Okay, let's chat high art fanart

Okay, so I was watching the Colbert Report the other day and he was interviewing Jeff Koons (high art guy... kind of Andy Warhol-ish-ish) And I had this sort of emotion that I had always wanted to see conveyed in art via 80s-kitsch, but it had never happened. Now I can see my memories in art in a sentimental way that calls back to those odd feelings of a nostalgia that is soaked in hot pinks, commodities, pop culture, and premature understandings of sex. But... I guess the interview sort of got me thinking as I believe a point was missed. Jeff Koons was ridiculed in a very awkward and uncomfortable way (almost like the emotional equivalent of seeing someone stub their toe... you feel it when you see it, that's what makes you go "sssssssssstt!") But I think about this within the context of how Andy Warhol was given shit for his soup cans... especially when I see some of Koons' other pieces not shown in the interview.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I argue that Colbert did go a little too far at least with how he was playing off of the audience. There was some genuine disconnect. Sometimes people pour their heart and soul into something that perhaps resonates with them emotionally, you know?... like a piece of art. No matter how bizarre, lovely, grim, phantasmic, or maybe even a little sentimental, the emotions that are evoked from stuff like this... I'd go so far as to say nostalgic. He's a neo-pop artist, the 80s-esque throw back... I can totally see it. It's comforting, it's touching (to me personally) Unfortunately, he is grappling with fame. Stuff like this happens, you get interviewed by a satirist (don't get me wrong, I love Stephen Colbert) and it's... brutal in a sort of subtle way from how the interview was framed.

So, as an example of one of the reactions Jeff Koons had received for his work, he had gotten into some trouble with copyright issues. A lot of the images he has used in his work have copyrighted logos and whatnot. I find it all absurd. To me, those copyrighted materials flood our realities... they become artistic public domain. I mean, advertising masterminds created that environment for us, of course it's going to flood into our art, it floods into our brains everyday.

Art reflects and connects. No matter what you feel when you look at it. Whenever I look at art, I believe there is a meaning in there that I need to figure out, and in that exploration, I find meaning for me and how I am connecting with the image. Maybe a way to get closer to the artist... I mean, it's reflecting something in them no matter how "I can do that" or "my 3 year old can come up with something better than modern art" it looks. That was part of a lot of the gripes people had about Andy Warhol (and Pollock for that matter).

I think there is a general misunderstanding of how in depth and personal even this seemingly simple looking modern art can be that can really tell us about a person and their reactions to their own memories, realities, and fantasies. We can find those similar feeling as well that cannot be explained with words... you just have to find a way to feel it. That's how I try to see it. At any rate, after thoroughly beating around the bush, how I interpret this interview is that there was legitimate disrespect not necessarily from Colbert, but from the audience. Though I can't blame people for not maybe getting it. This high art fanart has people shaking their heads at a reflection of culture that they need a good 20 years forward in time to finally see.

So please, discuss with me, what are your feelings about the Campbells soup cans?

Eeveegou wrote:

So, as an example of one of the reactions Jeff Koons had received for his work, he had gotten into some trouble with copyright issues. A lot of the images he has used in his work have copyrighted logos and whatnot. I find it all absurd. To me, those copyrighted materials flood our realities... they become artistic public domain. I mean, advertising masterminds created that environment for us, of course it's going to flood into our art, it floods into our brains everyday.

Welcome to the brave new world of art. Public domain is something of the past.

So true so true, right?! And like I said, products and logos flood our memories and experiences... they're gonna show up in art no matter what nowadays. The question is, does it make it more effective for you, the viewer?

I guess since it's more frequently burnt into our memory, it could be used as a way to make something more relatable, which would increase the number of people that could potentially beneft from/appreciate it. Of course, it would have to be a product of a certain amount of effort, and a lot of fanart seems to be more drawing practice than an expression of the artist.

Eeveegou wrote:

So true so true, right?! And like I said, products and logos flood our memories and experiences... they're gonna show up in art no matter what nowadays. The question is, does it make it more effective for you, the viewer?

It depends on how well it's done. I myself am a disciple of pop surrealism so I can understand a point of including a product or logo, as we don't exist in a vacuum. But at the same time, there's a difference between advertising something and using the product as a tool to propel the work into a new level of understanding.

besides, you know, "buy my shit"

I'm not a Pollock fan. I do tend to stay on the side of 'I/my three-year-old could do that' when it comes to most of his more famous work, but I've also seen his earlier works, and they're pretty technically excellent, and so I'm willing to concede that the guy knows something I don't and let it be at that.

