completely missed it and thought it was envy.
Gorky D forreal..this is straight trash.they should be embarrassed.
You seem to be defining yourself as some sort of arbiter of what has merit and what doesn't.
Allen Williamson
Not at all. Art galleries have that role because they link the work of their chosen artists to a larger audience; they are the arbiters of merit and they don't choose at random or by popular vote so they are 100% culpable for the decisions they make. I'm saying they're doing a horrible job making these judgments and I believe the weight of evidence supports my opinion. You can eat whatever they feed you if you want, I'm not preventing anyone, but I intend to think for myself and provide an opposing voice when it appears necessary. I think an art culture that glorifies insulting its audience is in danger of self-destruction and needs truth and honesty more than anything.
The Art mafia controls their worthless asset.The masses treat it as a novelty and not "real art" They are simply trying to create a false market on a worthless product. They can,t afford the good stuff.It takes too much skill and effort and is expensive to produce. In a throw a way economy it serves their purpose in feeding the Art economy with Art materials ,Students to Cheap Art Institutions for students not prepared to spend the time and effort to learn all the Art making skills. Better to feed these institutions with as many students they can con and promote the odd one with multimillion dollar rewards so that people can see how easy it is to become a famous artist. Everyone thinks they can do as well as some of the mediocrity so they pay heaps to join the list of wanna be famous artists on low ability and studentship
Gorky D that's really well said man. I guess framing it as an insult to the audience helps me view it as sort of a one-sided or arrogant display.
My general rule of thumb is: If the viewer has to spend more time to research and interpret the work than the artist spent on making it, it probably doesn't belong in a museum.
BlueUnica- Ouch.
I totally agree but.....ouch.
Strongly disagree
What about Finnegans Wake
@@lorism860 why?
If you validate and explore the light bulb, aren't you obliged to validate and explore the egg being thrown at it? Both are forms of expression. And isn't the egg more visceral and honest than the intellectual dance routine that created the bulb? I have to say that I really don't care for the bulb, but I do like the egg.
I thought exactly that when she told that story but this woman is a fairly lightweight and institutionalised curator who is not engaged at that level. In fact there is a great history of art physically attacked for various reasons and these acts make interesting history in themselves; from the suffragette attack on "Venus at her Mirror" by Velazquez to a student throwing up on a Mondrian www.nytimes.com/1996/12/04/nyregion/student-says-vomiting-on-painting-was-an-artistic-act.html . The attack on Creed would have flattered him. Though he is an interesting prankster he is not so much a contentious figure as the others. The egg was a response to the lack rather than the content.
tralexan you're a fucking madman hahahahahahaha
tralexan and you are so perfectly right about pointing out this rabbit hole
tralexan best comment so far
In all honesty contemporary art seems like an abuse of the relationship between the viewer and the piece. Contemporary art is basically saying hey I'm going to use minimalist skills in this work and you, the viewer, should rack your brain over some message or idea that I am trying to convey that does not actually exist. You should also pay me hundreds of thousands for causing you to look introspectively at yourself. Total scam
I only like contemporary art when the artist actually puts effort to it and have meaning to it. But now I only look at TH-cam artists because they seem to have talent than art that just have random dots on it.
actually... i would say a more accurate summary of what is being done is that boundaries of art are being pushed, and questioned, and tested, and challenged, and tried... It was a breaking out of a rut of tradition of what art 'must' be. In the process, it has led to art that gives you a shove regarding what it is about, rather than the nice picture or product from the traditions of art of the past... What do you paint when you don't feel like a bowl of fruit... or feel that the world needs another painting of a realistic bowl of fruit... and have heard the history of artists who challenged the system? The challenges started with wild color, for example... but then challenging 'what art is' took on a life of its own... where philosophical questioning often became more important than the 'product' for those in the art conversation. It is a whole set of factors that led to this point in art.
I mean all arts a scam, it’s all just manipulated material, Rembrandts are a scam, they all are, it’s all just the value we ascribe to them. That’s always been kinda funny, how people think they’re supposed to arrive at some moment of meaning or idea of in front of Art, it will fail you most of the time there, what is fun though is to look and think about stuff. Contemporary art has many faces, it is all types of thing, not just minimalist, which is cool, lots of access points for everyone.
@@dobbythehouseelf422 what a lunatic opinion.
Everything should sound like Mozart. Forever.
+Shane Fage You think Yoko Ono sounds better?
Basically she said nothing.
Just like contemporary art.
I wrote that before the summary which was: The problem with contemporary art is that no one listens! brilliant solution, just tell everyone to listen.
I feel like if at any point a person stands in front of your work and they get nothing from it you've failed. The personal connection is found through the on sight resonance. I shouldn't have to go and make a connection first to appreciate it. If you see it and feel nothing it failed bottom line. You shouldn't look at work and feel like you're being ripped off because the artist didn't feel like making their work speak. What she calls listening I call grabbing for what isn't there.
The issue is that you're assuming art is made for all audiences and all audiences are equal judges of art. Whether you like something or not is a subjective and personal opinion. However, being able to "appreciate" something requires oftentimes more than just a pure visceral reaction to a piece and needs history, knowledge, and background. This is true for all art from visual arts to architecture to music to poetry to novels and films... An uneducated mine worker may see a piece of art and be moved by it without knowing why, and that's great. That same uneducated mine worker may see a masterpiece and feel nothing (whether because it didn't personally connect with him or he simply doesn't understand the history and context, the background, the artist's intentions, etc.). That is not a useful metric to judge whether art is good or not, or whether that piece of art is successful or not.
ravel111 I get what you're saying and to a degree I agree however I think there are pieces that upon sight can be appreciated this appreciation can become greater after having context but context wasn't needed in the beginning Guernica was like that for me... Perhaps I wasn't very clear because I wrote really comparing the feeling of being ripped off by art vs appreciating it without any middle ground context but what I meant in the latter portion is more of the artist giving you something within the art piece I believe that one should be able to leave with something more than questions, and confusion for example a sense of having seen great line work, great colors pallets etc. and if a person doesn't get that but instead leaves feeling ripped off the art has failed that person idk about you but I certainly would feel this way if someone's emotion reaction to me piece was nothing more but the feeling of being ripped off
Damien Hurst's "Dead flies" exhibit (not sure what the actual title is) at first I thought was stupid. A bunch of flies getting zapped. But then watch his documentary and listen to what it shows: life and death in an art gallery, right in front of your eyes your watching life and death. That's something to think about...how we allow watching flies die in public but would be appauled at almost any other species.
