Art Snobbery

[the_std]

#1 - I hate when I see people look at some abstract/surreal/post-modern piece of art, decide that they don't get it, and then proceed to go off on a rant about how "this shit isn't real art" and "my kid could do this same thing" and suchlike. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it has any less artistic value! Someone put time and effort and thought into this piece. It has meaning, even if it doesn't to you. Why is it so hard to respect it?

#2 - I'm a photographer. I went to school for it, I make some money off of it and now I teach it at a University level. I've put a lot of myself into getting where I am today, artistically speaking, and yet the number of people who will look at one of my photos and say, "oh, well, anyone could do that in Photoshop" or proceed to tell me that digital photography "is cheating because the camera does all the work"... Argh... And my favourites are the ones who just bought their first point-and-shoot, have never used a camera before, and then ask me to teach them how to take photos like mine because now they have a digital camera and it really couldn't be that difficult, could it?

... Where's that head-banging-against-a-wall smiley when you need it?

[Greenday]

I personally can't stand abstract art. Sorry, but when I want to see a painting, I like to see stuff like landscapes, or people, animals, heck, even a can of soup or something. I might not be able to draw art as well as the abstract paintings, but it's not pleasing to my eye at all. It's nice if it has plenty of meaning to the artist, but I will never find meaning in a bunch of what appears to me as random shapes and colors.

Here's my favorite painting of all time: http://inversesquare.files.wordpress...n_eyck_001.jpg

Honestly, music is the only kind of art I really care about, but that painting just really draws me in. The detail amazes me. Somehow being able to draw that perfect reflection in that mirror. I can't get that from an abstract painting.

[the_std]

I wasn't saying that you have to like any of the types of art I mentioned, just that you should respect them and that they take as much talent as every other type of visual art.

[crazylegs]

#2 - I'm a photographer. I went to school for it, I make some money off of it and now I teach it at a University level. I've put a lot of myself into getting where I am today, artistically speaking, and yet the number of people who will look at one of my photos and say, "oh, well, anyone could do that in Photoshop" or proceed to tell me that digital photography "is cheating because the camera does all the work"... Argh... And my favourites are the ones who just bought their first point-and-shoot, have never used a camera before, and then ask me to teach them how to take photos like mine because now they have a digital camera and it really couldn't be that difficult, could it?

This really bugs me too.

I own a Digital SLR and people assume it does all the work for me. Yes having good kit makes things slightly easier (faster frame rate, quicker auto focus) but the composition and decisions made are entirely mine.

I wouldn't walk into a Chefs house and say upon production of a fantastic meal "Wow, you must have really expensive pots and pans!" yet when people see my photos the first thing they say is "wow, you must have a really expensive camera".

Yes, my camera is expensive but I've been taking photos I've been proud of for years, even when I had a 110mm (my first camera!), and then upgraded to a compact digital a few years ago. Again I was taking images that I was proud of, yet the whole thing only cost me about £100.

Photoshop is yet another rant, yes it's a very powerful piece of software but it's only as good as
a) the person using it
b) the original images going in.
If the original image is horrifically over exposed and 'blown' then no amount of software will ever save it. Thing is the majority of things that photoshop does you can do with 35mm, dodge, burn, rotate + crop, lighten, darken etc etc.

Those people who don't believe you and say that film is 'pure' should take a look at the back of one of their prints. If it's gone through a semi decent minilab then on the reverse will be a series of numbers and letters, these show to what extent the photo has been manipulated and changed by the minilab operator to make it an acceptable print. So there!

[Boozy]

Agreed. If a digital camera did all the work, then why do the pictures I took last week with my photographer friend's high-end camera look like crap compared to hers?

My friend understands things like lighting and composition. I just point and shoot. She wins photography competitions while I take one stupid snapshot after another of my dogs.

Edited to add: People who don't like abstract art are usually left-brained, while people who do like it are right-brained. It's wrong to assume that one viewpoint is "better" than the other. Art is supposed to make you think and feel. That's intangible and personal.

Personally, I don't "get" abstract art. But I don't "get" advanced mathematical equations either. My brain can't process either. That's my failing, not that of the artist or mathemetician.

[AdminAssistant]

I'm not a fan of abstract art, either. I'm especially skeptical of what I've come to call 'recycled art' - where artists take random daily life things and turn it into 'art'. Some pieces I've seen were really cool - a shield made of fake fingernails, an American flag design made of cigarette butts. Other things, not so much - a dumpster full of makeup products, a mirror wrapped in human hair. It's all subjective.

As a historian, I tend to like 'classic' plays. Shakespeare, the Romantics...and a good many of the crazy 'ism' writers like Jarry, Ionesco, Beckett, etc. However, when someone stands on stage, covers themself in white powder, then runs around - and calls it theatre...I just get confused. Unfortunately for me, my department is very pro-performance art and anti-classics. (For example, I have to direct a play reading next month, but it has to be an ultra-contemporary play, last two years.)

[DesignFox]

I tend to dislike most of what is labelled "contemporary" art.