That being said, fuck Warhol.

What, exactly, is he saying with a Campbell's soup can? Well, no, let me rephrase: what is he saying that hasn't already been said by a fucking Campbell's soup can? I took art classes in middle school and they had us re-create Warhol paintings by sight as a final project. In middle school. And everyone aced the project. Warhol's talent is about on par with a middle schooler. He just networked his way to the top.

I understand that we don't exist inside a vacuum, and don't think that using brands inside of a piece of art is always necessarily a bad thing. But when it becomes your calling card you've got to do some soul-searching because you've become just as plastic and corporate as what you claim you're making a comment on.

tl;dr: This:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

took a lot more effort and creativity to make, and makes a hell of a lot more of a statement than this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

and you will never ever ever ever convince me otherwise. Warhol could never paint that portrait. Kramskoy could shart out that soup can in an hour.

Boy you sure have a strong, unmoving opinion about something subjective. I was always under the impression that in the completely impossible-to-navigate realm of high art, the responsibility of comprehension falls on the viewer rather than the artist. So I'd like to know what kind of statement you think the two paintings make, rather than what kind of statement you think the two paintings SHOULD make.

As far as the soup can vs. the portrait goes, the only obvious difference between the two is the amount of physical technique that went into them. They were made in two completely different environments and time periods, so a direct comparison is ignoring a lot of the contrast that these two pieces could have.

Also, I don't think that the grading scale of a middle school at class is a great metric to use for quantifying artistic talent, both technical and philosophical.

edit: I didn't mean for this to read so nasty lol

So, I can see what TheHedonist is saying and this is a pretty typical argument that comes up (especially back when the avant garde was exploding early last century) when dealing with what is and is not art. Should art convey something that causes us to feel a certain way or should art imitate nature (ie the oil painting of the woman) It's actually not a bad argument that he/she is posing because art is different to everyone.

Hear me out on this especially when it comes to the soup can. We are literally in the age of art through the means of mechanical reproduction (a big focus from critical theorist Walter Benjamin) In fact, the very idea that you could easily post a picture in this forum that is a mechanical reproduction of that same oil painting comes into question of whether or not the value or the experience decreases when it's reproduced in that way ie. google image search, the Mona Lisa on a coffee mug, etc.

What can be said about Warhol is that he may be embracing that idea of reproduction that many critics had a huge problem with when art was suddenly being mass distributed to the public via technological means.

I pose the question, why spend that time painting a portrait of a very realistic looking person when you can just snap a photo? Better yet, why waste time painting a picture of a soup can? Have we reached a point where it doesn't matter to make something realistic looking if we could snap a photo, and even more so nowadays, have the ability to manipulate it... like this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Or this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

So I suppose it all comes down to what you believe art's purpose should be (because if you're gonna claim that something is art, it is fulfilling some kind of purpose) Is it something that is there for the explicit purpose of making you feel something (be it a memory/nostalgia, anger, happiness, etc) or is it supposed to be a very accurate representation of something that exists within reality. Even the soup can is somewhat serving the same purpose as a portrait, it just might be considered by people that it is "easier to draw" therefore it holds less meaning. Either way, I think Warhol was making a statement about that. But.... I can't be certain what with him being dead.

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

Boy you sure have a strong, unmoving opinion about something subjective. I was always under the impression that in the completely impossible-to-navigate realm of high art, the responsibility of comprehension falls on the viewer rather than the artist. So I'd like to know what kind of statement you think the two paintings make, rather than what kind of statement you think the two paintings SHOULD make.

Oh god how dare I have an opinion on something subjective it's almost like that's how subjectivity works.

If the responsibility of comprehension falls on the viewer it's the responsibility of the artist to give me something to comprehend.

Oh and um I already kind of answered your first question:

Quote :

What, exactly, is he saying with a Campbell's soup can? Well, no, let me rephrase: what is he saying that hasn't already been said by a fucking Campbell's soup can?

The Kramskoy portrait is breathtaking in its attention to detail. The woman, and the look on her face, and her surroundings, all give me something to ponder. I could spend days getting lost in the minute details, noticing every time a new lifelike twitch of the fur on her stole.

Then I get to the Warhol, and he didn't even bother to properly shade the damned thing. He hasn't elevated life to the level of art, he's taken anything lifelike out of the damned soup can. It doesn't even look round, for chrissake.

