August 26, 2007
-
Art Museum
My family and I visited the Art Museum today. I would like to make two observations about the Art Museum.
# 1 The Art Museum is the one place where you can stare at naked people and not look like a perv.
# 2 Some of the art at the museum doesn’t belong there.
I can never get over what is called abstract art.
Take this piece by Theo van Doesburg:
(According to Wikipedia, this piece is no longer copyrighted).
When I look at this piece, I don’t understand why it is considered art. I don’t understand why it belongs in an art museum. Anyone could create it.
Is this piece art?
Comments (137)
Abstractly
Most artists create something, find out people think it’s stupid, die, and then have their name become famous because someone thinks their art are masterpieces
If no one did it before then yes.
I can’t stand most modern art. Compared to Baroque paintings or the Impressionists, this is absolute crap.
A porno is another way you can look at naked people and not feel like a perv.
And yes, this is art.
If you take the minimalist approach of “less is more”, then we have a winner here. That is definitely a whole lot of nothing.
anyone can create it….but its still art. you could draw a circle, call it “Empty Space” sell it for 50 thou and it would be considered the best work of art in modern history. so i agree…its stupid….but it is art.
yes. art really is all in the eye of the viewer…
This is art, too.
Yes, it’s art. Art to one person may not be meaningful to another, but what makes art, art, is that it was created by one with some purpose: perhaps simply self-expression, perhaps to be understood by another, or maybe art for just art’s sake. The problem I suppose with abstract art is that people look at it and judge it immediately because it’s seemingly ambiguous or easy to make, without any interest in why it was created and for what purpose. For example, Malevich of the Russian avant-garde painted the Black Square in 1915 and it has so much meaning in light of the context of political / social history between America and the USSR, even though “anyone could make it.”
Probably. Artsy types will just tell us that “we can’t appreciate the beauty of art.”
Blah.
That’s not to say that there isn’t a distinction between good art and bad art, however.
It’s art like learning to count is arithmetic.
It is a piece of crap!
In art history class, whenever my professor put up a new piece on the overhead, someone was bound to yell out, “I could’ve done that!” and her response was, “but you didn’t, and that’s why it’s art.” Shrug.
It’s art.
This is art because it takes someone completely stupid (artist or politician) to come up with an idea as strange as painting squares and calling it art.
I don’t have much confidence in “art” and its aficionadoes.
sir, everything people create is art. this one is in an art museum mainly due to the curator’s taste. and personally, i find it appealing.
I am not a fan of modern art — for me, the skill of realistically creating someone’s portrait or a beautiful landscape (the Dutch painters, for example) is what makes art – for me anyway, but, as I understand it, modern art isn’t so much about that as it is about theory and experimentation. Theory of shape and color combinations, etc… My friend studies modern art and reads much theory about it, and it seems that the artists — especially someone like Kandinsky, wrote a ton of essays regarding color and such in addition to painting weird abstractness…
(For better explanation go to this Wikipedia link about Kandinsky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Kandinsky#Artistic_and_spiritual_theoretician)
I guess modern art – when viewed in this way – is comparable to anyone who would study the structure of music (such as chords and harmony, etc) or study literature by Joyce or Woolf. While it doesn’t have the emotional impact of a Rembrandt, and certainly doesn’t have the skill (IMO, anyway), modern art still has its place. But, yes, some of it is total crap. A lot of it is probably total crap – but not all. And I’d still much rather be in front of a David or van Ruisdael than a Rauschenberg or Pollock – but still.
sure. why not?
I’m not a fan of modern art either. The art of the Renaissance was MUCH more demanding technique-wise. Surrealism requires great creativity. This is just squares.
But as an artist, I have to respect the amount of time this artist put into the piece.
I guess so but it ain’t my kind of art..
Yes.
It’s art…but my 1 year old granddaughter can do art.
The question isn’t whether it’s art…but does it belong in an art museum.
I’m with Bittersunday on this. Not like it isn’t art.
I think everything is art. The problem is just getting someone to pay you for making it.
That depends on the definition of “art.” According to current times, you can hang a urinal on a wall and it’s “modern art.” You can hang 10 cow skulls painted gold in a line on a wall and it’s “art.”