So Joe Schmo hangs a bug zapper in his backyard and he is now a great artist because he contemplates the dying flies as he sips his beer. I don't think so. It takes no talent whatsoever to hang a bug zapper. Perhaps if Hurst had painted a picture of the bug zapper and the dead flies one might consider it art.
I think you're giving the "idea of art" too much credit. It's not some holy grail...it's the effect it causes. So Joe Schmo hangs a bug zapper and contemplates the dying flies...great! But many people don't...and that's what art brings to them...when they see it in an art exhibit, they see the act highlighted...it makes them consider the ordinary extraordinary...that's the function of art. And your idea of "painting it" is how we used to view art...art changes and doesn't need to be limited to a reel of canvas anymore...(this is coming from a guy who regularly paints also...I don't think our modern perspective is limited to only traditional ways of expression.)
she equates opinions of modern art as a troublesome child who have nothing to constructive to say. I completely agree
The average person sees an architechtural marvel and they are amazed.
The average person sees modern art and they see trash.
Interesting isnt it?
It is. why would ANYONE like something other than a line on a piece of paper!? What is wrong with people today!?
Architecture is not a line on a piece of paper...
Spoken like a true modern artist full of shit and no logic or value.
Komninos Maraslidis Sarcasm, my friend...
Do you know what a line means?
Alexander Chivico Gonzalez It is the meaning of life, my friend
(Sarcasm)
since Duchamp, nothing really new has been done. When Duchap started with his ready made, it was a revolutionary idea. it made people reflex on what is art or not. Now, galleries don't want us to question anything, they want us to assume that if it's in the gallery, it's ¨art¨ and whatever the price they put on it is fair. it's mostly a money laundry scheme. There's some genuine good contemporary art, but it's rare to find it
Jane Deerth's condescension towards the "intolerant parents" who don't know rubbish from art is infuriating, but her comparison of Contemporary Artists to misbehaving children is spot on. However, what she fails to ask is: What do we need Contemporary Artists for, when the world is already full of misbehaving children?
I think this is a very helpful perspective for people who are newcomers to contemporary art. It was a good talk.
you can't justify being lazy as an art
Sure you can! You don't think there is an art to being lazy and getting away with it? Its the ones that can pull it off are the masters. BTW, A famous CEO actually admitted that he prefers to hire lazy people, they're the ones that get the work done smarter instead of harder.
If the visual aspect of the work is a far second in importance to the philosophical aspect, then the artist has chosen the wrong form of expression. The artist should be writing an essay or book to explain the idea. An artist can hide his/her poorly researched and understood ideas in the form of contemporary art.
I disagree with what this woman says, that the onus is on the viewer to find interest in the work as opposed to the artist presenting his idea in an interesting and engaging way to the viewer. To say that making unintelligible visual works is what's "right" about contemporary art is an exercise in double speak. That is what's wrong with contemporary art: only the people who have drunk the kool-aid "get it", where as the majority of us are left scratching their heads.
There are a lot of people who don't know the difference between 'Contemporary' and 'Conceptual', and Jane Deeth is obviously one of those who display no understanding of her own misunderstanding!
Maybe this woman should start listening to others. She demands that her perspective be understood while at once denying the perspectives of others. She demands that her definition of art be accepted, while denying the definitions of others. Like all intellectuals who subscribe to a discourse, she is condescending as fuck by branding people incapable of understanding her discourse rather than seeing them as having a merited, negative, understanding of her discourse.
You won this one, 100% correct
Patrick J. Szucs Jr. You just caught a body..
Patrick J. Szucs Jr. put a candle on an elephants shit and anyone who see it will say "what the fuck is this shit ?" and walk away...no inspirational no nothing, they will just walk away .
Basically people on the whole don't like shitty things, and modern art is so shit people are bemused why it is even called art.
Very well put. This applies to argument and difference in general; the same tactic is used with politics, religion, philosophy, economics, and any kind of art.
SuperMagicalGenie: Or maybe they will just say Happy Birthday, Dumbo.
This was definitely what I was looking for, someone explaining how to look at and interpret contemporary art, I was beginning to give up on trying to understand it.
This talk really shows that contemporary art is not worth the bother.
If you're interested in modern art there is a great book entitled, Pictures of Nothing, by Kirk Varnedoe.
I swear some people speak the thousand words for art rather than letting the art speak those words for itself.
This is, quite simply, the worst TED talk I've ever seen. Her main point--that we need to listen to the artwork--could equally be applied to the sidewalk or to a dumpster behind Denny's. How does it in any way validate the crappy works of art she speaks of? A mind-numbingly bad speech by someone too self-satisfied to notice that the emperor has no clothes.
Glorified Truth Hey! You get it! www.incidentalcomics.com/2015/03/the-secret.html Give it a try.
Glorified Truth I don't know you…but this Truth you spoke of is indeed Glorious! More of us need to speak up! Thanks for your share.
What you seem to be overlooking is the context of the work. Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive... at the time his work was seen as crappy. Even though it fitted the accepted norms of mediums, canvas and paint, it did not fit the accepted approach or finish. Like the expressionists they twisted the meaning and approach of art. Now in context we see and read these works quite differently because our culture has moved on collectively. Van Gogh did not actually need validation at the time he lived, his works exist as masterpieces regardless, though obviously need to be or have been "listened to" have become so loved by so many.
Duchamp started the readymade and as he suggested he did not want to do what others had done by simply creating retinal or visual gratification art. Why paint a painting like Raphael? It has already been done... The question is what is our society about now? What is there to learn from it? Must we only represent it in a traditional artistic sense?
These "crappy" works you refer to had/have a point in context to the conversation in art and culture, as such they may be very much the opposite of "crappy". Art if you want to define it as such may well be in a sense "crappy"... kind of like our contemporary culture. So why are you surprised?
Though in reality the concept of exhibiting ones own bed is a as wonderful as any art that has ever been made. Just simply stop and consider what it would be to put your own bed in a gallery space. What meaning would that have for you? Would you be happy for people to see your dirty sheets? Embarrassed by the used tissues on the floor? There is a power in such a work, maybe even far greater than that of the Mona Lisa.
Jarad Bryant I agree with a lot of what you say. Thanks for your reply; it's good stuff to consider.