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

As far as the soup can vs. the portrait goes, the only obvious difference between the two is the amount of physical technique that went into them. They were made in two completely different environments and time periods, so a direct comparison is ignoring a lot of the contrast that these two pieces could have.

You could say the same thing about 'Call Me Maybe' and Beethoven's Ninth. Sure, one of them was written by a deaf man and requires the cooperation of more than a hundred people to play properly, but I mean, the only obvious difference is the amount of technique it requires to play them. And they were made in different environments and time periods so like I should totally take that into account, right? Nevermind the fact that Jepsen's been auto-tuned to hell and to play something on the level of the ninth (let alone write it, let alone while deaf) takes years of training and effort. CARLY RAE JEPSEN IS JUST AS GOOD AS BEETHOVEN GUYS OKAY!?!

The difference between Call Me Maybe and the soup can is Call Me Maybe doesn't claim to be high art.

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

Also, I don't think that the grading scale of a middle school at class is a great metric to use for quantifying artistic talent, both technical and philosophical.

Yeah. Because middle schoolers should be able to accurately and consistently reproduce great works of art. That's why they're great!

Eeveegou wrote:

So, I can see what TheHedonist is saying and this is a pretty typical argument that comes up (especially back when the avant garde was exploding early last century) when dealing with what is and is not art. Should art convey something that causes us to feel a certain way or should art imitate nature (ie the oil painting of the woman).

Both. And the Warhol does neither.

Eeveegou wrote:

So I suppose it all comes down to what you believe art's purpose should be (because if you're gonna claim that something is art, it is fulfilling some kind of purpose) Is it something that is there for the explicit purpose of making you feel something (be it a memory/nostalgia, anger, happiness, etc) or is it supposed to be a very accurate representation of something that exists within reality. Even the soup can is somewhat serving the same purpose as a portrait, it just might be considered by people that it is "easier to draw" therefore it holds less meaning. Either way, I think Warhol was making a statement about that. But.... I can't be certain what with him being dead.

It's not that it's easier to draw that makes it hold less meaning. I've seen some vastly beautiful still lives. It's that I don't ever get the idea that he was even trying. That's an acrylic project. I did things just like it, with more detail and color variation, in middle and high school, and didn't always get an A. But this slob has rich friends and gets high with the right people and suddenly it's high art. That's not how things should work.

Art should make you feel something and accurately represent something that exists in nature because if it's doing one it's pretty much necessarily doing the other. I'll say it again: the Warhol does neither.

I'm with theHedonist. I'm sorry, but saying "uh, comprension is the viewer's job" basically means I can puke on a canvas and say if the viewer doesn't find meaning in my half-digested breakfast it's their own fault. I mean hell, it probably says something about how fragile life is, or something.

I'm not saying that the audience needs to have the message spoonfed; obviously I need to have a brain and use it, but at the same time it is the artist's responsibility to give me something to work with.

We've gone off topic from the "fanart" aspect, yes? Because I went to see a Damien Hirst exhibition recently, and, well. He doesn't do anything that requires any skill of any kind, so whatever gives his stuff meaning is entirely in the message, but there wasn't really any communication. There's a room with live butterflies (and let me tell you, zero effort went into the room itself) and they spend their whole lives in there. Are born, mate, feed, die. OMG that's deep, right? It says something about life and death. It, like, could remind us that death is everywhere, or something.
Thanks, dude, I was already aware of that.

There is literally nothing in the entire exhibition that required any particular artistic skill on Hirst's part. He drowned some animals in formaldehyde, arranged pharmaceutical packaging in medical cabinets and painted round polka dots on canvas. Oh, and this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And maybe all of that would have spoken to me if I had read up on him, if I was familiar with his life, with his earlier work, with things he's said about it, elsewhere. But that makes it elitist, you know? That means people who don't have access to that kind of education are excluded from whatever he's trying to say. To my mind, art needs to work by itself, without "omg context", at least to some degree, or it's just mutual masturbation of the select academic few who do this for a living.

And it is entirely the responsibility of the artist to create something that speaks for itself.