For me, that piece is not art.
I wouldn’t have placed the items exactly that way. It’s someone else’s perspective. Sometimes the title is the real mind blower that makes you stare harder to try and see it. I guess you can call that art, but not a masterpeice. I prefer things that take more time and effort or things that are old, or politically/historically/culturally influenced, etc.
Define art.
I…guess so? but I’m not really into the whole “modern art” thing
yes. While it is not my taste….it is still art. And examples of all kind of art genres belong in museums. Everyone has different tastes and appreciate different things.
Yes.
Maybe that’s what the piece is trying to say..
Anyone can do it!
?
Art it is, not the best art but art.
Dan
When I look at this piece, I don’t understand why it is considered art. I don’t understand why it belongs in an art museum. Anyone could create it.
A Birds Eyes View
anyone can create it….but its still art. you could draw a circle, call it “Empty Space” sell it for 50 thou and it would be considered the best work of art in modern history. so i agree…its stupid….but it is art.
go granny go
It’s art…but my 1 year old granddaughter can do art.
I think the “anybody could have created it so therefore it’s not art” argument is a poor one. Art isn’t art simply because of the technical barriers in its production– the carving of marbel or the layering of paint. Even more important are the decisions in color, space, and composition to furthering of its effect.
We admire the chessmasters: Gary Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, Jose Capablanca not for their ability to move their chesspiece but the thought behind those moves. Most of us understand the movmeent of the knight or bishop from an early age, but virtually none of us, can reproduce the elegance and effectiveness of Kasparov’s tactical vision, Fischer’s precise play, or Capalanca’s genius.
The anology extends perfectly to von Doesburg’s work here. We can draw squares. We can color shape. What we are unable to do is to put it all together with the vision for the creation of art.
Anyone and their mothers may be able to drip paint but that alone don’t make them no Jackson Pollock .
Abstract is my favorite kind. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Anything can be considered art, you just have to take the risk and hope someone likes it.
In a museum I recently saw a painting entitled ‘un-painting’ which consisted of gray paint smeared randomly around a canvas. -_-; I am a big fan of most art, but modern art just rubs me the wrong way…
Modern art especially fits along these lines. Some of it is amazing, some of it is complete BS.
Actually, scratch modern art. This fits along with everything that is ever called art. It remains completely subjective. I’ve always felt that so long as something can make you feel some emotion, it is art to some degree.
-David
This is how Webster dictionary defines art (fine art): 4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects;
Honestly, I am one of those people who sees a picture like that in an art gallery and thinks, “What the heck? I can make that…”
Art doesn’t have to be complex, meaningful, or philosophical…I think the Webster dictionary definition best defines art.
That picture probably didn’t take a lot of skill, but I think it took some degree of creative imagination.
Part of the reason that it’s in the museum is because it’s so enigmatic. There’s not intricate detailing or forced abstraction, and the colors seem basic and uninspired. It’s kind of like how some people can’t stand Jazz music, because of the spaces between bars that contain seemingly nothing before the next phrase of a saxophone. The spaces are there to make you think, but others see it as a lack of substance, or as laziness on the performer’s part. The nothingness is deliberate, and makes you pay closer attention to what the artist chose to include.
Anything that is created with the intent of evoking human emotion is art. Maybe the intent was to make you bored. Or make you think. Or make you say, “I could’ve done that!” No matter what you think of it, Theo van Doesburg has accomplished his goal in evoking emotion based upon his creation.
Anyone can create it after seeing it, sure. But if you’re the first person to create it, it becomes something special. “Art” is subjective, what you think belongs in a museum is the opposite to another viewer. This is someone’s favorite piece, somewhere.
As long as art gets you thinking in talking, it’s successful. This piece or the abstract movement struck you, even though you did not particularly like it. You have to give it credit for grasping your attention at least. You chose to talk about it over the pieces you liked, even.
I just finished an art history class so i think i can kinda explain.
Theo van Doesburg was a De Stijl artist (a lot consider him the father of it). De Stijl was all about making simple art that every one could understand and everyone could do. They “simplified” art by only using primary colors, black , white and staight lines. They thought that if it was so simple that everyone could make it then then everyone could undertand it. Obviously the theory didnt work to well because know a day many people dont really understand it. De Stijl art peices are usally in museum’s more because ,of there at the time revolutionary thinking than there actual art.