Jarad Bryant I like Van Gogh however he opened the door to a lot of dropouts to make a real mess out of art from there on
Why is there ALWAYS a group of people that feel that certain art is not art? Art just does not consist of nude models, religious imagery or landscapes, if certain art is not to your taste, then move along and look for what you like.
yeah I really don't understand it. Like art always tries to follow a specific movement and obsessed with 'the next thing'. However, books ,movies and music have so many genres. I am really hoping that in the future people can relax and realize that there can be different genres.
So can anything be art? Dog shit, trash, even pictures of people's anuses? (yes that has happened). The problem with the word "art" is that anything can be art. When anything can be, nothing is really art.
Kool Kat That's not up to me to decide, that's up to the public to decide, because if someone was able to stuff feces inside a can, call it art and sell it, well don't blame the artists, blame whoever buys that shit. (no pun intended)
gp5 don,t really think anyone likes this type of Art. They go to see it out of curiosity and walk out convinced all art is garbage. Why go to university or art school to really learn nothing but come up with some stupid ideas no one is interested in. We have been going through a sad faze in art history. If you don,t like these beautiful images go to a junk yard and try to make some art sense of what you see. Its cheaper than going to the Lourve
ancient artist Right, but what I'm referring to is certain art, lets say Basquiat, a lot of people don't consider his material art, he never went to an art school or had any formal education in art yet he's considered one of the best artist by many.
I'm not talking about the pretentious material that certain people want to pass off as art.
The gist of Ms. Deeth's argument is that the viewer of what she calls "art" has the responsibility of examining himself or herself and adapting his or her views to the artist's view or philosophy-- at least to some degree. The responsibility of the artist to the viewer is not mentioned. Thus the following question comes to mind. Why is there ALWAYS a group of people that go out of their way to offend others and then label them as Philistines for being offended? The problem with the offenders is that they do not want us to "move along". They want to rub their misbehavior on our faces.
We can avoid the unmade bed, the on-and-off light switch and the shark in formaldehyde and ignore their pointlessness, but that does not satisfy some contemporary "artists". They hurl public insults and they play coy about their motives. They pretend to have high brow intentions while deliberately insulting our tastes and values. We'd like to move on to worthwhile things-- but the high brow vulgarians don't want to let us do so.
Art is in the eye of the beholder... I didn't realize what I was watching until I accepted Mrs. Deeth as a master of fiction.
Art is only well known because of the value collectors and museums give it. People with money give it value. Its politics plain and simple, money buys exposure. Once again its billionaires who tell us who to give our attention to. If that one person didn't buy the giant shiny balloon animal for 55 million NOBODY would care. But because a single piece sold for a ridiculous sum because ONE person with money liked it, we're given the impression that there's merit to the art. Nobody gives value to art but YOU. All the crap you see in museums really is just that, its garbage...But at least one person happened to like it.
+SilentMott If the garbage makes people think about their life and give them some sort of feeling, then isn't the garbage at least kind of useful in a way? I agree that it shouldn't be nearly as valuable as it is, but it's not complete garbage in my opinion.
Artie Fishel But why is it "art" when its expensive? Why isn't it just meaningful garbage? I just think that art has lost any meaningful display of thought AND skill. Its just any boob who lost a family member and has a set of crayolas in the drawer.
Actually here's the BIG picture, when you've created something that anybody can find ANY kind of meaning in, haven't you completely failed in communicating what you wanted to communicate? Isn't art created to mean someTHING instead of "whatever you get out of it". If you think hard enough about anything, you can get some kind of meaning out of it, but when a billionaire pays money for it, all of a sudden we should ALL pay attention to the big black stripe on a white canvas. I call bullshit.
Yea that's true. I think art should be about both skill and meaning. Every single human on this earth can portray meaning, but only talented ones can do it in skillful ways. Contemporary art is my least favorite type of art but I still think it should be considered art to some degree.
10 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
I can't believe no one booed.
Okay... Or maybe the emperor really is naked, Lady.
ha ha ha ha ha. I laughed. I don't even agree and I laughed. pretty cool thought
@@afm6665 "probably" was a good choice of words, when you are guessing how to categorize other people you don't know
@@afm6665 bless you
The problem is that people want art so much to correspond to their personal expectations about what art should be. The problem is that people expect art to be something they should understand, sometimes with a minimum effort. The problem is that people confuse understanding with liking.
What happened to 'a picture paints a thousand words'? With modern art, a thousand words seems to be required to paint a picture. Art should stand on it's own merit- it shouldn't need an essay to convince us that it is art.
Spot on.
The best bit in this whole video (for me) was near the end when she touches on the idea that contemporary works of art demand more from us than, say for instance, the classical works of the "old masters". They demand more from us in that they ask us to really engage with the work of art, and they have the potential to speak to each person on a level that's intimate and unique to that viewer. The work asks each of us to explore issues and ideas about ourselves; how, what, and why we value what we do.
This is something the works of the "old masters" simply don't do. When I look at the Mona Lisa, yes, i, as someone with a fair amount of fine art education in my background, may be able to get more out of it than say, your average viewer with no real art historical knowledge, etc. But the difference between what i can get out of it compared to the average, "uneducated" viewer, is really not that great, compared to the difference between us when we engage with one of these more contemporary works of art.
In other words, contemporary art has the great advantage of being able to put everyone on the same level in this sense, where my knowledge and background in the fine arts is not terribly important anymore. What matters is my own personal experiences, my emotional, conceptual, and psychological context. In this sense, we all are on a level playing field with modern art because we all have emotional, conceptual, and psychological nature that we bring with us, and no one person has an advantage in this respect. And what modern art really demands of us is that we engage with that context; our own personal natures as individuals (as well as members of communities, families, etc.). The Mona Lisa doesn't demand this of us; it merely requires our ability to appreciate "realistically" rendered images, which practically speaking, anyone can do.
Not sure if i'm expressing myself as precisely as i'd like about this, but i hope people understand the idea i'm trying to point at here.
I completely agree. I think that some contemporary art also faces another challenge in addition to the shift in the mindset, namely, the vulgarity of it. For example, when we are exposed to the unmade bed, it invokes some distastefulness within us, perhaps because it shows ordinary aspects of life-that we normally try to hide-displayed on a pedestal. Most people are afraid to think about it in depth, perhaps in fear of the truth, and the inevitable fact that once they see the light, they must change their lives.
Jeff C I think you may be overestimating the critics here. Most critics (i.e. laypeople) i talk to seem to just dismiss it out of hand, as opposed to actually absorbing the work, reacting with fear (of what it might mean) and THEN finally rejecting it.