Eeveegou wrote:

Okay, so I was watching the Colbert Report the other day and he was interviewing Jeff Koons (high art guy... kind of Andy Warhol-ish-ish) And I had this sort of emotion that I had always wanted to see conveyed in art via 80s-kitsch, but it had never happened. Now I can see my memories in art in a sentimental way that calls back to those odd feelings of a nostalgia that is soaked in hot pinks, commodities, pop culture, and premature understandings of sex. But... I guess the interview sort of got me thinking as I believe a point was missed. Jeff Koons was ridiculed in a very awkward and uncomfortable way (almost like the emotional equivalent of seeing someone stub their toe... you feel it when you see it, that's what makes you go "sssssssssstt!") But I think about this within the context of how Andy Warhol was given shit for his soup cans... especially when I see some of Koons' other pieces not shown in the interview.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I argue that Colbert did go a little too far at least with how he was playing off of the audience. There was some genuine disconnect. Sometimes people pour their heart and soul into something that perhaps resonates with them emotionally, you know?... like a piece of art. No matter how bizarre, lovely, grim, phantasmic, or maybe even a little sentimental, the emotions that are evoked from stuff like this... I'd go so far as to say nostalgic. He's a neo-pop artist, the 80s-esque throw back... I can totally see it. It's comforting, it's touching (to me personally) Unfortunately, he is grappling with fame. Stuff like this happens, you get interviewed by a satirist (don't get me wrong, I love Stephen Colbert) and it's... brutal in a sort of subtle way from how the interview was framed.

In general, this is why I often don't watch Colbert or Jon Stewart interview people, they make me feel uncomfortable. But this was hardly bad or unfair compared to how they typically interview people. Colbert's playing a right-wing blowhard pundit after all; if you went on, say, Bill O'Reilly's show, do you think you'd be able to get half as far with all that fruity artist-blather?

Quote :

At any rate, after thoroughly beating around the bush, how I interpret this interview is that there was legitimate disrespect not necessarily from Colbert, but from the audience.

It's kind of hard to make fun of someone with their dick in your mouth.

Quote :

So please, discuss with me, what are your feelings about the Campbells soup cans?

There's "high art" and then there's "art you have to be high to think is art." Besides, Colbert wasn't mocking Koons for using logos, he was making fun of him because his work is... we'll say "unusual," or perhaps, "balloony."

Well, I figure if we're still talking Campbell's soup cans, we're still talking fanart (my attempt at dry humor)

Art tells you about someone and their experience. I love people. I love people so much that I will take the time, context, and deliberation to figure out what they are trying to convey. I think we do a disservice to someone who is trying to say something through art that we may originally perceive as simplistic or meaningless. By claiming that someone shouldn't have to grope around for meaning, well, why look at it? In fact, it almost invalidates the opinion that something is crap when it comes to art if you aren't willing to find that meaning or how it connects with yourself

This is something that gives me some pause because we have access to almost any image or art at anytime. Kind of like the Mona Lisa on the coffee mug. Does it lose meaning when we have access to it like that?

If we're going to complain about simplicity and how it invalidates a piece, then what about Lobster Phone by Salvidor Dali? He paints amazing images and scenes, but what can be I'd about this? Completely simplistic, but somewhere in there, there is something to be said about sexuality. I certainly haven't found it yet, but I still keep trying. It gives me perspective on an aspect of his personality no matter how profound of eccentric.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Also, I would be totally cool with giving Stephen Colbert a blowjob.
[img][/img]

TheHedonist wrote:

Oh and um I already kind of answered your first question:

Quote :

What, exactly, is he saying with a Campbell's soup can? Well, no, let me rephrase: what is he saying that hasn't already been said by a fucking Campbell's soup can?

The Kramskoy portrait is breathtaking in its attention to detail. The woman, and the look on her face, and her surroundings, all give me something to ponder. I could spend days getting lost in the minute details, noticing every time a new lifelike twitch of the fur on her stole.

Then I get to the Warhol, and he didn't even bother to properly shade the damned thing. He hasn't elevated life to the level of art, he's taken anything lifelike out of the damned soup can. It doesn't even look round, for chrissake.

motherfucker he wasnt going for lifelike

he was making a statement on the commercialism and commodification of art itself

its a commentary on how art has become a product to sell without any regard to quality or whether it is in fact "good art" of has any statement worth making at all

i know pop art is over most motherfuckers heads but lets get into art theory itself for a bit even though its basically a huge circlejerk in and of itself since there really is no right or wrong way to interpret art when you really get down to it

it was meant to be flat and easily printed off in large quantities you complete and utter shitbird because the art is a reflection of the capitalist consumer-oriented society the subject represents

and that soup can itself, the object, not the painting, is art in and of itself

someone paid an artist to design the label for that can, and that artist's work is now on shelves all across america, much like any other product with any sort of packaging. its an expression of commercialism in art and warhol was capturing that through reinterpreting the packaging design and churning out countless prints of the same thing, ultimately devaluing the work itself through sheer familiarity and market saturation

warhols work is more process-oriented and i honestly dont get why fucklords dont understand it at all

then again we're still talkin about a goddamn toilet that duchamp sonofabitch stuck in a art expo a hundred fuckin years ago

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ugh piss on me

unrelated but damien hurst is literally the worst thing ever to happen to the art world and i sincerely hope he dies choking on a pickled shark

SirDixonDongs wrote:

he was making a statement on the commercialism and commodification of art itself

And I'm making a statement on how you can make that statement in a way that takes more than an hour in a medium other than acrylic. In a way that doesn't show a certain 'oh these idiots will buy anything' contempt for your audience.