Well i hope that helps or clears up your question!
“Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught” — Oscar Wild
‘Art’ like that is a kind of Andy Warhol attempt at ‘Philosophy of Art’. The question isn’t “is this good art”, the question is “how does the title of this art make it art in a musem”?
However, MoonFaeEyryan‘s comment that “I’m not a fan of modern art either. The art of the Renaissance was MUCH more demanding technique-wise. Surrealism requires great creativity. This is just squares.
But as an artist, I have to respect the amount of time this artist put into the piece.” summed up my thoughts exactly.
’nuff said…
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder…
This is definitely not something I’d like to behold. Thanks a lot, Dan.
Well… IM not a fan of that paticular piece of art….
Yes it is art.
Anyone could create it but not everyone could sell it!
I think the better ? might be is it worth whatever value it is that the museum puts on it? I seriously doubt I would think so……..
I think it could be concidered art for this reason…..Someone made it with their own two hands, the idea had to come from them or someone else and just building it is talent of some kind. Even if we are not interested in that type of art…
Hugs
Blessed Be
)0(
LP
Yes.
This is the definition of art.
yes … but i can do that. we all can. why aren’t we getting paid? who desid
i meant to say who decides? darn key board!
Nattata, I second that.
Whether it is art or not is irrelevant.
The real question should whether it was a waste of time. Both to create and to look at the piece.
I like it but I like color blocking works
An art museum staffed by art historians paid good money to hang it on their wall. You and your family paid good money to look at it. I guess that means it’s art. Personally, I prefer Renoir or Cassatt.
I don’t get the modern art thing. I really don’t. To me, Monet is art. Van Gogh is art. That’s a table cloth.
I suppose it is. It’s not impressive art though.
bleck… yup it is… not art I prefer… and I don’t understand it either…
Looks like ugly vinyl stick-on floor tiles.
I think… that it’s art because it evokes emotion. People love it, like it, don’t care for it, dislike it, hate it, don’t understand it, whatever. To me, that’s what any art is supposed to do. That’s why there’s elaboration in writing, lighting problems in photography, color schemes in painting, and key changes in music.
♥
Yes.
Abstract art was created to make the looker feel something. And it clearly made you feel something.
Other people may be able to do it, but he did it first. So his gets to be in a museum.
<33
yeah, anyone could create it, but he swallowed his pride and actually did, didn’t he? and he did a pretty nice job, because it looks cool.
also, that piece of art probably isn’t about you, the viewer. think about the person who made it. maybe he really needed to sell a piece and he designed it to match somebody’s house. or maybe he just thought it was tremendous fun to run a paintbrush over a huge flat space. or maybe he was BS-ing. Haven’t you ever BS-ed anything in your life?
so, maybe it’s not this guy’s best work, and that could be a reason why it “shouldn’t” hang in the art museum. got anything sitting around in your basement that you want to replace it with?
Art can be anything one creates for others to look at.
Art depends on the eye of the beholder. I don’t like the design at all because I’m not much one for abstract art, but I can appreciate the focal points and well thought out directional lines. The colors are nice too.
I once posted a picture of Cupid by the French painter William-Adolphe Bouguereau on my friend’s profile at Myspace and she had to take it down because almost 90% of her friends said it was child porn. It’s just a lovely painting. If you look at his work, it’s all richly detailed with jewel-like colors. The painting of Cupid is just beautiful because it captures the innocence of young love, etc etc. I can go on forever about it. Some people are irrationally stupid.
Granted, I would much prefer to see someone’s skill involved in the piece of art, but we must consider that people have paid thousands of dollars just to own a particular artists’ work. I guess if you are willing to spend the money on it, go ahead. As for me, I would rather see someone put their heart and soul into a piece of work.
This is one of those “eye of the beholder” moments…
I agree, whenever I walk into the “minimalist art” section of the art museum, I wonder the same thing. There is a painting about 6 feet high and it’s a long black line on a bare canvas. It’s been there forever. Just one black line. I don’t get it. You should go to the new art museum in Milwaukee, since they built the Calatrava it’s full of even more weird shit (although the last time I went back they had a Rembrandt exhibit on, which was way cool… now THAT’S art)
yes it is art. im guess microsoft paint. using paint is really hard for some people!