Rather, i don't think most people even take long enough to engage with the work to get afraid or have any kind of reaction except "Well, I could do THAT".
I think people still look at art as a very narrow type of "skill" instead of a, as Jane puts it, philosophical invitation.
Art has gotten much more philosophical, and most people, by and large (at least in my experience) are just not philosophically inclined, or have an outright dislike for it. Most people seem to regard philosophy as a waste of time, mental masturbation, cheap tricks, etc.
So perhaps people's distaste for modern art is fundamentally explained by the fact that modern art is highly philosophical, and what people really detest is philosophy.
Wittgensteinism I think maybe you are overestimating people's ability to recognize philosophy (haha being slightly facetious here). In my opinion, people often say that there is no meaning/no philosophy in a pile of trash or something because they do not recognize it. They might be able to recognize philosophy in Magritte's work, but not in Hirst's (or whoever else is good I dunno). The thought pathway in my first comment is something I think is unknown to most people, but at the same time, still done by them. We might not know the mechanisms of how we breathe, yet we all know how to do it. This is only my opinion though, which pertains to larger questions about nature. And also, there are plenty of people that react in the way you said, or the way I said, or entirely differently, so I'm incorrectly generalizing the population into one mindset. I'm sure there are philosophers who hate contemporary art too who have another justification for their dislike.
All those things you mention, modern art does not even do either! They leave you with emptiness, they do nothing at all. Some people might make you believe contemporary art does ask you questions and confronts you etc, but thats just nonsense, and just ideas you heard from others.
The older arts they something significantly better than contemporary art, which is, the hand of the artist is still there. The artist carefully touched every part of the canvas or clay to organize his artwork. You can feel the presence of the artist even after centuries. Mona Lisa is not my favorite artwork, but there was another portrait made by da vinci, and the eyes in that portrait were completely alive. The woman in the portrait of centuries ago was still present and alive in that painting. Also contemporary art completely lost the idea of beauty
...in the old days , images had a lot more impact on people as they were intended to do. They weren't bombarded with commercial images in their eyeballs as we are today.
Shitting on a canvas tells a story tooo. Someone handled shit and spread it on a canvas. Great story! These nutjobs out in force thumbing down every video calling their shit, ummm, shit.
it's shit - that's what's wrong with it. end of lecture.
Cyb3rElectr0 no. you're pretentious
***** Yep. You don't need to be a "creative" to realize that. Contemporary artists today - their works are mostly trash which reflects the modern decay.
***** Fair enough - you are entitled to your view. For me, modern art is the genius of: Picasso's Cubism,Italian Futurism,the French Surrealists and the Dadaists - all culminating in Jackson Pollock several decades later.There's been nothing of note since Pollock. In abstract drip painting art reached its apotheosis. There was, and is, simply nowhere to go after that.Since the 1950s modern art has just been ironically and self referentially playing with its past and pissing in the wind in my opinion.
LOL!
Saying an artist is pretentious is laughable. Is a doctor pretentious because you don't understand what they are doing or when a mechanic fixes your car? The problem is that art IS NOT for everybody. I don't make paintings for schmucks like you. Hahahahah. You can't afford it anyway. So keep the door shut and keep the trolling alive.
I don't need to 'listen' to bad art any more than I need to listen to a bad song on the radio.
Well said!
PhD in madness or narcissism more like it.
Many of the comments written here ask whether one can tell a good piece of contemporary art from a bad one. The answer to this is surely 'Yes' in regards to almost everything we consider art before the 20th century.
Let's take impression as an example, which was controversial in its time. A Monet surely can be seen as requiring more skill and being more thoughtfully painted than the average joe could put together. Yet, the controversy at the time was that the works were considered too 'sketchy' and like a rough draft of a more finished and polished piece. So why do we now sometimes find them to be more profound and brilliant than the masterful and meticulous paintings produced before them?
One reason is because the Impressionists were getting at something new in art that hadn't been done before. Namely, they were painting their 'impression' of a scene: the lighting, glare, and blurry quality included. Instead of a real representation of precisely what a scene 'objectively' looks like, they painted their perpection of a scene instead - the sun bouncing off a lake, or water lilies flowing together in color and palette.
Modern Art (one of the movements before you see the contemporary art of today) brought in an even more abstract view. Works were devoted to just one or two colors, a few lines, or some simple shapes. Again, the art community asked why? Now there is none of the beautiful impressions and perceptions the impressionists saw and recreated. What beauty or value can a painting of just a few colors be?
Well, an exploration of mood, of color, and of line and shape are some possible answers. Modern artists explored the raw power of individual colors, of sizes, of clashes between shapes and intersecting lines. The smooth feeling of a curve vs. the hard edge and barrier of a straight line. We again saw its beauty and power, and we again recognized which artists were truly discovering these aspects, and which were mere imitators.
And now, arriving in the 21st century, art has again turned its sights. One broad answer to the kind of art that is being produced is an exploration of concept, of philosophy, and of the groundwork of 'what art is'. Instead of exploring perfect representation (the old masters), impressions, or abstract form, Contemporary artists explore the notion of what an art piece is and can be, which by its very definition is going to stand on the borderline of what is and isn't art. Can a whole space be art? Does a signed object become art? Can vandalism be art? Can art be ugly, tasteless, blank, empty, disgusting, audience-created, shocking, or even completely pointless?
If a work fails to evoke these questions, if 'listening' to it provides no original ideas, if there is nothing to be discusssed about it, then it will die out and be considered a failure. But if it provides a spark, if it gets people talking, and if curators, buyers, and critics like it, it will rise to the top and be accepted into the art world. Not many can make art that reaches this criteria, and it isn't just a crapshoot. There are artists which get us talking, and those that leave us flat, and because of that, a new trend in art now exists all over the globe.
+Jozef Lewitzky Jozef to me it is all about New galleries not being able to afford the quality Art produced by Artists who put the hard yards in learning the fundamentals of producing quality Art. So they have become lazy and create new Art markets which they can afford to buy and flog it off as Art. People trained in the Contemporary Art Schools have not had the opportunities to learn the good stuff so they promote the philosophies you are promoting. Keeps Art industry moving by employing Art teachers without these skills who intern tell their students they are doing wonderful stuff. Thus the circle of mediocrity keeps going.. Unfortunately the humble average Joe doesn,t buy it and the Art Status goes downhill. Foolishly most contempt artists are the victims of one of the biggest art scams of the last century.
