6 ms·

If art's worth is merely the response it illicits, bravo. Vile.

by tillinghast 4y ago

xionon 4y ago
What’s vile here? The art looks unique, detailed, and dynamic.
- iratewizard 4y ago
  Different strokes. It looks an unrefined, unskilled imitation of 100 year old art styles to me.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean, but the mural is close to 100 years old.
    - iratewizard 4y ago
      That would make it the tasteless trash from a vile era. Artists who knew they would never surpass the old masters, so they instead said, "are the old masters' works even that good?" Followed shortly by shit and menstrual blood smeared canvases
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        I think you're confusing two completely different periods and approaches to art. That "vile era" also produced Grant Wood and plenty of other iconic American artists, so it's not even clear what you're referring to (unless you just don't like anything contemporary, in which case, good for you?).
seiferteric 4y ago
When I looked at it I thought it looked dreary and "communist" somehow.. don't know why but I looked the artist up and yep... he was a communist. Is that a thing? Communist art style?
- ggm 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - seabird 4y ago
    What's with the fascist art jab? The parent was asking about socialist/communist art without making any comment on the politics of it. Why are you implying they would like fascist art in particular?
    - ggm 4y ago
      Do you think? "I don't like communist art" invites the alternative. "I don't like this style of art" doesn't.
      - seabird 4y ago
        You're not making any sense. The original post implied that they didn't like communist art, not that they didn't like communism. Even if they were saying that they didn't like communism, fascism is not the only alternative to it.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    I don't like it either, but the reason I don't like has less to do with the fact that this is communist art, which yeah I sometimes find to be pretty ugly, and more with how it clashes with the neoclassical architecture of the actual building. It looks like graffiti to me, but well intentioned and obviously done with a lot of effort. Naturally this is all subjective.
    - twobitshifter 4y ago
      This is intentional for the art style. In Mexican Muralism, the indigenous identity of Mexico was being displayed in public in the buildings of the colonizers. “Many of the murals from the muralist project took on monumental status because of where they were situated, mostly on the walls of colonial era government buildings and the themes that were painted.[5] The mural painters of Mexico freely shared ideas and techniques in public spaces in order to capture the attention of the masses.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_muralism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_muralism
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deepdriver 4y ago
If these murals were posted to DeviantArt under a fake name, I think most would react like the parent comment. Social cueing plays a big role in how people publicly respond to art.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I don't think so -- most DeviantArt works don't look like 1930s Works Progress/Socialist Realism. If what you mean is that the historical context of the art makes it particularly interesting, then sure. That's always been true!
  - deepdriver 4y ago
    I can't find it now, but there's a piece by some writer where he interviews a New York City art critic. It takes some wheedling and wearing down, but eventually he gets the critic to admit that if a particular piece of abstract art weren't presented as "by so-and-so the Famous Artist," the critic wouldn't consider the work notable, valuable, or really very appealing at all. By itself, the work isn't very good. It only has value when attached to a brand and the according social expectations. That's what I meant by context and social cueing.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      I think this is a common observation in the art world. But we're not bound to the art world's perverse economic incentives, and Works Progress are in particular was created with consumption by mass Americans in mind. (I also think they're basically unknown to ordinary Americans, ironically, making the social cueing you're describing even more difficult.)
      - ggm 4y ago
        One maybe needs to know Picasso could (and did) paint in other styles, with phenomenal skill, to decide to appreciate his more cartoon like work as a conscious choice. For more modern artists who emerge rapidly into their style, It can be hard to look at a filthy unmade bed, (Tracy Emin) or half a shark in a tank of Formaldehyde (Damien Hirst) and feel like you aren't having the mickey taken. Or Kapoor "owning" Vantablack, and displaying giant mounds of dry colour. Or Oldenburg's "big things" which are all over the US as civic art. A lot of the critique of Koons comes down to his emulating the Warhol "Factory" model. His personal input into the outcome is sometimes questionable. Why don't we say the same about Andy? Maybe we should? "Punch" magazine had a cartoon decades ago ranking real unsigned picasso value over faked picasso real signature. Dali (for instance) was sort-of tricked into signing a shedload of paper, maybe he didn't care, maybe he wanted to get rid of the interloper, but there are now works which have valid authenticated signature but which are probably fake art. (I don't like a lot of picasso btw. I prefer matisse, a contemporary, and I think every bit as revolutionary in his own way)