I suppose art is subjective, a lot like beauty. It’s “… in the eye of the beholder.
and I like go_granny_go’s comment.
“The question sin’t whether it’s art…but does it belong in an art museum.”
It depends. If a 5 year old did it, he sure did color in the lines good. If an adult did it, well, I could have done the same thing with a paint brush and a roll of painter’s tape. It also depend on how much you are willing to pay me for it. If you would give me $100,000 for it, sure, I would say definitely, that’s a work of art.
NO!!! of course that’s not art!! that’s absurd!!!
yeah its art but it looks like a bad floor.
Isn’t that the back of the Partridge Family bus?
Yes. Whenever someone looks at a piece of abstract art and says, “Well I could have painted that!” I always tell them, “Yeah, but you didn’t.”
Every piece of artwork has purpose. And every piece of artwork requires effort, whether it’s abstract or realistic.
The question is, what is it to you?
Obviously to you, dan, it’s not.
To me, it is.
If you can’t find meaning in it, then it is nothing…but if you can, then it is art. Thus, anything can…and cannot…be art.
That is my soapbox, feel free to paint it with tomato.
(But i’m not sure i’d consider that art…)
I don’t think Jesus should be making snarky comments.
Oh wait, yes. Yes i do.
no
I frequently find myself asking the same question.
I have made the same conclusion about the naked people.
all you artsy fartsy people are sheep. it’s crap.
Personally I think modern art is both weird and boring. Between that and some piece by Degas, I’ll pick Degas any day of the week.
it’s a piece of art to someone.
gonna go with a no on that. My six year old cousin does better.
Yeah, it’s art…but I don’t believe it deserves as much respect as something that actually took talent to do
lol. I wonder the SAME thing
I don’t like abstract art either.
Yeah, I don’t get it either. What about the pieces of “art” that look like someone sneezed all over the canvas? Maybe we’re not “deep” enough to understand.
I don’t feel I’m missing out on anything, do you?
HELL NO, and ANYONE who says that it is has a very misguided view of “art”.
It is art, but it is by no means a masterpiece. Does it belong in a place reserved for fantastic works? No.
Art is not just pretty pictures that you can recognize and walk away with some fuzzy feeling. Yes the Renaissance period brought us beautiful works, full of detail and a great deal of time put into them, but art is not just what the painting is of and if we can recognize it as a known object. Art is the synthesis of all of the elements. The elements of art are color, shape, line, texture, space……an artist may use these elements in any emphasis to create art. What you see as elementary was an artists attempts at emphasizing some of the other elements of art in order to elicit a response. What IF color was used as the primary element, or shapes. (as in the modern art example shown) All of the elements can express feelings and emotions in differing ways, the artist was experimenting with the elements in a new way, ways other artists hadn’t yet…..and look here we are discussing it.
Actually, I kinad like that one… but yeah, it’s not at an intellectual level to be worth placing in an art museum.
Yes, it’s art Dan. It may not appeal to you, or others here, but it doesn’t make it any less of an artistic piece. I also suggest that you look at that link that Yohsiph suggested. They’re artistic nude photos by Yuri Bonder. Yuri doesn’t just do artistic nude photographs though. He photographs animals and people in general. However, if someone who is easily offended by the nude human body would probably consider some of Yuri’s work as pornographic and not really art at all. So art is truely in the eye of the beholder.
sorry, not interested in modern art
I’m not a big fan of abstract. Some benefactors just bought a huge piece for a million dollars to hang outside one of the public buildings in the city near us. To me it looks like a giant eraser. If they wanted a giant eraser I could have done it for half that price.
Yes. It is definitely a piece of art. Being an art freak myself, I consider anything with a few smears and scratches on it an artistic object, except pornography, of course.
That’s a great piece! I like it : )
I love modern art. I love avant-garde. that’s the BEST.
yes it is. He created it, thus it is art
Those who admire d “great skill of d impressionists” to paint out of d blue, should find how d camera obscura method helped them. Theres an artist who canned his own feces, labeled it “100% Real Artist’s Shit” n sum1 bought it. Art is wht speaks to u. Rothko says to me more than Monet n his flowers
Oh, it’s art.