Those are very good points ancient artist . My point is only that there may not be such a conspiricy going on. Every generation has been moving art in new directions, and this approach is the new generation's
+Jozef Lewitzky Josef Everything is basically disposable today. Artifacts of any kind seem to have little value. Some 50% of Galleries have closed down in Australia over the last 10 yrs. Most blockbuster exhibitions are always the old masters.
+Jozef Lewitzky - Good points. But sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.* And a pile of trash is just that.
*For those who do now know, this is a referrence to a painting depicting a pipe titled 'This is Not a Pipe' by Rene Magritte. "The present reeks of mediocrity and the atom bomb. ” - Rene Magritte
And, now, a whole lot of non-biodegradable rubbish.
+Jefferdaughter Hi Joseph, A fairly famous footballer in politics recently said about a govt policy "you can polish a turd for a long time . But it will still be a turd" The Art mafia still don,t get it. Garbage is garbage irrespective on how hard you want to sell it
I went to museums with my best friend and his dad. His dad is a abstract expressionist and owns his own gallery and will stand at a painting in a gallery and talk about it for minutes at a time so everyone can hear and understand. Like all aspects of life there'll always be people, unfortunately elitists who will be heard above the rest, that don't understand. This speech is irrelevant.
the problem is contemporary people
This video/lecture is mis-titled. From the lecturer's point of view the question is "What's wrong with contemporary art audiences?" Not 'what's wrong with contemporary art'? That wasn't answered...and I'm not sure she thinks there is anything wrong period. Interesting nonetheless.
she talked of how we respond to art that is 'behaving badly'
The title should be "nothing is wrong with modern art."
Contemporary art/artist: "It's not about how the art looks like, but the message it is trying to say. It's not about the money either, but it's for sale because I've been clueless to treating my passion as a job, but I've been a starving artist for 20 years so I hope you have some pity for me and purchase my piece for the low price of half a million. thank you"
Art reflects society. If you have a problem with contemporary art consider the society you live in.
Or just consider the kinds of art which do inspire you, and see whether contemporary "art" meets those values.
It's easy judge art, good art holds your attention, bad art doesn't.
Love reading the comments and realising so many people don’t get contemporary art, so they just dismiss it
They dismiss it because they do not see it as art. There's nothing to get.
I think this video is significant in today's day and age where it seems people don't take the time to fully examine anything anymore, much less art. Contemporary art for the most part goes so far out of the norm that the only feeling/idea that can be drawn is indirectly by the viewer themselves. If people don't take the time to look at it, they won't be able to understand or appreciate it. However what this woman fails to realize is that just because something is contemporary and 'carries a philosophy' doesn't mean it's a good piece. "The Lights Going on and Off " is a bland and arbitrary piece of contemporary art in my opinion. How well you execute your idea is just as important as the idea itself. Even if your style is 'out of the ordinary' and doesn't follow traditional art rules, if you fail to make something that doesn't connect with the viewer on some type of level you've failed. People that make pieces as dumb as that are whats giving this field of art a bad name.
i have yet to see any good contempt art. Very poorly executed,poor skills, ideas often not worth the effort. Kids that go to these type of art schools are exploited by teachers who can,t paint and are getting a salary brainwashing these students that they are doing "Cutting Edge " art. Sorry but you are lied to .No future doing this stuff. maybe ok as therapy. Thats all
No my friend, I'm afraid it is you that has been lied to. Either: 1 that type of art just isn't for you, or 2 you've just not had the opportunity to see anything that speaks to you on an emotional/mental level. You're full of shit on the whole 'teachers exploiting students' thing. Take it from somebody who's been to art school, there are parameters and guidelines that they make you 'fit inside'. You do get a modicum of freedom in your projects but your grade is based overall on how well you meet the standards of the assignment you've been given. In the end the only time your art gets exploited is if its something marketable. Most contemporary art is so 'weird' that there really isn't a commercial demand for it. If you're doing a painting, photograph, sculpture, w/e and the first thought that comes to your mind is "I want to make money" then you're not an artist. You're a businessman. To an artist, ALL art is therapy. That's why we create it. No matter how weird it may seem to the average joe, it holds an inherent meaning to the person that created it. We have an emotion or idea in which we want to bring to life. No REAL artist is thinking in terms of "I'm just going to slap some shit together and call it art." There's always some initiative to create it. Just because it goes over your head doesn't mean its 'talentless.'
SloughMusic
I know a Masters contempt student who phoned a tutor to ask what colors do you mix to make a red. That is a masters student. That person will become a master when graduates. Can you believe it? Would a real master not know that you cant mix a primary color. Rembrandt and co would roll over in their grave to see how this modern day therapy masters are running around trashing their heritage. You are well and truly brainwashed if you think this stuff can be called Art. Its a bit like me doing a weekend workshop on nutrition and calling myself a Doctor. I know heaps of ex Contempt art students coming out of these art schools really disappointed and then having to enrol in real Art schools to learn the fundamental skills of Art.so they can use these skills to properly express themselves.
*****
Contempt art survives on telling you that everyone is an artist without having to put any energy into learning skills. Thats why they suck thousands of students in to pay huge course fees to come out of Art school without any technical Art skills. Meanwhile the so called Art teachers who have few Art skills themselves, earn a salary without teaching students anything. They get students to write a 20,000 word essay getting them to try and explain what their "art work" is about to a bored "anyone silly enough" to listen
I have to say, though, if your friend didn't know that red was a primary color, I think that's their fault more than the school system's. I mean, I've known that red was a primary color since elementary school, and I'm pretty sure every art class I've had since has gone over the color wheel.
i have been painting and drawing my whole life,visual art is about emotional effect ,what you see and how to express,it is not about thoughts what you listen and what to express.
Nothing this woman says is going to make me appreciate contemporary arts!
Me neither
modern art is just about the sake of beeing revolutionary, as creating something, that is YOU!
As near as I could figure, her point was that man is suppose to serve art, but art is not there to serve man. However, if you want my investment of time and/or money, then you have to meet my expectations. I have no obligation to spend even one microsecond paying attention to your "art". Effort, skill, and something other than a tired old social justice message better be included.
no. she said art 'that is behaving badly' can converse with you... such as to consider your reaction to it... to learn from your reaction... such as if you are a neat freak, for example. Maybe art can speak to you in more ways than you expect it to do is what she was saying
Finally someone who is stating what a lot of people are thinking!
