General Discussion Thread

[Haiz]

Is it an other way to visit a museum ? (I mean, at least, in your head ?)

WELL at the pergamon in berlin...... it was a trip with my class and i had walked a lot and was kind of exhausted, there were no signs saying anything about what was allowed and not, so i sat down and leaned towards a VERY OBVIOUSLY FAKE pillar...... when a museum guard came and shouted Very Angry German at me. okay, okay, i don't lean against the pillar. I decided to drink a bit of water when - ANOTHER guard came and yelled Very Angry German at me. OKAY I'LL BE THIRSTY THEN. and when i finally got on my feet another guard yelled at me for having my tiny backpack on my back. CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT
(the museum itself was gorgeous though. i'm just sad i can't enjoy a makeshift temple without getting yelled at)

AHAHAHAA that's hilarious! It's like collage art! All that "but what is art reeeeeeeally" stuff somehow makes me think of that bit from Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics--this one. So very postmodern! Such ontology! OooOOoooh!

gosh that's brilliant
did not need the headache, but brilliant

I really want to visit an exhibition like that - art selected by theme? Yes please! It's a genius idea! The only thing more genius that that is the cow parade because I don't even know what that would be but I want to see it so badly.

I remember from our art history lessons that our teacher had pretty much given up on the topic already. She just said art's anything someone decides to call art, but that whether it's actually good art is always open for discussion. As is what "good" even means in context of art and whether there can even be such a thing as "good art" - told you, she had sort of given up. 

the cow parade was just a nickname they've given the archive's surprisingly large collection of cow paintings. Ah, national romanticism.

I mean people should realize soon art is a VERY SUBJECTIVE THING but people keep trying so hard to find a common factor

[Fimbulvarg]

WELL at the pergamon in berlin...... it was a trip with my class and i had walked a lot and was kind of exhausted, there were no signs saying anything about what was allowed and not, so i sat down and leaned towards a VERY OBVIOUSLY FAKE pillar...... when a museum guard came and shouted Very Angry German at me. okay, okay, i don't lean against the pillar. I decided to drink a bit of water when - ANOTHER guard came and yeller Very Angry German at me. OKAY I'LL BE THIRSTY THEN. and when i finally got on my feet another guard yelled at me for having my tiny backpack on my back. CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT

I've been there too. I think part of the attraction is that the guards will find something to yell at you for. "HANDBAGS ARE TO BE HELD LIKE ZIS! HANDS ARE TO BE OUT OF POCKETS AT ALL ZIMES!". I didn't stay there for more than a few minutes. No class of ancient artifact could possibly be worth having to rein in the urge to challenge the authority of angry German security guards. Not when there are bratwursts to be had just outside.

[Sunflower]

oh man i shouldnt start an actual art history ramble but BASICALLY it's about the collapse of our understanding of art and the struggle of WHAT IS REAL ART,, we've all seen the weird scribbles people call modern art and we've all heard "I can do that" but like, do you understand what made all this happen? It's when we literally can't define art anymore because it can be ANYTHING and once we find a good rule for what art is, SOMEBODY *side glance at duchamp* has to break them and
and
and yeah everyone tries new things and does weird things and everyone disagrees on what art is, what's good art, how smart do you gotta be to understand real art,,,,


edit: i tried to clear things up and i did not do that at all. whoops. i can do a more thorough lecture but i doubt anyone wants that ahahah

I do!  I love art history and art theory!  I liked that video clip. 
I studied Tom Stoppard's play "Travesties" in college, which is all about the Dada movement and WHAT IS REAL ART.

(Looks around.)  Uh... maybe I'm the only one who wants a more thorough lecture?

[hushpiper]

I mean people should realize soon art is a VERY SUBJECTIVE THING but people keep trying so hard to find a common factor

It's like humor! Just as hard to define, just as dependent on cultural context and personal preference... would be just as difficult to make an AI understand.