Whether it belongs in an museum or can be sold for a large amount is pending. But there are a lot of things that go into a piece of art: feelings, culture, events, beliefs and the progression or regression of the artist.
For example, look HERE for a second… If you look at Picasso’s self-portrait from 1972 alone, you’d think he was a terrible artist… that looks like a picture a 5th grader would make. But if you watch his style progression, you can see a glimpse into his mind, and his attitudes towards life and, in this case, his view of himself
it depends on cultural context and the artist’s intentions.
don’t put art in such a small, tight-assed western box.
Yeah, sorry! Unfortunately, the fact that this was created by an artist, and not by you does make it art. You could have made it…but you didnt.
I want to see an original by Dan. It would be art but what would someone be willing to pay for it or would they be wanting to hang it in a museum is the real question, right?
It’s not a question of “could someone do this”, it’s a question of “could someone independantly choose to do this”.
I’m not reading through all of your comments so someone else may have said this:
I don’t really care for modern art all that much either. I would have to say that the idea is really the part that can be classified as art. Some pieces have a lot of history or meaning that you may not known of as a casual observer. I find it’s always more meaningful to look at a gallery or a certain selection of art when I know the background of it regardless of what it is classified as. So basically, while anyone may be able to actually create the work, it is the fact that the artist came up with the IDEA for the art that makes it art.
In the eye of the artist, it’s art. Art is an expression of someone’s feelings, thoughts and ideals, so if you don’t know the person, or know what they were thinking, you could use your ignorance as an excuse to not call it art. If you did know the person, and know what they were thinking, than it instantly becomes a form of expression and then an acceptable art form. The right to call it art is purely contextual upon how well the artist conveys what they were thinking, or what they make you think.
Yes, it’s art but not art museum material. Arts these days are getting worser.
art but bad art
Yep, it sure is.
Certainly.
No it’s just a really bad tiling job.
Judging from the comments alone, art is a matter of opinion and I guess the above piece could be considered art to anyone who’s willing to read into it.
I’m not one for abstract art though so it’s just a bad tiling job.
i wonder if, like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder? or anything could be art? be there again that doesn’t sound so special and i think art is special. but it’s like assignments i did in high school art… after you’ve randomly put it together you say the purposefully designed elements just to please the teacher?? but not all art has to be structured or planned, right? but it is good to analyse. that art peice isn’t as bad as one we have in our museum of a blank canvas with a single paint stroke in the middle. Intriuging?? I guess the question is what defines art or makes something become an actual art peice??
I could tell youallaboutclor balance and harmony from my years of studying art,but I don’t care to bore the piss outta ya.I agree with you. It’s a fancy piece of toiletpaper.
See how almost every response is saying “Yes! This is art! This is exactly what art is because someone created it!”? Shit like that is the reason people can call this crap art. John Stossel did a special on this kinda crap a few years back, he had some preschoolers do some shit on a canvas, and had it up compared to a piece of real “art”. He had “experts” come in, look at the two, and determine which was more “artistic”. they more often than not picked the shit the kiddies did. Once informed that it wasnt an artists’ work and it was just a bunch of baloney some kids did, the response was pretty much “oh. well those kids sure got talent!”. I mean wtf? lol. Its NOT art, its a bunch of bull is what it is and we as humans are so ready to buy into something, ANYTHING, we’ll pay good money for this bullshit.
Yes it is art. Definately.
It is “art”, but not worthy of a museum and definately not worth money.
Yes, I think it could be considered art… however, it’s not my cup of tea and so I wouldn’t ever elect it to be displayed in an art museum.
there’s actually a lot of mathematical principles and compositional thought put into those modern pieces that just look like a bunch of squares. it was a time when artists were trying to strip down art to it’s most minimal forms and push for “progress” in art, constantly trying to make it better and more efficient in its effects - i suppose you could think of it as trying to find a mathematical proof for what’s pleasing to the eye, the reason why we think certain things or patterns are beautiful. notice the use of primary colors and how the shapes are shifted up rather than centered, to make your eye travel along the painting. the geometry in the painting is a reflection of the rational thought that dominated the times.
that being said, though it may not be a piece of “self”-expression of the artist, it visually captured the thought of the times and so it expressed the people in general. in that respect, it is art, and it had a purpose in history, so yes, it should definitely be in a museum.
art is anything creatively made that portrays emotion at a certain point and time. So in a sense, yes it’s art… but most artists once they’ve created something like this put it in their scraps.