I think leaving out the money issue is a BIG omission. I'm a working artist myself, and my gripe with--for example--Tracey Emin's 'Bed', isn't that it's 'not art' but that its noticeably less interesting and well executed than equivalent works by the Kienholzes or Louis Bourgeois. But for non-artist friends, I sense their objection to the kind of pieces profiled in this Ted Talk is not that they're 'too weird' or 'not-art' but that they sell for huge amounts of money. I think any short talk on the contemporary art world needs to address this because its a valid and interesting problem; one we ignore at our own peril.
Gav, but a number of people find Emyn's work interesting .and who is to say that non-artist aren't blessed with the critical skills to analyze her work through. There is something in your argument that you can't articulate but I don't think you figured out what it is. Money is at the centre of everything. And Emyn's selling her work very well . its a business .
Gavin I know many "artists" who did contemp art with installations which they did at art schools allstuffed under their houses not knowing what to do with them. Lots of contemp art students are wasting their money and time learning no skills and regret going their for the rest of their lives. Big con keeping art schools in jobs and "artists" the big losers
Contemporary art is not a movement or type of art. It merely describes art being created in the now, as apposed to ten, twenty or thirty years ago. It should not be explained, if you can't relate to it, then it's not for you, move on to something you can relate to. There is a lot of art in the world.
9:10 She chose to throw eggs at it? Well, then it must have been a performance!
No, but seriously. There is contemporary art that is good and that actually can speak to people who don't have a degree in art, but sadly most contemporary art isn't like that. I wouldn't have a problem with that and most of the time I simply ignore bad modern art, but sometimes there are reasons to get angry about it.
Example: My school went to an art exhibition in honor of the Expo in Milan in 2015. The theme of the Expo was "Feed the Planet" and it should have been about ideas helping to make food accessible to the poor, environmental friendly food etc. (that the Expo mostly failed in conveying this message is another story). Anyways, as soon as we reached the part of the exhibition about modern art, we were able see the exact contrary of that message in many different pieces of "art". One artist, for example, had put a lump of mozzarella into a chariot, calling it "Mozzarella in carrozza", which is basically a pun about an Italian dish with the same name that literally means mozzarella in a chariot. And that's it. That's the whole message of it. And the museum was putting a new lump of mozzarella into that chariot everyday. Do you know what a waste of food that is?
Another artist had build a house out of bread. I don't need to say more about this.
These things really made me angry, because it just shows how little respect and gratitude we have for being able to eat as much as we want to. So in some sense these works had a meaning, but it wasn't intended by these artists...
art is in the eye of the beholder. art is what you make of it.
So what she is saying is that WE must "listen" to the "bad behavior" of Contemporary Artists. Awww….the poor babies have something to say and we're NOT LISTENING! BAD BAD BAD people. Shame on us. How did the world get to be so crazy. A pile of poop in the middle of an Art Gallery…and there is something wrong with US for not wanting to look at it, engage it, or think about "what is good about this "art".
***** I go to as many art exhibitions as I can see. Most is of very poor quality. Teaching standards are very substandard. No wonder their is little interest by the general populace. Some of the stuff I see people buy i find unbelievable. Rubbish. The public generally have little appreciation of fine art. Have you seen people walking around with parading their recently acquired tattoos. showing them off as if they are high quality art pieces. Lot of it is absolute junk and they are stuck with it for life.. I can,t beleive how pathetic some peoples tastes are. The modern art movement has really contributed big time in dumbing down the fine Arts.
ancient artist Well put, Ancient Artist...
One of the best Ted talks. So we'll articulated and succinct!
The problem isnt with the art its with the viewers .people want to roll into a museum and understand everything like they understand tv,movies,amusement parks,and their friends.Its a game and the best way to play it is to enjoy Art because you DONT understand it.Have you ever seen that guy in a museum talking about the art so everyone can hear?Its a really arrogant way to be.Whats cool about it is that life is hard to understand but we try to enjoy it anyway.Art is the same.Now you can study it and you will enjoy it more..but its impossible to fully understand a work of art.its a mystery why we even do it. She has points to be made but in the end shes wrong to even try to explain it.If you dont get it dont go to a Museum.Its not for everybody and thats ok.I dont get soccer or chess..but I dont whine about it.
I think she did a good job at trying to open people up to approaching contemporary art.
I am an art student and really struggling with contemporary art , even when I see a lot of it in my school.
eartianwerewolf I love conventional art which involves skills and talents...coz yea not everyone can draw and paint...actually I took degree in biology and decided to further my study in art so i can learn to improve my skills in drawings but what I see are just contemporary arts and I was like..what is this?? Am I so far behind in art? And I took a look at my hand drawings and paintings and I feel like..'are these not valuable?" since everyone in that campus go for contemporary art..and now I am so confuse and a bit frustrated for my research topic that I should use for my art project soon...should I stick with my conventional paintings or should I go for contemporary art too like others...but I'm always love the conventional ones but with my level, I don't think it's strong enough....T.T
eartianwerewolf
check out the art school in Academy Florence and enrol in it .You will save money rather than wasting it doing contempt art and then being broke and not able to study the stuff that makes a real Artist.You will not regret it.. You will not learn anything in playschool
mira diba
Mira you are on the right track. Australian art schools are stuck in a rut.If you want to learn Art to a professional status I think you need to venture overseas. The Florence Academy of Art is full of Mature age students who have struggled with getting no where in doing contempt art and are going back to what they originally wanted to go and learn this stuff to a professional standard. The stuff you are asked to do is merely play therapy and keeping teachers with little to offer in employment. Check out Florence Art Academy
*****
Hey dood, if you don,t know what Art is mate, stick with the bullshit, and enjoy
if you have to verbally explain it, it shouldn't exist.
Use words instead.
I agree.
If the artist's 'concept' requires a wall of curator's notes and a backstory to be understood, the piece is a failure.
Yeah I mean why make a visual statement (art) that can only be explained verbally? It defies the whole purpose and concept. Its a paradox
contemporary "art" is an assault rationality, standards, and the hard work of actual artists.
Agreed.
I can't sing at all but by what you're telling me lady, the problem is with the audience not listening properly. Excellent! I get it now... so, I've recorded a song. It's of me burping. These are the best burps anyone has ever heard. I've called it 'A little bit of indigestion' by me, the artist known as 'Ava Burpsing'. I'll get my coat. I'm off to Sony!