Also I think (culturally speaking) a lot of people think "art" = some combination of "good/deep/insightful/skilled", when that's not necessarily the case. Or it doesn't have to be. The ability of some art to make you rethink the words or concepts you use is one of the things I like about it.

(Looks around.)  Uh... maybe I'm the only one who wants a more thorough lecture?

Nay, you are not!

[Haiz]

I do!  I love art history and art theory!  I liked that video clip. 
I studied Tom Stoppard's play "Travesties" in college, which is all about the Dada movement and WHAT IS REAL ART.

(Looks around.)  Uh... maybe I'm the only one who wants a more thorough lecture?

I don't actually think I'm equipped to actually do a thorough lecture ahaha ha ha

but OKAY lemme try to fish up some points without actually getting my notebook
*ignores pile of art history books on desk*

- all the first art historians were VERY OPINIONATED on what was Real Art. Like, hey, Winckelmann, he was all OH NO BAROQUE ART IS SO THEATRICAL AND DRAMATIC real art is the pure white ancient sculptures, like those greeks. yes. the greeks were good. ESPECIALLY the laokoon group, that's not overly theatrical at all, it's a "quiet sigh in the heat of battle". WHATEVER YOU SAY WINCKELMANN. all he said becomes funny in hindsight now that we know all the ancient statues were painted in very bright and garish colours. hee hee

- then we've got the salons in..... france. paris?? PROBABLY
anyway yes. the salons, right
people could send in all their art and Judges would pick what art was GOOD ART and exhibit it once a year. Their choices were very much based on the Rules of the time, like, it has to be painted good and not be Too Radical. Naked ladies are okay, but if you imply that the naked lady is a prostitute, you have gONE TOO FAR. So uh yeah elitists in charge of what art was good and acceptable.
Of course, there was a "salon of the rejects" later, driven by some leading impressionists. I think it was this tent right outside the actual salon? i might be wrong

- with all the revolutions going on, people were like UM STOP PAINTING NAKED LADIES FROM THE PAST. we need to be critical of society here!!! so people started being Radical and tried to get paintings of Worker People into the salons - GASP. Someone actually did it, too, was it Courbet? Yeah, he started out with some niiice and non-radical paintings that got accepted enough times till he got free pass into the salon, and that's when he started putting all these super mega radical portraits of the working class in there. HUEHUEHUE

- and then there are the impressionists a bit later, like, OKAY SURE we could be mindful of what we paint.... oooooooor we could paint anything with utter nonchalance. like. hey okay those dancers? painted 'em. haha some of them don't even fit into the frame. i have captured the essence of the moment and TIME AS WE MEASURE IT IS AN ILLUSION
and okay i'm doing a very bad explanation of what the impressionists tried to do but um. basically. they caused a scandal by depicting completely random/unnecessary motifs. Like "um excuse me mister monet, that's a very nice painting of two girls just sitting there, but.... what's the POINT? what is the MORAL of the painting? what are you trying to DO?? why is the hand so unfinished UGH MONET WE CAN'T TAKE YOU ANYWHERE CAN WE"

- and then we have a loot of artists like, idk, cezanne and picasso for example, they started out doing normal art but then slowly dissolved into doing their own thing and rediscover what you can dO WITH ART and that kinda thing

- the Elites were like "okay. okay. we have this gallery. things that are in the gallery is ART. that's the definition."
Duchamp: "heyo i have this toilet, i didnt really make it but i signed under on it..... with the name of the factory that made it....... it's in your gallery now. boom. it's art"
elites: *shrill screaming*
(okay DADA in general were just a bunch of people fighting the definition of what art is. good job guys)

- about the same time as DADA we also have the futurists, who were all about burning down the past and focus only on tHE FUTURE. mACHINES. DYNAMICS. MOVEMENT. many of them were actual fascists. i wanna fight futurism so bad

-  how do i even describe abstract expressionism. where do i start. uh. it's all the weird splat art people think about when you say "modern art". american critic greenberg endorsed this because anything that looked like anything was too easy to understand and therefore kitsch. and we don't want kitsch now do we. all art that matters is about being art

