Understanding Art for Geeks

HeadMounted found a great little flickr collection of art for geeks where helpful designers have provided you with useful hints to help you better comprehend the confusing art world. Or not. Some of them are very clever.

Comments

Lame

[eharvill]

need I say more?

Re:Lame

[Funkcikle]

Buried for being submitted to the wrong site.

Re:Lame

[rs79]

"need I say more? "

No, you need say less.

Who let this crap in?

[Animats]

This is lame. It's neither insightful nor funny.

Re:Who let this crap in?

[Smidge204]

Apparently "lolcats" are now high art...

We're doomed.
=Smidge=

Re:Who let this crap in?

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm with you on this... funny:0

Re:Who let this crap in?

[KublaiKhan]

LOLcats, no, not especially--but the Mona LOLsa is.

Re:Who let this crap in?

[Smidge204]

You missed this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulthewineguy/2163335738/in/set-72157603619920398/

=Smidge=

Re:Who let this crap in?

[Freeside1]

Are you describing the article, or your comment?

Re:Who let this crap in?

[KublaiKhan]

And you missed this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulthewineguy/2162533383/in/set-72157603619920398/
;-p

Re:Who let this crap in?

[The One and Only]

Dude, we know about your journal already, and it's getting fucking tiresome watching you spam Slashdot to get everyone to read it. I hate to say this because your journal actually is interesting, but it's true.

Re:Who let this crap in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Been there, done that, still waiting for the promised second part on "Perspective, color, and a bunch of other junk nobody will read" that you promised at the end. Get cracking, dude!

Re:Who let this crap in?

[aitikin]

Ironic, you've been modded insightful...

Re:Who let this crap in?

[sm62704]

Gee, it's only been ten years, what's your hurry?

Re:Who let this crap in?

[cbart387]

Agreed. By the summary I thought it was going to explain how to understand art. My mind is way to literal and focused on mathematics so I tend not to grasp the kind of nuances that make of the 'artsy-fartsy' stuff. I thought was I would learn about the 'buzzwords' that describe art so I can intelligently talk to cute artsy chicks. This just reinforces my geeky-ness (which I don't need any help with). :(

Re:Who let this crap in?

[Lemmy Caution]

I actually know a lot about art. I've taught art history courses. And these are actually both insightful and funny: they really do illuminate aspects of the works they play off of. Some of the humor relies on know about both the art-historical and geek references, though.

Re:Who let this crap in?

[Anne Honime]

Some of the humor relies on know about both the art-historical and geek references, though.

I agree. I especially loved the pun on Duchamp's monalisa, originaly titled 'LHOOQ' ; in french, this reads "elle a chaud au cul" ("she's horny"). To be dubbed "d3fac3d" is somewhat the icing on the cake.

How long before ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... someone posts a goatse link? :)

peanut butter jelly time

[192939495969798999]

A tremendous amount of work clearly went into it, so credit must be given to the creator for the effort. However, for me it's reminiscent of PBJT, in that for me it's kinda funny for 2-3 times, and then I'm all, "eh, cool i guess" and on to the next site.

Re:peanut butter jelly time

[Rei]

All that work, and not a single Banksy? What a shame.

Re:peanut butter jelly time

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? They're pathetic. The average Photoshop Phriday at somethingawful is far better than any of those.

NSFW.

[RandoX]

Unless looking at breasts is ok where you work, that is.

Re:NSFW.

[PinkyDead]

I'll just use my usual excuse: It's not porn, it's art.

Re:NSFW.

[RobBebop]

But they are *artistic* breasts.

Plus a vagina being covered up by a Power button. I wonder what *that* is trying to imply.

Re:NSFW.

[NatasRevol]

It's either push it to turn it on...or women have pussy power.

Re:NSFW.

[ContractualObligatio]

If you're working somewhere where a collection of art paintings like this is NSFW (and you're not paranoid), quit as soon as possible...

Re:NSFW.

[RobBebop]

Thanks for clarifying that for everybody reading this who didn't understand the initial but of sarcasm for the Power Button Art. :)

Re:NSFW.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't. I've already successfully won one sexual harassment lawsuit over nude "art." Please continue.

Re:NSFW.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never worked anywhere where it *wasn't*. (I feel sorry for you, comrade.) Half the people here *have* breasts -- are we supposed to make a policy that forbids us from looking at ourselves? And have you learned nothing from art? These are not breasts.