It’s art, its just not great art, and it doesn’t belong in a museum.
I’ve often thought that my kids when they were little could easily have done some of the pieces that the museums call “masterpieces.”
It’s art.
It doesn’t nessecarily appeal to me.
It doesn’t look like something that required much skill or thought. But I could very easily be wrong i suppose. Maybe there is reasoning behind the color scheme and the way the squares are aligned. Maybe if we knew what was going on in the artist’s head, we could appreciate it a little more.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think some people can see something in this that the rest of us can’t see. I imagine it could mean a lot to a person who likes math and wouldn’t be interested in art otherwise. Simple shapes itrigue some people.
art isn’t always about creating something you can recognize. abstract art is trying to convey an emotion, or explore different colors, techniques, and shapes. as far as i’m concerned, it’s more of a design element than actual art, however you’d be surprised how much thought goes into pieces like these. personally, i would rather look at something that obviously took a lot of technique and perception to produce, but some people prefer this.
art isn’t always about creating something you can recognize. abstract art is trying to convey an emotion, or explore different colors, techniques, and shapes. as far as i’m concerned, it’s more of a design element than actual art, however you’d be surprised how much thought goes into pieces like these. personally, i would rather look at something that obviously took a lot of technique and perception to produce, but some people prefer this.
If you stood there and pondered its existence then it deserves to be there as that was its intention. That answer your question?
Absolutely.
bad art, good art, such a thin line separating them.
This is art that a four-year-old could put together with squares of colored paper and some glue.
Yes.
Just because it’s not realism, doesn’t mean that it has no meaning.
It could mean anything. Just interprete it. Use your imagination. Be spiritual. Don’t think about life now, then, or later.
I’ve seen a white canvas in an art museum. Call me close-minded, but if I can replicate it, I have a hard time calling it art.
of course it’s art.
I wonder how that person made the picture.. maybe by drawing a bazillion trillion dots to create those huge squares.
and yes..i believe it belongs in an art museum.. a lot of people think that the artwork has to be nice to be put there..
i’ve learned my lesson when i was a small child, thinking i could do so much better than all those book illustrators. growing up, i realized that a lot of them COULD do so much better.. it’s just the style that they want to create… and the type of setting they want it in. i don’t know if this makes sense, but it makes all the sense to me =)
No, it isn’t art. Art is the creative expression of truth (yes, I’ve actually worked out a definition of art). Therefore to qualify as art a piece must have an inherent message. Many people today deny that anything can have a message. However, I can safely ignore those people because if what they say is true then what they say has no meaning anyway. Modern art avoids meaning, so it cannot qualify. However, art can take many unusual forms. As long as it has a message though it qualifies as art. Even a poor piece can be art (it doesn’t have to be good art to be art, after all). What I’m saying is that we need to look for the message of a piece before we look at the quality. Our societies problem is that it looks for quality instead of message.
it doesn’t take creativity or skill to copy that.
but it does to think of that pattern for the first time
Anything that someone creates is art! But is this museum worthy? No. Hanging up in a McDonald’s? Yes. They always have cheesy art hanging around in there.
Looks like the tile that used to be on the kitchen floor in a house I once lived in.
I’m sure the artist is/was pleased with his creation, so … yes it’s art. There’s a thin line there.
My friend and I find it hilarious to stand and stare at the fire extinguisher at our art museum and muse over how lovely it is.
Kandinsky, Pollack and Rothko are all great abstract artists. The above painting is not even close to being in their league.
Question – how do you paint love or hate or thought or peace? Those are all abstract. Paint a picture of prayer. Not of a person praying but of prayer itself. Do you see how much of our life is actually abstract? The great abstract artists are trying to express the inner world of what it means to be human, not the outer world of results but the inner world of impulse, emotion, thought, and motivation.
art is always subjective.