SirDixonDongs wrote:

its a commentary on how art has become a product to sell without any regard to quality or whether it is in fact "good art" of has any statement worth making at all

here real quick let me become part of the problem I'm criticizing

SirDixonDongs wrote:

i know pop art is over most motherfuckers heads but lets get into art theory itself for a bit even though its basically a huge circlejerk in and of itself since there really is no right or wrong way to interpret art when you really get down to it

and yet I'm a complete and utter shitbird for thinking he's a hack ok makes sense to me

PS you are not outlining any arguments about this I haven't heard before

I thought they were bullshit then and I do now

'understanding' his 'art' does not mean I have to like it or think he was anything but a hack taking advantage of rubes like you

SirDixonDongs wrote:

it was meant to be flat and easily printed off in large quantities you complete and utter shitbird because the art is a reflection of the capitalist consumer-oriented society the subject represents

how very

my problem isn't so much with the message but with how he uses the message as an excuse for sloppy execution

though honestly the more you go on about it the more problems I have with that, too

SirDixonDongs wrote:

and that soup can itself, the object, not the painting, is art in and of itself

someone paid an artist to design the label for that can, and that artist's work is now on shelves all across america, much like any other product with any sort of packaging. its an expression of commercialism in art and warhol was capturing that through reinterpreting the packaging design and churning out countless prints of the same thing, ultimately devaluing the work itself through sheer familiarity and market saturation

sounds like the original artist for the cover of the soup can did a better job than warhol did

it also makes what warhol did sound an awful lot like plagiarism

SirDixonDongs wrote:

warhols work is more process-oriented and i honestly dont get why fucklords dont understand it at all

see above

SirDixonDongs wrote:

unrelated but damien hurst is literally the worst thing ever to happen to the art world and i sincerely hope he dies choking on a pickled shark

Well, yes.

Also sorry, didn't see this to respond to it months ago when it might've been more relevant

Eeveegou wrote:

Also, I would be totally cool with giving Stephen Colbert a blowjob.

EDIT: amen

SirDixonDongs wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

Oh and um I already kind of answered your first question:

Quote :

What, exactly, is he saying with a Campbell's soup can? Well, no, let me rephrase: what is he saying that hasn't already been said by a fucking Campbell's soup can?

The Kramskoy portrait is breathtaking in its attention to detail. The woman, and the look on her face, and her surroundings, all give me something to ponder. I could spend days getting lost in the minute details, noticing every time a new lifelike twitch of the fur on her stole.

Then I get to the Warhol, and he didn't even bother to properly shade the damned thing. He hasn't elevated life to the level of art, he's taken anything lifelike out of the damned soup can. It doesn't even look round, for chrissake.

motherfucker he wasnt going for lifelike

he was making a statement on the commercialism and commodification of art itself

its a commentary on how art has become a product to sell without any regard to quality or whether it is in fact "good art" of has any statement worth making at all

i know pop art is over most motherfuckers heads but lets get into art theory itself for a bit even though its basically a huge circlejerk in and of itself since there really is no right or wrong way to interpret art when you really get down to it

it was meant to be flat and easily printed off in large quantities you complete and utter shitbird because the art is a reflection of the capitalist consumer-oriented society the subject represents

and that soup can itself, the object, not the painting, is art in and of itself

someone paid an artist to design the label for that can, and that artist's work is now on shelves all across america, much like any other product with any sort of packaging. its an expression of commercialism in art and warhol was capturing that through reinterpreting the packaging design and churning out countless prints of the same thing, ultimately devaluing the work itself through sheer familiarity and market saturation

warhols work is more process-oriented and i honestly dont get why fucklords dont understand it at all

then again we're still talkin about a goddamn toilet that duchamp sonofabitch stuck in a art expo a hundred fuckin years ago

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ugh piss on me

unrelated but damien hurst is literally the worst thing ever to happen to the art world and i sincerely hope he dies choking on a pickled shark

I would totally agree with you if it weren't for those soup cans not being round enough

And wow can we just talk about how much of a hack Rothko is too

I mean, anybody can paint squares

TheHedonist wrote:

I can't read over the fact this was over 6 months ago

Do you literally not check the post date and just jump headfirst into ranting hedon?