In case you mean "images of breasts", then I'm kind of curious why you're upset about the half-naked women, but not the fully-naked man. Hello, sexism!

Re:NSFW.

[jawtheshark]

Look at the title of the original painting. That should clear up things.

Re:NSFW.

[russotto]

It's officially an artistic vagina, too; the work is in the Musee d'Orsay, a perfectly legitimate museum. Though I admit it's more than a bit jarring walking through the museum and suddenly coming upon _L'Origine du Monde_.

Re:NSFW.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're either an opportunistic scumbag or a hypersensitive crybaby. Please die.

Re:NSFW.

[Anne Honime]

Unless looking at breasts is ok where you work, that is.

Because a decapitated guy is perectly OK, of course. I'd really like to have an explanation about that : half of the humanity have a vagina an breasts, which is perfectly natural, why is it less acceptable to display than a mutilated body (which is not obviously un-ntural) ? I really can't get it.

At least, if you had rated this NSFW because self-entertainement isn't of the essence of working, I might have agreed, but all this BS about the human body is really the product of sick minds.

Re:NSFW.

[RandoX]

That just happened to be the first image I saw (maybe that says a lot about me). If there were an image of a decapitated body as well, that might me NSFW in addition.

Re:NSFW.

[Darinbob]

You definately have to read the titles to understand quite a few of the jokes or see the irony. It may help to at least know what the original paintings are about, know something about art or art history, etc. Many were very clever, but some (maybe I missed the joke) were just ho-hum. But none were really "lame" in my view.

Re:NSFW.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It should have been a big dollar or Euro sign. That's the power of the money maker. It's a symbol of the pussy cartel, artificially jacking up the price of pussy, because they know we men have no choice but to pay.

Re:NSFW.

[NaDrew]

suddenly coming upon _L'Origine du Monde_. At least wipe up after yourself.

Re:NSFW.

[Vombatus]

Half the people here *have* breasts

You really need to get out more. Just about everyone has them in one shape or form.

Re:NSFW.

[tendays]

Plus a vagina being covered up by a Power button. I wonder what *that* is trying to imply. It's made from the painting "L'origine du monde" ("The origin of the world", hence the power button). You can read about it by searching "L'origine du monde" on wikipedia (WARNING - Even MORE NSFW because they have the painting without that power button!)
So, the original painter probably wanted to say that everything in our world comes from a woman's vagina, (and in more than one way! I let you find other interpretations of that ;) ), in a very provocative way.

The "turn on" (sexually) aspect of the "power button" was (probably) not meant in the original painting, however.

Art is subjective

[techpawn]

Even if it's segregated "art for geeks" it may not really be art. Of course, some critics may say that it was never art to begin with. Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc. Part of it is the creative process that made the art that makes that art worth taking in and thinking about.
To someone in the art world, Giger may be seen as a genius but to someone like your average slashdot reader a mother board or the latest Linix kernel may be more of a piece of art than something Giger could ever produce.

Then again, IANAA and M.C. Escher is my favorite M.C...

Re:Art is subjective

[smittyoneeach]

Some of the images draw delightfully crass connections.
The instantly recongnizable image of "The Thinker", with an annoying, screw-you, bugs-in-my-code hourglass icon in the upper-left corner is quite well done.

Re:Art is subjective

[Hatta]

Further, understanding art for geeks isn't necessarily going to help a geek understand art in general. I happen to hate fiction. It just seems to be an utter waste of time, and I'm especially confused by those who spend time arguing about the meaning of a work of literature. It's all made up anyway! If the author really wanted to communicate a point he'd write an essay.

Yet I love Lewis Carrol. The Alice stories are wonderful examples of art for geeks. Perhaps what I like is that everything can be taken at face value. The geeky jokes and math allusions are right there to be appreciated, no deep digging is needed. It's just a lot more fun than any work of great literature I've read.

In the same way, appreciating art for geeks, say Escher or Magritte isn't really going to help someone appreciate the Mona Lisa. An Escher or Magritte usually has a fairly obvious gag. The Mona Lisa is just a painting of some chick, I just don't see the big deal.

Re:Art is subjective

[techpawn]

The Mona Lisa is just a painting of some chick, I just don't see the big deal.