- to counter that, we have pop art. because some people were like HEY let's ENDORSE this massproduction overflow society! let's counter gross elitism by making ART FOR EVERYONE. HECK YES *ten thousand identical copies of marilyn monroe*
i think andy warhol said something like "i dont want my art to be similar, i want it to be exactly the same. the more time you see the same art, it means less, making you feel happier and emptier."
........ i completely messed up his quote but nobody is sure if he was ironic or not. probably both

.............. yeah okay that's all i can come up with now. what a mess. i'm not even gonna go into architecture because i dont really understand architecture theory

EDIT:
i forgot to mention why the realists and impressionists were so radical!! at the time, there was a Hierarchy of art that went thusly:
- Historical art (art of religious scenes, historical events, or books. FANART BASICALLY)
- Portraits
- Landscapes?
- Stills (bowls of fruit and stuff)
.......... at least that's how i remember i probably messed up, but historical art was THE MOST IMPORTANT and to paint anything outside of these genres was very radical. especially if you painted something in the style of a historical painting but it wasn't Worthy of being in such a painting

[FinnishViking]

Oh boy, I am more of a general history guy myself and while i like delving in to art history some times, i can see that too much exposure at once might not be too good for you *wink wink nudge nudge*

Still an intresting read non the less. It's intresting how art can be a centre of quite an argument for something so subjective.

[Haiz]

Oh boy, I am more of a general history guy myself and while i like delving in to art history some times, i can see that too much exposure at once might not be too good for you *wink wink nudge nudge*

tell that to our professors who thought "art from the 1400ds to today" would be a good subject to cram into one single semester

........ i didn't mean to do this but people asked

[FinnishViking]

Ha ha i'm not complaining it was entertaining to read 

[hushpiper]

Oh man, so many giggle moments! This whole thing needs to be a Hark, a Vagrant! strip, basically

all he said becomes funny in hindsight now that we know all the ancient statues were painted in very bright and garish colours. hee hee

I KNOW RIGHT this is exactly what I thought when I read about that. Oh, ancient greeks/romans, how could you ever have guessed that we'd all like your statues better without the vivid paint job? How the painters must be rolling in their graves!

Of course, there was a "salon of the rejects" later, driven by some leading impressionists. I think it was this tent right outside the actual salon? i might be wrong

We're making our own salon! A better salon! With BLACKJACK, and HOOKERS NAKED PROSTITUTES! And we're gonna put it right outside of your salon and make a rule that everybody has to stick their tongues out at you as they enter. Yes.

they caused a scandal by depicting completely random/unnecessary motifs. Like "um excuse me mister monet, that's a very nice painting of two girls just sitting there, but.... what's the POINT? what is the MORAL of the painting? what are you trying to DO?? why is the hand so unfinished UGH MONET WE CAN'T TAKE YOU ANYWHERE CAN WE"

Which is hilarious because looking back Monet's stuff seems like the tamest boringest stuff out there now. Guys, if you keep pushing the envelope eventually you'll be outside the envelope entirely and THEN WHAT WILL YOU DO?

- the Elites were like "okay. okay. we have this gallery. things that are in the gallery is ART. that's the definition."
Duchamp: "heyo i have this toilet, i didnt really make it but i signed under on it..... with the name of the factory that made it....... it's in your gallery now. boom. it's art"
elites: *shrill screaming*

I am going to push the boundaries of this meal.

- Historical art (art of religious scenes, historical events, or books. FANART BASICALLY)

Yes this thank you, it's like how most of Shakespeare's plays are kinda technically fanfic. I mean really. Reconsider Your Definitions, yo!

[Divra]

From what I remember from an aesthetics course I took back when Jesus was in nappies, the big problem with the "what is art?" question is that whenever you move outside the primary field of whoever is thinking, you get problems. For example, Edouard Hanslick was big on "art is identifiable patterns", which works well in music, but collapses entirely when talking about visual art.