Burst out laughing. You're right: if we apply these people's logic to its natural conclusion, then we are all "right"!
if it takes so much explanation to appreciate it is not art, especially when it doesn't make much sense. The condescension doesn't help
I enjoyed Jane's talk. Nobody is obliged to buy, look at, or appreciate whatever is being called art these days. It's entirely a personal experience. If something is total rubbish in your eyes, at the very least it can make you laugh. Some artists are just trying to make a buck, but others have a life-enhancing philosophy or perspective. Our own reaction to the art can be so revealing. For that woman to throw eggs at the light installation means it must have hit a nerve ... but which one?? I'm fascinated! Where were these eggs from; did she have them in her handbag already; what did the hen think of her eggs being used in an act of violence; have the vegans had their say?
It's incredible to me that people spend their lives trying to get other people to "like" contemporary art. Aesthetic beauty is easily recognizable, and it is immediately effective.
She should find something else to do with her time.
People have been complaining about modern art since the Impressionists. The art world is much larger now and international in scope. As with music , film or TV, you have to figure out what you like amidst all the stuff you don't. In art more than anything else, the variation and selection is enormous. Generalizing about the state of art is impossible. And trying to ascertain the meaning of art is often not the point. We don't ask that of instrumental music or architecture. Enjoy it or not. We don't simply say we don't like contemporary music. We find what we like and listen to that. It's not that complicated.
The child's "bad behavior" metaphor can be used for modernism, because the modern artist did not want to grow up, to mature, thus their constant search for the "new" (see Kuspit's online article "The Problem with Youth"). In postmodernism or contemporary art, however, art is not "new", nor "bad" but "Neo" and "tamed", including Tracey Emin''s domestically "arranged", deliberately "messy", and pretentiously "emotional" bed.
Art has no agency. People do. The purpose of art is to bring people together, make them think or talk. Contemporary art is one way to do this for a sector of society. If it brings communities together to engage , then fine.
Their is no such thing as contemporary art, it is all word play.
And you know it. Stop BS-ing.
So essentially contemporary Artists are philosophers with poor execution?
And poor education. I bet they haven't read Hegel or Kant.
It's a complicated topic, but I consider art like something that gets in your senses and makes you feel something, you don't have to reflex a lot about it or to be an expert, you just understand the message of the painting, picture, song or poem, because artists have the ability to translate the emotions. When most people have a problem to understand it, that means that the way used to translate is wrong... Just saying. (sorry if something is wrotten incorrect, i'm learning english)
In my opinion if an artist wishes the audience to listen and to engage in a philosophical conversation, then he/she must use the visual language to welcome the audience and lure it into this conversation. If the artwork fails to do so, or moreover makes it way too difficult for the audience to understand or witness the meaning behind, or to even identify it as art, then the artist is bad at communicating his/her ideas through visual language.
Such people may still offer great amounts of wisdom or philosophical questions. Then why not write a philosophical thesis or a book about it instead of lying in bed or setting up an automatic light shutter? There is a reason why philosophers like Plato, Confucius, Kant are not labeled artists, because the value of their thought was depicted in words so that the audience could read and listen to what they have to say. They understood that its the value of the thought they are emphasizing and not the (art) object that would lure the audience into the conversation.
Otherwise the art object in my opinion must be able to tell that the artist put his mind, heart, effort and time into delivering what it's supposed to deliver. The audience should be able to tell that the artwork is radiating the artist's soul. Only then may such art truly be recognized world-wide as a masterpiece. Whether Matisse or Rembrandt, the execution may vary, but it still lures the masses to listen to the artist's soul.
From my experience conceptual work is not a scam, because for the most part the artist isn't trying to trick anybody into buying it, that isn't their reason for making the thing in the first place. Stupid people get offended by it because they think its trying to trick them or that its trying to be pretentious. the fact that everybody on here is debating the fact that its economically a scam have already thought of work with such a limited perspective that they will never really have any sort of interesting experience with the art. A lot of this work is really referential of events and ideas in history, art history, philosophy, etc. that many viewers aren't aware of (esoteric). Most people don't pretend to know anything about molecular biology or genetics... shame that everybody thinks they are so goddamn smart that they have it all figured out with art.
Art is being destroyed -- deliberately.
And let it be
@@taylorj6177 These are two of the dumbest comments ever.
I really enjoyed that talk. Fantastic.
The issue here is that the inquiring gaze proposed is merely gazing on an already consumed truth. We are treated like children going to see the strange goings on in a church "why is that man hanging off a piece of wood?" "Why is that man in a dress?" "Why is there so much gold behind him?" The fact that someone else has already decided that there will be a hanging man, a man in a dress, and a lot of gold on show. Really, the questions of the child are immaterial, and the role this woman plays is just like a Sunday school teacher "But isn't the church nice? If we listen very carefully, we can hear the hanging man talk to us in our heads...", and all the other indoctrination. I'm sure that she thinks that she's doing something marvelous, but in fact, she is eating someone else's food, shitting someone else's shit.
This is basically true, I was interested to see a Ted talk on it but was very disappointed that she was an apologist for the failings of the art world - which she blames squarely on the public not listening - what obligation do the public have to listen pray tell? the issue is not that or even the art but the status conferred and the market interest, that is what has changed art - along with everything else.
Well, there are as many definitions of art as people who are thinking about it, but i think i got it right :P : For me art is an easily understandable visualisation of something that gives you alot of knowledge in a single look, and showing more usefull information in the background within the proper context, for that matter.
For example, a name of a virus contains alot of information, but it is encoded within years of molecular biology studies, so the name of the virus is not an art, bit, on the other hand, showing how viruses attack a living cell, infest it's dna and so forth, containing some acurate details of the cell itself IS an art, and a really great one! And it takes alot of effort to such thing realistic, and to show only the nessesary parts (because if you actually picture it - you need alot of cleaning so you can show only the processes of interest - and that's a real artwork!)
So if an image or any artwork shows me alot of usefull information, easy to understand (it may contain, emotions, historical data, high risks, scientific information etc.) and if i can see it in the right perspective (so my brain knows where to put the knowledge) it is art! If it just throws my thinking off balance, well... everything in our modern world is trying to kick your balance of thinking and understanding somehow...! How is that good? How is that usefull? To think outside the box is one thing, to think outside of reality is another! We picture so little about the actual real world that we live in, that we will never run out of outside-the-box ideas that are actually inside the reality!