Leonardo did some stunning works and his notebooks are far more interesting than the Mona Lisa IMHO. The thing I hate is that his works that really where are art at the time (at least to him (I hope)) are being lost to time and fading in memory and what we're left with are his commissioned works of a portrait of some woman and a mural of John 13:21...

Re:Art is subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

funny thing about leonardo is that he was a scientist first, and became an artist to make money and to be able to draw the stuff he designed. Like a helicopter

Re:Art is subjective

[Belial6]

"Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc."

Yeah, actually it is. That is exactly why so many people that are into "Art" sound like such pompous asses. It is also why people have such a hard time defining what is "Art". They are obsessed with trying to make it more than it is. They want the stuff THEY like to look at to be art, and the stuff that they don't like to look at to not be art.

They only thing I would add to your definition is that it is something that someone intentionally made.

Re:Art is subjective

[imgod2u]

I happen to hate fiction. It just seems to be an utter waste of time, and I'm especially confused by those who spend time arguing about the meaning of a work of literature. It's all made up anyway! If the author really wanted to communicate a point he'd write an essay. I'm curious as to your thoughts on South Park, Schindler's list, anything John Lennon and just about every other form of "made up" stuff that was a vehicle for political and social commentary.

To quote John Lennon, time you enjoy wasting is not wasted.

Re:Art is subjective

[Yetihehe]

art of it is the creative process that made the art that makes that art worth taking in and thinking about.

This one phrase gave us Artist's shit

Re:Art is subjective

[inviolet]

Even if it's segregated "art for geeks" it may not really be art. Of course, some critics may say that it was never art to begin with. Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc. Part of it is the creative process that made the art that makes that art worth taking in and thinking about.

art: n. something made by an artist.

artist: n. someone who makes art.

I'm only half joking.

You're definitely on the right track when you say that art is neither "out there" (a thing we view to achieve a desirable mental state) nor "in here" (a thing we made to be viewed). It must be both. The same also true generally, for all concepts: 'tableness' is neither "out there" (inherent in the table ala Plato's forms) nor "in here" (self-referential mental constructs ala the Skeptics). To be true, meaningful, and useful, they must be both.

Re:Art is subjective

[Kjella]

I think the most important point to realize about art is that art isn't a property of the object itself. A picture of the sunset is only a picture, if you say that picture is a symbol of the great cycle of life and death, the beauty of nature, a coming darkness or whatever then it is a piece of art. The same goes for a lot of modern art and photography, it's not the content but the reason you chose to frame it. To take a geekier example, if you look at code it's just code. If you single it out as an symbol of elegance and simplicity and that code can be beautiful, then it's art. Whoever wrote it can have as little perception of it as art as the sun in the sunset. That's at least the traditional form of art, and you can get fairly abstract if you're expressing abstract concepts. I think you can express something most people would connect with "love" by having a few swirls entangling each other and the proper use of reds and pinks.

Then you have really abstract art, where the point isn't to understand something the artist conveyed but simply to let your imagination loose and imagine what it could mean, and the quality of art is in how many synapses it sets off. Geeks just can't do that, it's like seeing a problem with four unknowns and three equations where they simply conclude the problem domain is unsolvable. I must admit I'm pretty much that way myself. On the other hand, there seems to be people with an irrational need to project meaning into everything, even when there is none. Don't worry so much about "getting" art, the best kind is the one that you sort of but not quite understand.

Re:Art is subjective

[techpawn]

"Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc."
Yeah, actually it is.

I find it hard to believe that people like Britney Spears are truly artists in anything but the loosest use of the word and not just media pawns or Marla Olmstead is an actual "artist" as we like to think of them and not just a child who like to paint whose parents are trying to score some coin from said snobs and media buzz.

It's not the product that is art, it's the process and the producer that makes it art. You can say ANYTHING is art, but is it really an artistic expression or an excuse for money and/or nudity and/or fame?

Re:Art is subjective

[Hatta]

If the argument is made in a clear straight-forward way, merely using fictional settings to illustrate a point, that's fine. If the author hides their point behind multiple levels of symbolism such that it's impossible to tell what the author really meant, and people can spend entire careers arguing over what the work really means, then that's not ok.

