Offtopic: modern art - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 01:40:46 pm
content: Just something I want to share:Recentely I was waiting at the airport with my youngest son. At some point he asked 'what is that doing there?' while pointing at some folded metal hanging from the ceiling. I told him that is was an artwork which -with some fantasy- looked like a bunch of airplanes which had crashed into each other (nice piece for an airport BTW). A few minutes later he pointed at something else. I told him that it was a clock wrapped in plastic so it wouldn't get dirty from construction work.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 05:06:12 pm
content: In my opinion, Modern Art peaked circa 1900, give or take a handful of decades. Postmodern, Dada and so on are double abstract -- art for the sake of art critics, not for direct or implied expression.Tim

author: 6E5
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 05:13:06 pm
content: I know I'm going to get bombarded by angry objections, but I personally think modern art is rubbish and pre 20'th century art is overpriced.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 05:31:58 pm
content: Oh, I should probably edit that, to sayabstract art, not modern necessarily.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 06:43:21 pm
content: When I visited the National Gallery in London over 10 years ago I was astonished: there was a whole class of 6 years old children given art lessons (they were at 19th century pointillism). If all countries would teach their children art we would probably not have this topic.On the other hand [rant mode on] I am kinda sick that in our country there is no numerus fixus on art education and there are a lot and I mean a lot of people that say they are artists but create stuff nobody wants/buys/needs and the government has to pay for their livelyhood. I know that there are a lot of artists in history that were not recognized in their time but somewhere there needs to be a line drawn.[rant mode off]

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 07:22:48 pm
content: I don't expect the general population to learn assembly for ancient processors so they can appreciate the elegance of a nice piece of 6502 programming ... why should I learn art history exactly?

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 08:17:03 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on February 20, 2014, 07:22:48 pmI'm sure the answer will be "it enriches your life" - but in a different way to learning programming and founding WhatsApp could.

author: dfmischler
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 08:25:08 pm
content: When my wife was finishing her Masters degree in the evenings, I killed a bit of time at the local art museum across the street from the college. It was mostly modern art, some of which was interesting. In my opinion, the best piece in the whole museum was astatue of Artemis. Thepicturesdon't do it justice. About twenty years later, the morons who ran the museum decided to sell it, and other true masterpieces, because it "didn't fit the museum's mission." So they kept the IMO trashy stuff by Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol, and got rid of the true masterpieces. That has poisoned my opinion of "modern art". I have not been in that museum since.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 08:39:16 pm
content: I feel there are 2 main problems with art these daysIt requires a certain mind set to be enjoyed which is difficult to find in this fast paced, overly competitive and overly stimulated world.Secondlyastistsare forced out to the fringes by the overuse of art in advertising

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 08:45:23 pm
content: Quote from: dfmischler on February 20, 2014, 08:25:08 pmWell museums are specializing in some theme or some art period. It would be a huge museum if they have bronzes from the roman era and Warhols, I can understand that they would make choices, unfortunately the wrong one for your taste.

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 09:34:44 pm
content: There should be more electronics art, like this:

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 09:58:20 pm
content: I think the cleaner is the real artist.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26270260

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 10:03:26 pm
content: Not sure if this qualifies as modern art, the Honeywell Animals.We used to have the original of the kangaroo at work (Honeywell-Bull)http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/honeywell_bbdo_sm.pdf

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 11:44:17 pm
content: Ha ha! The cleaning lady obviously had no trouble telling what the "art" actually was, and dealt with it accordingly.Quote from: bookaboo on February 20, 2014, 09:58:20 pm

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 12:38:48 am
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on February 20, 2014, 09:34:44 pmlol, i really like that!I studied art for 6 years, although I still work in design I do have a new hobby of electronics which I really enjoy. I haven't done much art for years but I did do a couple of the new icons on this forum.edit: I just noticed in the picture the output feed is all wrong because the chips aren't on!

author: rexxar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 01:16:59 am
content: I find it really annoying when so-called "artists" do something like pour milk on the floor, and say it's some socioeconomic commentary of the evils of capitalism or something equally absurd and irrelevant.No, that's not art. You poured milk on the floor, now clean it up you twat.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 03:14:25 am
content: Art is the expression of an experience. What kind of experience is expressed as a bit of wire and some nails on a wall?

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 03:19:44 am
content: Sniffy art?http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/arts-entertainment/visual-arts/artists-busted-censorship-in-canada/squishing-sniffy.html

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 03:54:10 am
content: Quote from: rexxar on February 21, 2014, 01:16:59 amQuote from: lemmegraphdat on February 21, 2014, 03:14:25 amif you take drugs a single full-stop on a blank white page will keep you entertained for hours

