I keep running across these local “artists” etc.

The hippie ones are lazy, and do a terrible job, because they’re hippies, art requires obsession, focus, and incredible amounts of work.

But why the hell are they tolerated?

Admittedly, I don’t understand much about people, but that anyone would be expected to buy some of this half-assed %+^?!…

Might be ranting at the clouds. But I really want to go yell at them, and tell them they should “try harder/do better.”

How many golfers shoot 80 or lower?

I think the hippie era died out and what you’re seeing is just burnouts.

It's accepted because people have been made to feel as if art is such a high-brow thing, that they simply lack an understanding of it, so when they see a "work of art" that does not impress them or move them at all, they refrain from saying anything, thinking perhaps the failing is on their part.

As a result, anyone who creates objects or images- randomly and without meaning or purpose, or which are reflections of some personal hangup or mania they have- is taken seriously as an "artist". Any criticism of the art is accepted only from the con men who call themselves "art critics." I have read many critiques of art which were nothing but con jobs, relying on the author's credentials and supposed greater understanding of art objects.

Don't let anyone pull that crap with you. Anything which is assumed to be artistry, you are the ultimate arbiter of whether or not you like it, and therefore, whether or not the art can be considered "good".

As to the "hippies" aspect you mention, I know the type of people you mean. These people don't want to do anything productive and so they take up work as essentially con men, in communities teeming with con men: other "artists". They trade their works of art as commodities, and in doing so, convince "non-artists" that the work must be good. It's just that the bulk of potential buyers are not "artists" and so they think they simply lack the depth of understanding necessary to appreciate the art, and so, people open their wallets and finance the "artists". It's a con game.

You've got them pegged. It is all bullshit.

Take a look here: Bowling Pins

Essentially, the creation of a commodity. It's worth X amount because people have simply accepted it as so, after the artist has gained a reputation. It's a con game.


And here: Edward Hopper's Nighthawks

My comment- "I love this painting. I could look at it for hours." If a "work of art" does that to you, then, you have connected with the artist. If not, then, it doesn't matter if the entire world is demanding that you recognize the "greatness" of something. They can pound sand. It's between you and the artist, and no others.

Don't get me wrong- humans are of course creative and should be encouraged to create, but when money and reputation enter into it, corruption and deception can result. Any person can call themselves an artist, and the general perception is that this cannot be challenged, and that's bullshit. It most certainly can be challenged, and there are times when it should be challenged.

Host: Tell us, Bob, here’s a question I ask of all our contestants: What made you drop out?

Bob Bitchin (former head of the Philosophy Dept at Harvard U): Uhh, a lot of people think it was the 400 acid trips I took, you know.

Host: Uh huh. But what was it really, Bob?

Bob: One day I played Black Sabbath at 78 speed, man.

Host: and then what happened?

Bob: I saw God.

Host: You saw God... well, that sounds like true enlightenment to me, Bob.

Host: Tell us, Bob, what have you been doing with all those degrees? I noticed you have a PHD, a MA and a BA - what have you been doing with all that knowledge?

Bob: Making candles, man.

Host: Making candles, well that sounds creative, Bob. What kind of candles are they?

Bob: Uhh, they’re really neat table candles, you know.

Host: Table candles?

Bob: Yeah. You pour wax on a table...

Host: Uh huh...

Bob: and you set it on fire, man.

(excerpt from Cheech & Chong's "Let's Make a Dope Deal")

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's accepted because people have been made to feel as if art is such a high-brow thing, that they simply lack an understanding of it, so when they see a "work of art" that does not impress them or move them at all, they refrain from saying anything, thinking perhaps the failing is on their part.

[Emphasis added.]

The best succinct explanation I believe I have ever read.

^^^^

Right on Para. Most of what is called art is garbage. I'm a school bus driver and I HAVE seen better from the little ones. I collect and thrown away better.

ARman

Great art can actually be defined. As many of you know, I paint as a hobby and have been very fortunate to have had a great teacher over the years, who by the way is very religious and conservative, not the stereotype "artist".

I've learned through him and through reading books...real art books, that the master painters through the ages followed certain rules. If those rules are followed and well executed, you'll create a good painting. It doesn't have to be realistic and can actually be quite abstract.

I agree with what para has said. People are fooled to think a piece is good based on what others tell them to think and also based on their fear of being contradictory.

This thread took me back a few years to when the play "Chicago" was on Broadway in New York and I was in New Jersey on business.

The owner of the company I was doing business with took a number of people to see the play including me and Mrs. Flash. I looked forward to it as I'd heard so much about Broadway plays and had never had the privilege of seeing one.

It was horrible. As I said later, I hadn't seen that quality of acting since the school play when I was in Junior High School.

I did an informal polling of the other people who went with us to the play and 18 of them said it sucked and one said it was great.

The residents of New York must be awfully bored to be willing to pay money to see that garbage.

I like this quote.

It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.
― Pablo Picasso

There is the Apollonian vs Dionysian concept to consider. However, in many cases it’s just shit.

My cousin is an artist in NYC. I like her stuff because it's unique. More like intricate geometric collages. Certainly takes a lot of time and work to make the stuff.

I always liked this one made of Googly Eyes on felt:



Here's another:




But the economics of art was something I didn't think about. If you want to live on, say $50K gross a year in NYC which is not very much for NYC, you have to sell $100K of art a year, because the gallery gets 1/2 of the price.

So that means you have to sell 10 pieces for $10K each. Or 5 pieces for $20K each. And how many you can sell depends on how many you can make. And then you have to convince people why they want it, what it means, why it is significant.

I would never pay 10K or 20K for a piece of art. It's just not worth it to me. But the whole industry depends on collectors willing to pay a lot in perceived value.

The Bob Ross's of the world might churn out one painting a day, say 250 a year. Sell each one for $200 and you made $50K gross. Unless you get a name and can sell numbered prints, or mass market them, it's s tough racket.

The so called hippies are working at their best and highest function. The reason they do ‘art’ which is really nothing more than crap is because they’re not good enough to be a greeter at Walmart

I've been of the opinion that most "art" is a scam for years.

I thought I was just being a dick (okay, I AM a dick...) but it turns out I'm smarter than I thought...

To me the Monet is art…warhol’s banana is not.

Para is spot on with, what does it mean to you. Some “art” to me is just trash, while I have stood for an hour in front of a painting in the Louvre entranced.

Laziness and a low-level resistance to social non-conformity drives these people to skim and draft-off actual artists. You see this around most college towns, where everyone frames themselves as either an artist or, intellectual. Any criticism of their work, is framed as an affront to the 1st amendment or, your inability to see beyond societal indoctrination.

These people exist because there's other's willing to give them money, either buying their 'work' or, securing grant money from some wealthy trust believing who they contribute to encourages 'culture and character'

Dang lazy Hippies how dare they ruin art?

My Mother had two talents. Growing roses and art. She believed that both created beauty. I went to countless art shows and watched her work with oils and pastels. Her paintings hang in my house now. Some of the stuff I saw at shows that "artists" were selling at exorbitant prices were just thrown together junk or odd shapes painted on canvas. When I questioned my Mother about this "art" she told me there are exploitable people everywhere.
All my art exposure over the years left me with:
The confirmed knowledge that I cant even draw a straight line. And a taste for quality art I cant afford.
Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.

I think it's all bull shit. Wife and I went to an art exabit, and there was a toilet with a bananas sticking out, and a kitchen sink. Just a sink. Oh boy, here's my money give me that... not

We get a $35 "art" tax to pay for that crap.
I have yet to send it in.