As far as I can tell with most great literature, the whole point is to argue about what the point in fact is, which is nothing more than pointless intellectual masturbation. Further, lot of authors hide their point behind so much symbolism that they may not even have a point at all. I mean if they actually had something to say, and came out and said it, the PhDs wouldn't have anything to argue about, and it wouldn't be a great work of literature. It's very much like an Emperor's New Clothes situation.

I tried really hard during HS and college to understand the method behind the madness of literature interpretation. My only conclusion is that there is no method. It's 100% pure unadulterated bullshit.

Re:Art is subjective

[SecondHand]

That's horrible! I nearly choked when I saw giger.com. Don't click that link! You've been warned! Don't click!

Re:Art is subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

The really interesting thing is that techpawn is an android built by a 2-digit slashdot user.

Even if they're segregated "people on slashdot" they may not really be people. Of course, some critics may say that she was never a person to begin with.

Re:Art is subjective

[techpawn]

That's horrible! I nearly choked when I saw giger.com.

What?! His works are safe for work. Just not what most slashdotters would call art, which is sad, cuz he has done set design for a few sci-fi movies if I'm remembering right.

His works always make me think of Alien though

Re:Art is subjective

[DerekLyons]

"Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc."

Yeah, actually it is.

No, actually it isn't. And never has been.
 
 

That is exactly why so many people that are into "Art" sound like such pompous asses.

No, so many people that are into "Art" sound like pompous asses because of the increasingly divide between Art and the general public. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the biggest is a the loss of widely shared culture and iconography over the last century-and-some.
 
 

It is also why people have such a hard time defining what is "Art". They are obsessed with trying to make it more than it is.

No, they are having such a hard time - because they were raised without a solid definition and understanding, see "loss of widely shared culture and iconography".

Re:Art is subjective

[euxneks]

I doubt anyone on /. would have an issue with H.R. Giger's art being recognized as such, he's the guy who designed the Alien!

Re:Art is subjective

[Belial6]

Your response is exactly what I am talking about. You WANT art to be something more, but even in your post, you contradict yourself. Why? because you don't want to accept that people you don't like have produced art. You say that Britney Spears and Marla Olmstead are not an "artist" because they are like a child who likes to paint, but in your next sentence, you say that art is a process. Well, there is no doubt that the child that likes to paint IS going through a creative process.

What has happened is that a group of people have found a feeling of importance by claiming to know what is 'really' art. They all go around patting each other on the back for agreeing with each other, and telling each other that those that disagree just don't understand 'real' art. They are like a kid sitting in a grade school class who raise their hand in response to a poll by the teacher because they assume that if everyone else is raising their hands, that must be the right answer.

Just because neither of us like Brittney Spears does not mean that she doesn't produce 'art'.

Re:Art is subjective

[imgod2u]

If the author hides their point behind multiple levels of symbolism such that it's impossible to tell what the author really meant, and people can spend entire careers arguing over what the work really means, then that's not ok. Why not? I suppose you think the ending to Pan's Labyrinth wasn't "ok" because the director intentionally left the choice of whether the whole thing was a fantasy or reality open and up for interpretation by the audience. Arts are, first and foremost, supposed to be entertaining. And literary analysis, even if there wasn't a point and/or the point is hidden, is very entertaining to some.

As far as I can tell with most great literature, the whole point is to argue about what the point in fact is, which is nothing more than pointless intellectual masturbation. GASP! You mean to tell me that they, somehow, serve some purpose of pleasure with no utilitarian benefit?! ZOMG the damn hippies!!

I tried really hard during HS and college to understand the method behind the madness of literature interpretation. You're trying too hard. As an engineering student, it took me a while to get used to the idea that there wasn't a "moment of epiphany" for literature classes. There is no magical conclusion that is right or wrong. It's just an exercise in mental masturbation. Those things are graded based on writing skills and being able to present plausible arguments in a coherent manner, not on whether or not you interpreted "correctly" because more often than not, there is no correct interpretation.

Like an episode of Family Guy or Seinfeld, don't try to read too much into it. It's just a bit of fun.