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 04:25:34 am
content: I draw the line at calling something art that is just essentially something anyone could do have put together in a few minutes without any skill.i.e A black wall is not art.Nor is a couple of colourful squares like this that is worth $70M:Nor any of these paintings:http://www.artsumo.com/blog/post/4

author: rexxar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 05:38:45 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 04:25:34 amThat just makes me mad. Some of those literally look like something I did in middle school. I suppose it's just like audiofools. Thinking price=quality. Just because you paid $2 million for a piece of shit 'painting' doesn't mean it isn't still a piece of shit.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 06:04:28 am
content: I suppose it's a good gig if you can get it.As for me I find real art fascinating. Have a look at this, watch it until the end.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 07:46:26 am
content: Art is difficult to describe, if you do want to take a first try, one of the important things of art is that it is never done before, it is unique to the artist and it has an impression that is left on other people and better other artists, so it becomes a new art power.If I may be so bold to make a bridge to electronics, the first iPad was pretty impressive because it was usefull, small, and it was the first usable device made. It changed electronics history.Now we have hundreds of clones most nowadays even much better then the first, still they do not make that impression again, eg they are not that impressive

author: 6E5
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 08:10:38 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 04:25:34 amI don't know about that, you can just feel the "angst" and "oppression" that the artist endured to create this. See how this "artist" used his mastery of "dynamic phase interrelation" to create a physical representation of the spiritual karma inside us all.

author: Kremmen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 12:20:41 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 04:25:34 amI don't know that this would be "worth" 70 megabucks. Still, the property of art is that it has both worth and value, only one of which has a monetary anchor attached. Not all "art" is worth a lot or very valuable, but some is. And it is not always that art which "laymen" appreciate. Still iguess art is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.Just as a side note, i promise you Dave that you will not replicate that piece in a few minutes, if ever. Whatever anyone of us thinks it is worth, or not.Liking something and valuing it or not, is a very subjective thing. In that respect one cannot be "wrong" in expressing one's opinion about - well - anything really, but art in this case.In the classical art the artist attempts to capture reality as accurately as possible. From the archaic Egyptian stiffly posed figures the representative art has progressed via the greeks and romans to Renaissance and guys like Leonardo da Vinci and Sandro Botticelli to the medieval Dutch masters and their colleagues around the world. This kind of art is easy for everyone to appreciate and review: one can compare it to an attempt at photography using canvas or some other medium; maximal perceived realism was the target. In my opinion this culminates in the works of such artists as Michelangelo Buonarroti and others in Italy, Johannes Vermeer and Rembrandt van Rijn in the Netherlands, and others equally famous and talented - too numerous to iterate here. These are the artists you are "supposed" to appreciate.The first deviation from maximal reality one can see in the works of the impressionists, expressionists, pointillists and what have you. Guys like Vincent van Gogh, Edouard Manet, Claude Monet, Camille Pissarro, Edgar Degas, Gustave Caillebotte, Marc Chagall, Georges Seurat and what have you. These guys started to create art where the main point was not hyper realism, but the feeling the viewer gets when examining the piece. Take say van Gogh's De sterrennacht (Starry Night) just to name one: What it represents is clear, but also it is clear that the depiciton is not realistic. Instead it evokes a feeling or impression. Nobody has ever suggested that this was because van Gogh was unable to create a better picture - instead it is obvious that this is the point of the whole work.Then the scene evolves to guys like Pablo Picasso and cubism, by some considered the most important art movement of the 20th century and which is considerably removed from anything the eye can directly see around us. Similar in some respects is the art of Maurits C. Escher whose complex geometric fantasies are out of this world, representative though they are for the most part.Latest at this stage we are starting to leave behind those whose imagination fails to see art as more than a brush operated camera.With the evolution into non-representative art we start getting dismissals like the ones here - that "it is nothing, anyone can do it". Sure, not all art is immortal and lots of the cheap and cheerful "abstract art" is just trash. Especially that which is described in high-flying sentences of nonsense but void of any innovation.Still, artists like Piet Mondrian, Vassily Kandinsky, Joan Miro and the many other abstractionists are just as much artists as anyone before them. They just explore a realm more removed from the everyday. Then there are those who present a harder nut to crack: Yves Klein and Marcel Duchamp come to mind. At this stage we are firmly where someone like Jackson Pollock neatly cleaves the audience in two - to those who appreciate him as innovator and those who think he just happened to accidentally kick the paint bucket.Maybe what i am saying is that those who haven't studied or familiarized themselves with contemporary art should be allowed their opinion of it. But at the same time the opinion may not be worth a whole lot. After all, opinions are like buttholes; everybody has one.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 12:57:56 pm
content: Quote from: Kremmen on February 21, 2014, 12:20:41 pmArt movements are just a distraction of the truth! and that truth is probably 99% of all modern artist can't paint properly what they see in front of them - so how can they possible transcribe in paint what they think or feel?If you ask a modern artist to paint you an old master - they just make excuses like "it's been done before" or "I could just take a photograph instead".I don't dislike all modern art, but on the whole it just reflects the society we live in.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 12:59:52 pm
content: Aesthetic judgement requires no education ... me calling it ugly and boring is simply a statement of fact (with the personal context being implicit).