Reidmar wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

I can't read over the fact this was over 6 months ago

Do you literally not check the post date and just jump headfirst into ranting hedon?

my own damn self wrote:

Also sorry, didn't see this to respond to it months ago when it might've been more relevant

Do you literally not read the post at all and just jump headfirst into condescending admonishment Reid?

It's kind of funny to come back to this thread and have a slightly differing opinion than the one I had when I originally started the thread.

I was in one of those stupid "Oh look at me! I'm talking about art! I'm gonna talk about it to people trying not to sound pretentious, but whoops look what happened!" moods. Apologies.

Eeveegou wrote:

I was in one of those stupid "Oh look at me! I'm talking about art! I'm gonna talk about it to people trying not to sound pretentious, but whoops look what happened!" moods. Apologies.

What is it with this forum? People only apologize when there's nothing to apologize for.

TheHedonist wrote:

Eeveegou wrote:

I was in one of those stupid "Oh look at me! I'm talking about art! I'm gonna talk about it to people trying not to sound pretentious, but whoops look what happened!" moods. Apologies.

What is it with this forum? People only apologize when there's nothing to apologize for.

I have to apologize or else my soul will go to hell.

Relevant.

TheHedonist wrote:

Relevant.

So, I was thinking about this recently having been reading through Hollywood Flatlands by Esther Leslie... and I would have to push back on Glen Coco a bit. Just a bit.

On the one hand, perhaps the joke really is on the artists. It kind of looks like they're calling something art and thinking it is meaningful while the general public is laughing at them for thinking that what they're doing is art... which then almost always leads into making fun of Jackson Pollock (splatter some color on a canvas and charge thousands for what my 2 year old does every day) I'm totally open to the notion that an artist can be full of shit and trying to make some scratch, but I would still try to dig deeper to make sure I'm not missing something.

I think what is happening is people are trying to find the next thing that hasn't been done before in order to convey something that is so deeply complex that there are no words to describe it, only abstract visual representation. And from the looks of the exhibit, there is a snag being hit. But I think it is on the right track (this is my personal opinion) Here are my reactions to the exhibit:

The aesthetic of the woman riding the horse, the shelf with all of the animal figurines, and the woman in the desert reading a book is pure nostalgia to me. It reminds me of life in the midwest on the border between rural farmland and suburbia. It's like that feeling of walking into my grandparents' house to hoards of meticulously organized knickknacks with the desolate backdrop of endless, dusty, agricultural wastelands. However, having no clue of the artist's intent and context, I am merely holding up my end of the bargain with what the art symbolizes to me. But, that feeling. That feeling that I cannot convey in words, but others are also struggling to find representation, of that nostalgia and feeling, in the art world. That's what I'm hoping at least. Maybe I can define the new era of art! Or at least come up with a new word.

As for Coco's critique that art exhibits are like a rich people social club, he's right. And it has always been that way. You think commoners had access to art "back in the day?" Naw, that was for the rich/the powerful (ie. royal families, priests, etc.) In fact, it's more of a recent thing where the masses have had art disseminated to them via a primarily technological means of reproduction... I sat in a restaurant the other day and had lunch next to the Mona Lisa.

Eeveegou wrote:

The aesthetic of the woman riding the horse, the shelf with all of the animal figurines, and the woman in the desert reading a book is pure nostalgia to me.

Hmm, I remember this one really interesting display at the modern art museum in Portland that was intended to evoke a similar feeling, I think. IIRC it was a chunk of house, I cannot really remember if it was a home or like a BandB or something like that, but it was made to look a particular age and sort of evoke that feeling you went you you are in a place that was well lived in, probably made a lot of people think of their grandparents. It was one of my favorite pieces.

Jeez, did you ever get to go the the modern art museum when you were in Portland? Maybe we should roadtrip down there and do that sometime, it has some really cool exhibits.

here is all I know about art:

I went to the Louvre with my mother. We saw the Mona Lisa and it's small and behind a huge glass case which is itself behind a massive gang of tourists. Then I dragged her downstairs to see the Code of Hammurabi. That is all.

It must have been awesome to visit the Louvre, though.