Re:Art is subjective

[spinkham]

Here's best instructable ever I've ever seen, happens to be on the subject of "How to Make Art".
My wife is a painter and loved it. Be sure to read the alt tags...
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-art./
Excerpt:

A breif history: Western art has a rich history, arguably dating back to ancient Greece. Of course, since visual artists historically have toiled with their hands, Greeks viewed painters and sculptors as we would today view cabinet makers; skilled laborers. In an attempt to get laid more, eat better and party with the Popes, artists in the renaissance reinterpreted the role of visual artists in antiquity to elevate their position in society. From here, western visual art was kind of like a snowball rolling down a hill of loosely packed snow. In short, it started an avalanch of rationalism that eventually landed upon abstract expressionism (think of a canvas painted white with a slash in it). Three hours later, when we finally dug Jackson Pollock out from under ten feet of packed snow, he was somehow still alive, but very pale and slightly braindead. We now called him Andy Warhol. He, along with a number of other avalanch survivors, created postmodern art. This lead Marshal McLuhan to proclaim: "Art is anything that you can get away with." This will be our working definition of art.

Re:Art is subjective

[techpawn]

They are like a kid sitting in a grade school class who raise their hand in response to a poll by the teacher because they assume that if everyone else is raising their hands, that must be the right answer.

But, this goes back to the title of the thread. It's all subjective. If you feel that it is art when someone craps in a can and sells it to snobs, then by all means, that is art. I feel there is more merit in the piece made by the girl winging paints at a canvas out of anger over being dumped than a four year old pushing paints around one of her daddy's canvases and being told she's a genius. It's all in the eyes of the viewer. I PERSONALLY don't feel that certain things and people that are in the art world belong there or with as much accolade as they have.

But, that's me and I'm just a geek, so what do I know

Re:Art is subjective

[TFGeditor]

"The Mona Lisa is just a painting of some chick, I just don't see the big deal."

Au contraire. Look closely at the background. Doesn't it look kind of other-worldly and SciFiesque? Makes me wonder what Leonardo was thinking...or smoking.

Re:Art is subjective

[imgod2u]

"The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless."

If you're doing it for the hell of it because it makes you happy, it's art.

Re:Art is subjective

[quintessentialk]

His works always make me think of Alien though

There's a very obvious reason for that, you know...

Re:Art is subjective

[imgod2u]

I always thought that it was all in the eyes of the painter/creator. If he/she makes something he/she likes and finds pretty/witty/pleasurable then that's really all there is to it now isn't it?

If he/she created it to sell regardless of whether he/she admires it, then it's utilitarian.

Re:Art is subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell with most great literature, the whole point is to argue about what the point in fact is, which is nothing more than pointless intellectual masturbation.

If your masturbation is pointless, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Art is subjective

[Hatta]

If it's all pointless fun, then why do they teach it in school? Why do we give people PhDs for mental masturbation? If there is no right or wrong, why did I pull straight Ds through HS and college english? How is it possible to make plausible coherent arguments about a completely arbitrary imaginary universe?

Literature as fluff entertainment is fine, I said as much already. But we don't watch Seinfeld in High School. Some people see it as a scholarly pursuit and want to force it down the throat of every kid.

I remember once in college, we were reading a story named A&P, set in a grocery store. The prof asked us to write a paragraph on why the author named it A&P. How the hell are we supposed to know, I wondered. So he pulls some shit out of his ass about A&P standing for Atlantic and Pacific and this having connotations of universality etc, etc. So I asked how he knew that A&P wasn't just the author's favorite grocery store. What evidence is there that the choice of title wasn't completely arbitrary? Well, absolutely none as it turns out. That's not scholarship, that's bullshit.

Re:Art is subjective

[SpectreHiro]

They only thing I would add to your definition is that it is something that someone intentionally made. Not bad. I like to define art as anything you've done more than once. It casts a pretty wide net... In fact, it makes essentially everyone an artist at something, and I think that's why I like it.

Every single one of us has at least a little kung-fu.

Re:Art is subjective

[techpawn]

If he/she created it to sell regardless of whether he/she admires it, then it's utilitarian.

Actually, just from watching the process from the outside you can see a BIG difference in the process for the pieces for selling, for their enjoyment, and the ones that they think will bridge the gap between the two.

I know many artists that create works they know they have to sell in order to eat, they don't have the same passion and flair to them as they create as the pieces they make for themselves or that become surprise success. Yes, the creator creates for themselves, but (as much as they'll deny it) they need to be able to move pieces off galley walls and will make works that appeal to the audience while still maintaining their integrity as an artist.

So, while MOST of their work is in their eyes some of the time they will be thinking of what will sell and, in the case of commissioned work, what the client wants to see.