[Haiz]

Yes this thank you, it's like how most of Shakespeare's plays are kinda technically fanfic. I mean really. Reconsider Your Definitions, yo!

i knoooooow

"fanart isn't real art"
*SHOVES ENTIRETY OF ART HISTORY IN UR FACE*

"using references is cheating"
*SHOVES ENTIRETY OF ART HISTORY IN UR FACE*

"copying other artists is bad and will never make u grow as an artist"
*SHOVES ENTIRETY OF ART HISTORY IN UR FACE*

i'm not even gonna mention that one person that said commisions are bad because "what if mona lisa had been a commision" hahahahaha

ok wow that was slightly off topic woops
(that comic made me laugh btw. thanks)

[Vafhudr]

Architecture history differs from art history in the measure that it has not received the same reflective attention has art does. It was considered a trade and therefore the theory behind was the theory of the worker/architect traditions, and those tended to be fully immersed in their culture, not outside or against it or elite as much art tends to be. It's also fairly recently that we can talk of architects as artists or personality we can follow and argue that they have a personal style.

It was also not until the 19th century, in many European countries, that we saw serious, systematic attempts to remake the landscape through modernization and urbanization. London, Paris, and other major centers of population were transfigured by gigantic public works, accomplishing within one or two generations what Roman Emperors might have done over centuries. A rational utopianism and and expansion of technological means laid the foundation for the personalized and massive work of architecture and the architect as artist. Personally, I think they stopped trying after Art Deco, or at least, it became increasing aesthetically worthless. And now we have to live in that.

Dada has no place in Architecture history, but Futurism endured and had an unfortunate impact in design and building.

Stuff by people like Le Corbusier and Frank Loyd Wright pushed for things that I dare call anti-human - be it through technology (Le Corbusier said that a building is a machine, and from him we derive a considerable amount of ideas that trickled through time in the form of technology and machine domination over space) or Wright, who tried to erase the human and their space in favour of nature, leading to a rather deranged combination of human living in nature without living there. This, I think, is the major theme of what we could call modern architecture - technological control over space and a reaction of "nature" against that intrusion. Along the way the needs of human space were tossed aside. This goes back further than that - to the austere economic and socialist planned communities of St.-Simon or a Bellamey, you have a counter-movement in the form of William Morris and the Arts and Craft movement - which in led to Art Nouveau, then Art Deco as a reaction, then integration and then exaltation of the technological forces against organic forces.

Running alongside this you also had the cheap, pre-constructed homes and other second-rate architectures that now dominates the sub-urban landscape of most North America. This is the parallel to the stuff of Warhol, though not necessarily temporally contiguous. It was also not ideological as much as it was economically orientated. Industrial techniques we're applied to homebuilding, coupled with massive government initiatives in land and leasing policies in the post-war era.

This is in no way half as informed as it should be - just very wide strokes that I got from my time studying urbanism and my personal vendetta against modern architecture. I am in no way qualified to be giving such a rough and more than likely wrong summary of recent architectural history.

[Haiz]

ah yeah we have architecture history too - we have about aLL THE THINGS in just one subject i have no idea how exams are going to go ahaha ha ha ha

I love how the functionalism architects were all. DECOR IS THE DEVIL let's make homes for tHE PEOPLE *socialist pose*
and then the people started decorating the houses because what the heck guys

[Vafhudr]

Clearly décor is just bourgeois decadence.

Why can't everyone just accept the barren austerity of the proletariat?

[hushpiper]

Clearly décor is just bourgeois decadence.

Why can't everyone just accept the barren austerity of the proletariat?

...See I had all these thoughts about architecture and the psychology of space etc etc but now all I can think of is this:

ETA: ALSO -

For example, Edouard Hanslick was big on "art is identifiable patterns", which works well in music, but collapses entirely when talking about visual art.

See, I'm kind of convinced that music is actually just mathematics. Like calculus, or algebra, but its own thing. With aesthetics and sound. The mathematics of temporal and harmonic intervals, with its own units of measurement based on the human heartbeat and natural vocal/hearing range.

It says something about me that this makes me love it more, not less.