I enjoy abstract work. I enjoy realistic work. I love a good number of the impressionist, realist, and even some dada-ist work. I like a bunch of stuff I can't even remember all the terms to describe it with. Yes, I was an art major. No I don't remember squat from half my art history classes.

I like a lot of art.

But some of this shit? I'm sorry. Even as an art major I can't respect. If you wanna see the stuff I'm talking about, take a trip to the PS1 in Queens.

Holy god I never thought I'd hate visiting an art museum. But the vast majority of work on display there can only be described as BS. I mean, really? Is it ART to place a camera in front of a naked guy, focus on his junk, and tell him to jump up and down? Is it really art when you display a loop of film that has no vision hold, makes a horrible blipping noise and keeps replaying (yes, it was on purpose, not on the fritz)?

Or one display a friend of mine had to attend where the artist strung up pieces of ply wood and painted the knots white. Yes, an entire gallery full of plywood with just the knots painted white.

Sorry. Not art.

I don't even get the concept of that stuff.

At least Dada- as stupid as some of it is- I get the concept. Jackson Pollock even had a purpose with his splatters and textures. Even Dali- whose work I find repulsive- his work held meaning.

Though I guess those few contemporaries with work on display at places like the PS1 got my attention...maybe that's the whole point. I don't know.

As for point number 2. I completely agree. I was once a portrait photographer and the lack of respect for my talent forced me out of doing it, anymore. You can't get good pay or appreciation doing it in retail, and I couldn't find a photographer to successfully apprentice myself to. With the digital age, most people are just taking their own portraits- afterall when you can shoot 3,000 frames and get your 1 decent shot, who needs to hire someone like me, who can take 9 frames and get 8 good shots? I don't think I have the energy to continue my rant on what digital has done to photography (not that there aren't also some really awesomely good things, but you get my drift). *grumble*

[kiwi]

I went to university for art history (double major) and guess what people tell me

oh art is such a crock, I could do better than that

strange that they shut the fuck up when if we are home and I go into my room and grab some empty canvas, brushes and paint and hand them over.... oh you cant right now fuckwit... but its SOOOOOOO easy right....

if were out I ask them when the last time they made art was... again strange how they havent actually ever touched a canvas

[crazylegs]

strange that they shut the fuck up when if we are home and I go into my room and grab some empty canvas, brushes and paint and hand them over.... oh you cant right now fuckwit... but its SOOOOOOO easy right....

Heh, at the first wedding I did someone said, "Oh, it's so easy..."

So I handed over my camera and said, Knock yourself out.

Not one of his images came out, they were either blurry, over exposed or just terribly composed. Strange that.

[AdminAssistant]

I enjoy abstract work. I enjoy realistic work. I love a good number of the impressionist, realist, and even some dada-ist work.

Dada-ist theatre is, well, interesting. I like it because it's all about spontaneous creation and immediate destruction, and that lends itself beautifully to theatre.

[kiwi]

we once had a world renownd dadaist come to my university to lecture on ... what else.. dada art

he turned up and read an entire local department stores catalogue for his lecture

some people were so angry they threw things at him!!

Guess they didnt read up on what Dada really meant did they

even some numbskulls in our class didnt get it when the lecturer explained it... "why would he read from a catalogue... how is that an example of Dada?"

[lordlundar]

I'm not a fan of this so-called contemporary art, and often I find it as nothing more than an attempt to get money for doing something stupid.

"Look! I painted knots in wood white and hung them up!"
"Why?"
"Because it's art. Give me a grant."

One ass decided to do an "art piece" depicting homelessness or some such junk that he called it to justify his existence. Guess what he did?

He tied a dog to a rope and forbade people to feed it. Yes, he was starving a dog in the name of art.

It actually turned into an amusing story, first he was using the claim that "it's art" to justify his actions. When the police came at the behest of the humanitarian society, suddenly the claim became that he was being fed when people weren't around. Didn't work and the guy got busted.

That isn't art, it's torture, and it makes me worry. More and more "artists" are doing shit like this not to express their emotions, but to hit the headlines and get the cash from public grants. At what point does some moron start committing grotesque murders and putting the body parts on display, then gets away with it because "it's art"?

[AFPheonix]

Now see, that dog one was actually a brilliant art piece, because it showed just how psychologically controllable we all really are. It's not like anyone was physically restrained from sneaking in a can of dog food and giving it to him, there wasn't any barriers between the dog and the people.
People follow directions far better than we give them credit for, especially in uncomfortable situations.

[Greenday]

Now see, that dog one was actually a brilliant art piece

Actually, it wasn't a brilliant art piece, because it wasn't art. It was animal abuse.

[anriana]

Now see, that dog one was actually a brilliant art piece, because it showed just how psychologically controllable we all really are. It's not like anyone was physically restrained from sneaking in a can of dog food and giving it to him, there wasn't any barriers between the dog and the people.
People follow directions far better than we give them credit for, especially in uncomfortable situations.

If sociopathic behavior is "brilliant art" then I fully support art being completely removed from public schools and government grant consideration.