If art's worth is merely the response it illicits, bravo. Vile.

xionon 4y ago

What’s vile here? The art looks unique, detailed, and dynamic.

iratewizard 4y ago
Different strokes. It looks an unrefined, unskilled imitation of 100 year old art styles to me.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean, but the mural is close to 100 years old.
  - iratewizard 4y ago
    That would make it the tasteless trash from a vile era. Artists who knew they would never surpass the old masters, so they instead said, "are the old masters' works even that good?" Followed shortly by shit and menstrual blood smeared canvases
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      I think you're confusing two completely different periods and approaches to art. That "vile era" also produced Grant Wood and plenty of other iconic American artists, so it's not even clear what you're referring to (unless you just don't like anything contemporary, in which case, good for you?).

seiferteric 4y ago

When I looked at it I thought it looked dreary and "communist" somehow.. don't know why but I looked the artist up and yep... he was a communist. Is that a thing? Communist art style?

ggm 4y ago
[flagged]
- seabird 4y ago
  What's with the fascist art jab? The parent was asking about socialist/communist art without making any comment on the politics of it. Why are you implying they would like fascist art in particular?
  - ggm 4y ago
    Do you think? "I don't like communist art" invites the alternative. "I don't like this style of art" doesn't.
    - seabird 4y ago
      You're not making any sense. The original post implied that they didn't like communist art, not that they didn't like communism. Even if they were saying that they didn't like communism, fascism is not the only alternative to it.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- remarkEon 4y ago
  I don't like it either, but the reason I don't like has less to do with the fact that this is communist art, which yeah I sometimes find to be pretty ugly, and more with how it clashes with the neoclassical architecture of the actual building. It looks like graffiti to me, but well intentioned and obviously done with a lot of effort. Naturally this is all subjective.
  - twobitshifter 4y ago
    This is intentional for the art style. In Mexican Muralism, the indigenous identity of Mexico was being displayed in public in the buildings of the colonizers. “Many of the murals from the muralist project took on monumental status because of where they were situated, mostly on the walls of colonial era government buildings and the themes that were painted.[5] The mural painters of Mexico freely shared ideas and techniques in public spaces in order to capture the attention of the masses.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_muralism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_muralism

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deepdriver 4y ago

If these murals were posted to DeviantArt under a fake name, I think most would react like the parent comment. Social cueing plays a big role in how people publicly respond to art.

woodruffw 4y ago
I don't think so -- most DeviantArt works don't look like 1930s Works Progress/Socialist Realism. If what you mean is that the historical context of the art makes it particularly interesting, then sure. That's always been true!
- deepdriver 4y ago
  I can't find it now, but there's a piece by some writer where he interviews a New York City art critic. It takes some wheedling and wearing down, but eventually he gets the critic to admit that if a particular piece of abstract art weren't presented as "by so-and-so the Famous Artist," the critic wouldn't consider the work notable, valuable, or really very appealing at all. By itself, the work isn't very good. It only has value when attached to a brand and the according social expectations. That's what I meant by context and social cueing.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I think this is a common observation in the art world. But we're not bound to the art world's perverse economic incentives, and Works Progress are in particular was created with consumption by mass Americans in mind. (I also think they're basically unknown to ordinary Americans, ironically, making the social cueing you're describing even more difficult.)
    - ggm 4y ago
      One maybe needs to know Picasso could (and did) paint in other styles, with phenomenal skill, to decide to appreciate his more cartoon like work as a conscious choice. For more modern artists who emerge rapidly into their style, It can be hard to look at a filthy unmade bed, (Tracy Emin) or half a shark in a tank of Formaldehyde (Damien Hirst) and feel like you aren't having the mickey taken. Or Kapoor "owning" Vantablack, and displaying giant mounds of dry colour. Or Oldenburg's "big things" which are all over the US as civic art. A lot of the critique of Koons comes down to his emulating the Warhol "Factory" model. His personal input into the outcome is sometimes questionable. Why don't we say the same about Andy? Maybe we should? "Punch" magazine had a cartoon decades ago ranking real unsigned picasso value over faked picasso real signature. Dali (for instance) was sort-of tricked into signing a shedload of paper, maybe he didn't care, maybe he wanted to get rid of the interloper, but there are now works which have valid authenticated signature but which are probably fake art. (I don't like a lot of picasso btw. I prefer matisse, a contemporary, and I think every bit as revolutionary in his own way)