Sorry I meant I 99.9% disagree with you, specifically on
"So, to me, "I don't get art" is an admission of failure, not a brag. If there's something that a whole bunch of people think is awesome, you owe it to yourself at least to figure out what they think is so cool." Just because everyone else loves a piece, it does not mean it is cool. I assumed that include mass media, but my mistake. When you say "I don't get art", I assumed the phrase came from the article, which is referring to Contemporary Art. So when you refer to "I don't get art", I assume you mean Contemporary Art. However, I apologize for assuming you are referring to the article when you left your comment under the article using the exact same words. I assumed you like Modern Art because you named a bunch of artists you like under the Modern Art era, mostly Abstract Expressionism period, but none under Contemporary Art. What I am saying is "I don't get art" in not an admission of failure, just a personal opinion. The rest is just an explanation.
Once more, with feeling: >If there's something that a whole bunch of people think is awesome, you owe it to yourself at least to figure out what they think is so cool. I think it's telling that I wrote Twelve.Fucking.Paragraphs (at thenewgreen's invitation, despite my suspicion that this detroit-area circlejerk would come apart at the seams - last fucking time he talks me into this shit) that were essentially a plea for empathy, for understanding, for analysis (self and otherwise) and got no less than four responses that boil down to "no fuck you if I don't like art it's because it sucks and it's my right to say that it sucks so fuck you." Yeah. It is. Hate the fuck out of art. See if I give a shit. But since we all live on this planet, it's worth spending a little time trying to wear someone else's skin for a minute to determine if you can figure out what they see that you don't. The article is a typical Vice take on "everything sucks except the things we think are cool which, by the way, are too cool for you." I do not find this sort of analysis illuminating. I tried to say so, in as polite a form as possible, and got A) a rant about how apple and rich people suck B) grief for not fellating Van Gogh C) a gonzo-ass condemnation of art students for not studying enough D) grief for not fellating Wes Anderson "I don't get art" is an admission of failure. "I don't LIKE art" is a personal opinion. And that's the last I have to say about the subject.
1. Just thought you would enjoy the read, will cease to "shout-out". 2. Pretty sure b_b is the only Detroiter in this thread and I can safely say that prior to Hubski, I didn't know a single soul in this thread, including him. You may call it a "Circle-jerk", but it's not a regionally specific one. I did enjoy your primary 12 paragraph response -it made sense to me. The Wes Anderson comment was in reference to a conversation months ago that we had here. I'll try to dig it up but right now I have a baby with the flu on my hands, time is short and I am exhausted. I'm guessing you can empathize. IMO, you make a valid point that if the masses see some appeal in something and you at first don't, it's worth asking the question, "what, if anything, did I miss"?I think it's telling that I wrote Twelve.Fucking.Paragraphs (at thenewgreen's invitation, despite my suspicion that this detroit-area circlejerk would come apart at the seams - last fucking time he talks me into this shit)
That is precisely why I made a clear distinction between Modern art and Contemporary art. How do I get it through your head that the article is referring to CONTEMPORARY ART, what the author really means is "I don't get Contemporary art". It is similar to you not getting Van Gogh's Post Impressionism, but getting Klein's Abstract Expressionism. You are taking this one phrase way out of its context and writing a whole argument about it. I am trying to put that phrase into its context. I am saying specifically "I don't get art" in the Contemporary art scene is not an admission of failure. Hence why I wrote about the art schools. Again you are putting my explanations way out of context. (Also just FYI, you don't study in art school, you draw, you paint, you create. It's not called studying. My parents keep asking me hows studying, and I can't get through their head either that I don't study) I'm trying to explain why people don't get Contemporary art. That is because there's nothing to get. It is taught in schools to make something vulgar enough to cause an reaction from the public or make something no one understands. It is the current trend. Exhibitions that either disgust the viewers or make people wonder why is this cool attract the public. The article is a take on," just because everyone thinks staring at woman screaming at the screen for an hour is cool, it doesn't mean I have to think it is deep" Here is the scenario in a lot of cases. An artist create a piece that no one understands, including the artist himself. A gallery hangs up the piece on the wall. One person comes over and look at it, doesn't get it. So he stands there and wonder what does it mean. Another person sees the first person so concentrated on this painting and think there must be something deep to this painting. So more and more people follows, thinking this piece I don't understand so there must be something deep and cool. This is the "whole bunch of people think is awesome", do you owe it to yourself to join the crowd? How is it a failure when there's is nothing to get? When the piece is shit to begin with? Do you want to follow the crowd and try to understand the meaning of life behind the shit? And I know this because I know people who create this kind of shit in studio and talks about it, and people like you who thinks you owe it to yourself to understand the concept behind the shit because people around you are doing the same thing. (Again I am referring to CONTEMPORARY ART, just like the article IS)