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 01:28:20 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on February 21, 2014, 07:46:26 amBeing the first to make an impact (which good marketing can make far more likely) is much more important than being first, just ask Damien Hirst.

author: Sigmoid
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 03:38:24 pm
content: I disagree...The way it goes:A (looking at art): Hey,Icould have done that!B: Butyou didn't.Yes, art has become detached from most people, but there are serious truths in modern and postmodern art. It's not just people randomly throwing colors on a canvas. (In the same vein, you could say that premodern art is just glorified illustration, and was made obsolete by photography.)It can teach people a lot. To be open to emotional impressions, for example. If it makes you think and retreat into yourself for a moment, it's art.Those colorful squares are beautiful, and make me feel something. When standing in front of the real thing in the MoMA, even more so. It evokes feelings. It's art.Whether it's worth a zillion megabucks? I tend to not think of monetary values of art. That's an artifice totally separate from art itself. I don't need to pay a zillion megabucks for seeing that piece, I just need to pay the entry fee to the museum where it's at.Neither the artist, nor the artwork is responsible, or characterized by the "market value".Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 04:25:34 am

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 10:37:14 pm
content: Abstract art reminds me a lot about elitist programmers who like to abstract everything. How much can you leave out and still create something (code or art) which makes sense to someone?

author: NYG
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 11:42:21 pm
content: Not modern art, but reading this reminded me of this story:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/elderly-woman-destroys-19th-century-fresco-do-it-herself-restoration-attempt-article-1.1142772

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 11:49:48 pm
content: Ask 10 or 20 different modern (abstract) art aficionados what they see in a work and you will get 10 or 20 different answers. The work therefore means nothing (regardless of whatever few synapses were triggering at the time in the head of the drongo that farted a gallon of paint onto a canvas, or whatever else). An appreciation for some of this garbage is just another permutation of spirituality.

author: Sigmoid
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 05:36:08 am
content: Yes. And that's part of the game.Modern art is as much about the observer as the creator. It's about using the cultural consensus of "art", and subverting it. A black canvas, or a single black dot is a way to, well, mess with the whole idea of art. You go there expecting to be told something, and the artist tells you nothing, except for a figurative "up yours". And thus you're forced to reflect on yourself and the very idea of art.It's intertextuality and fourth wall stuff all over.But if you just get a nice adrenaline rush from calling it garbage, then good for you.Quote from: GK on February 21, 2014, 11:49:48 pm

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 05:41:09 am
content: Quote from: Sigmoid on February 22, 2014, 05:36:08 amI like that. It's gotten an emotion/response out of you, mission accomplished

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 06:07:06 am
content: This is shit is as subjective as it comes. Personally, anything that involves original thought and a creative process to produce something is art. Experimenting with abstract shapes, colours and textures, and then applying it on something is an artistic process. As to whether you like it or not, is another story.You could pump paint into your arse with an enema, then spray it onto the canvass, and definitely call yourself an artist. Although, a shit artist.

author: Sigmoid
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 06:10:47 am
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on February 22, 2014, 05:41:09 amSee, GK is a bona fide postmodern artist. I guess he'll have to shoot himself now. xD

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 07:47:57 am
content: Quote from: Sigmoid on February 22, 2014, 05:36:08 amThen I guess defecating in a pot would be an effective way of challenging the cultural consensus on fine cuisine. However if someone served me a #2 on a plate I doubt very much that my reaction would be to reflect upon myself and the very idea of fine cuisine.Seeing cause to attribute some kind of higher intellectual process behind the creation of any piece of crap based on its potential for provoking reactions that aren’t pleasant (or just dumbfounding, for all the wrong reasons) is pretty freaking dense and shallow.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 08:23:14 am
content: Quote from: Sigmoid on February 21, 2014, 03:38:24 pmUpon deep reflection I see a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, incompetently assembled.Imagining a fool so incapable of assembling something as simple as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich affords me a brief and shameful interlude of mirth, until my altruistic composition reigns in my more base and primitively-instinctive emotions and I realize upon reflection that that bumbling fool could be, very well in fact, at a time, each and everyone of us, so wholly consumed in the dehumanizing and unearthly chaos of modern existence that he or she (most likely the latter) no longer has the time nor the frame of mind to concentrate wholeheartedly on the basic things in life that really matter – such as the wholesome goodness of a properly prepared peanut butter and jelly sandwich.It is obvious that in this painting the artist is making a timely, profound and courageous indictment upon the state of modern living. In my soul there is only pity for the uninsightful; those in whose eyes this fact is not so blindingly apparent.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 10:45:10 am
content: Maybe this is what a hamburger looks like when you take LSD.

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 03:29:03 pm
content: I don't think anyone has a problem with any branch of art, anything can be liked/disliked/debated. It's when numbers in the millions are being thrown around that it's fair to point out the absurdity.

author: cybermaus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 04:35:33 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 04:25:34 amArt or not, surely you have to agree it takes skill to sell that for 70M

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 08:50:55 pm
content: Quote from: bookaboo on February 22, 2014, 03:29:03 pmBut this is a one of a kind, no other like it. How absurd it might be, it is less absurd then paying $375k for an old computer where thousands have been made:http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/15/technology/apple-i-auction/I guess it all comes down to supply and demand.