Examine those 'don't likes'? Sometimes, there is nothing to examine. Does it affect my behaviour? Of course it does. It makes me laugh and cry out of madness. Why laugh? Because someone actually placed it in a gallery. Why cry? Because it is considered as an art. There is simply no artistic value in it. You're defending something that degrades art in general, something that pushed many people away from galleries and what makes real artists depressed. In my town nobody goes to galleries no more. Entrance is free. The reason is that there is rarely something good to be seen. People cannot look at it and appriciate skill, they cannot connect themselves with one dot, they cannot stand in front of a blank canvas or a white mug for 1 minute and pretend there is something mystical about it. Many times they would ask the one who made it what does it mean. Many times the 'artist' would respond "oh, I cannot explain it to you". If you have to be an artist to 'see' what is on the canvas, then that is not an art. If I have to stand 20 minutes in front of a painting asking myself questions and giving answers, instead of enjoying the work, skill and/or knowledge then there is something wrong. I want to get inspired and asked myself questions because the work showed me a different world not because I do not understand what he/she ment with one line. I want to feel ENVY of how skilled and knowledgeable the artist was. With 'contemporary 'art'' I feel insulted!
Iwent into a contemporary Art museum the other day , looked around this huge space and asked a staff member where is the exhibition? She said There it is on the wall. I looked up and saw a few fluorescent tubes put on the wall in a zig zag pattern. I scratched my head and walked out the nearest door amazed that someone had the nerve to call that Art.
I'm literally 1:13 in. I know the answer. IT STINKS! IT SUCKS! There is no skill involved. Skill is the key. The absolute worst piece of are I've ever seen was from a guy who put paint on the top part of a wall and let it all drip down the side of the wall. I remember thinking "I'd be more impressed if he'd just properly painted the wall.
I'm sorry you're incorrect. The correct answer is "What's wrong with contemporary art is that you are wrong, there's nothing wrong with it."
IT STINKS!!!
Then you do better. How many pieces do you have in permanent collections in museums? None? That's what I thought.
The art world of today is as trendy as it was in the past. Just because the aesthetics and trends are different doesnt make it not art. Creativity is creativity. The value is up to all to decide. Now if you are seeking fame and your art style is not the same as other successful artists, it doesnt help to degrade them. Degrading and dissing other people's art will never get you success. You will just turn people off. Better to focus on your own work and find like-minded people who support it rather than dissing the taste of more famous folks. If you want to rub shoulders with these famous artists than try to understand where they are coming from not saying its just trash.
I feel like all this contemporary art is merely the immature reaction of an entire group (contemp. artists) to the reality of what art is today.
Good artists don't sell paintings; they sell stories. They become concept artists, graphic designers, and CGI specialists. Good artists in todays world make amazing works for fantastical stories.
Look at the sketch of Rivendale and tell me that isn't art. Look at the reality of Pandora and tell me that isn't art. Look at the teeming expanse of the Witcher's Northern Kingdoms and tell me that isn't art.
The places, characters, and worlds in these stories are made from scratch by artists. That is where the good artists have gone, and what's left busies itself with lazy ventures for white collar cons.
I love how much people hate it. I think if we all loved this art it would lose its appeal. But the entire comment section is saying its bad it needs to go. I disagree. Beauty is subjective and should not conform to your expectations.
Skill is not subjective, though, and these pieces require no skill whatsoever.
Interesting coming back to this talk Very few people seem to like this type of art, yet it is still vigorously promoted I can, understand why. I often ask what contemporary art advocates like about a piece of work and most really struggle to come up with anything worthwhile. Some try and regurjatate the sales lines without any thing convincing to show there is any merit in it Even to Dark Ages around 1200 ad had merit in their Art Historically the last 100 years or so will be seen as an Age of Decadence in our Atr history
Interested how all contemporary artists have such similar demeanor and vocal intonations...
Nice try, but I still find a huge percent of contemporary art to be a waste of time. This lady that you mention at some point expressed it very well: at best, it's philosophy. Now don't misunderstand me, philosophy is a great thing.....the only problem is that even if one of its main occupations is to deal with art, it's not art itself. If someone wants to make a philosophical statement, then he could/should write a book. Art has common borders with philosophy but it's something else, something independent and self-contained. And contemporary art, I believe, has gone pretty far away from this special territory. My opinion.
"If someone wants to make a philosophical statement, then he could/should write a book."
I agree with a lot of what you say, but that statement _really_ rubbed me the wrong way. The written word is a great form of communication, but it is by no means always the best way. Especially when it comes to communicating complex systems. (which is usually not what contemporary art is about, but just sayin')
I am a fan of some contemporary conceptual art, so I am glad that someone has the guts to defend it. But this defense perhaps goes too far. There was little discussion of what is actually wrong with contemporary conceptual art. Her argument boiled down finally to blaming the viewers for not listening to the artists. If an artist wants to be heard, they need to say something that an audience might be interested to or surprised to or - and don't groan too loudly - shocked to hear. Some contemporary conceptual artists communicate effectively with their audience, and others don't. And either way, the audience that wants to puzzle out what is intended by a contemporary conceptual artist is often a very small slice of humanity.
Why is that every time i watch a video of somebody complaining about modern art they only ever show the terrible stuff.
I liked this talk. The way I see it is she's explaining that contemporary art has more to do with you the observer than about the art piece, so if you see something ugly in it then it's highlighting an ugly thought that's going on in you, the observer. It's kind of like imagining that maybe this is the messy stage of art's history where everything we do with it is to deconstruct art and ourselves. So contemporary art is slightly off of perfect, just so that we can dissect what makes art and what doesn't, and what goes on in our minds to make it so and why.
D4nc3Rabie- You're as much a liar as she is, congrats.
Yes I agree most Postmodern "masterpieces" are the product of a self absorbed juvenile personality disorder :)
She brings up the point, one makes a judgement about a piece within seconds and then doesn't examine the judgments made. People look at art and say they are scenes that are common and seen before, without a deeper examination. A life examined isn't worth living.
Problem is, if the scene is so common it has already been examined hundreds of times before seeing it in a gallery.
I went to the local museum of art today, and found little inspiring, when it came to modern art. I couldn't tell if the artist had studied, or had any real skill. Yet, I've also seen many modern pieces where I could see that each stroke was intentional, and part of the artist's soul was in the piece. The problem with modern art is anything can be called art, with no objective way of judging its merit.