Re:Art is subjective

[stdarg]

Further, understanding art for geeks isn't necessarily going to help a geek understand art in general. I happen to hate fiction. It just seems to be an utter waste of time, and I'm especially confused by those who spend time arguing about the meaning of a work of literature. It's all made up anyway! If the author really wanted to communicate a point he'd write an essay. Sometimes the point is emotion, which would be difficult if not impossible to put into an analytical essay form.

Yet I love Lewis Carrol. The Alice stories are wonderful examples of art for geeks. Perhaps what I like is that everything can be taken at face value. The geeky jokes and math allusions are right there to be appreciated, no deep digging is needed. It's just a lot more fun than any work of great literature I've read.

In the same way, appreciating art for geeks, say Escher or Magritte isn't really going to help someone appreciate the Mona Lisa. An Escher or Magritte usually has a fairly obvious gag. The Mona Lisa is just a painting of some chick, I just don't see the big deal. No offense but what's the point in reading something that is fairly obvious? Do you read the instructions on how to assemble a bed frame as well? Same with art. How many drawings of the same paradox can you look at before getting really bored?

I totally get why you don't like fiction. I used to like it a lot and as I get older it seems to get more and more pointless and boring. Part of that is new stories generally are rehashing the same old themes that I've read before. Another part is that non-fiction is getting more and more interesting and useful -- I love reading about construction techniques now, for instance.

Even so, art can be appreciated for its beauty. (I hope you're not tired of looking at pretty girls!) Literature can be appreciated for the feeling that you are a part of something else. You just have to look harder and harder as you become more discerning.

Re:Art is subjective

[imgod2u]

If it's all pointless fun, then why do they teach it in school? I would like to hear your opinion on professional sports, dancing, philosophy and pretty much all the other "useless" courses being taught at universities. Not everything needs to have utilitarian value to be a part of academia.

If there is no right or wrong, why did I pull straight Ds through HS and college english? I believe I covered this when I mentioned writing skills and composition.

How is it possible to make plausible coherent arguments about a completely arbitrary imaginary universe? Rene Descartes would like to have a word with you. Start with premise A (imaginary universe), assume it were true, see if what you claim makes any sense. If it does, you get points.

Actually, more important than that is whether you actually put your thoughts down on paper in a way that's easy to read and understand. Again, over-glorified writing class.

Literature as fluff entertainment is fine, I said as much already. But we don't watch Seinfeld in High School. Some people see it as a scholarly pursuit and want to force it down the throat of every kid. There are many universities that offer courses where you sit around and watch Family Guy. But universities feel that less popular and less modern forms of entertainment (literature) deserves equal attention and offers courses to expose students to them. It's still entertainment. The scholarly pursuit is in knowing the little details behind them and/or knowing about more of them. Think of it as a history/anthropology class but dedicated to fictional stories. I suppose you think history shouldn't be taught either.

I remember once in college, we were reading a story named A&P, set in a grocery store. The prof asked us to write a paragraph on why the author named it A&P. How the hell are we supposed to know, I wondered. So he pulls some shit out of his ass about A&P standing for Atlantic and Pacific and this having connotations of universality etc, etc. So I asked how he knew that A&P wasn't just the author's favorite grocery store. What evidence is there that the choice of title wasn't completely arbitrary? Well, absolutely none as it turns out. That's not scholarship, that's bullshit. If he had no historical and/or literary evidence then yes, it was just pulled out of his ass. But anecdotal examples aside, the scholarly part *does* come from match historical patterns with the literature at hand.

Re:Art is subjective

[imgod2u]

I know many artists that create works they know they have to sell in order to eat Then they are not being artists when they create it.

will make works that appeal to the audience while still maintaining their integrity as an artist That is a contradiction in concepts.

some of the time they will be thinking of what will sell and, in the case of commissioned work, what the client wants to see Then what they create during those times is not art, it's product.

Re:Art is subjective

[dzurn]

No, so many people that are into "Art" sound like pompous asses because of the increasingly divide between Art and the general public. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the biggest is a the loss of widely shared culture and iconography over the last century-and-some.

Unfortunately, Art is largely driven by "Art Criticism", which is a curiously insular institution. Take an Art Criticism class at the college level and you will very quickly find out how much they value *your* opinion on *their* art: Not at all.

"Criticism" means comparing the comments of two different writers, not in the merits or demerits of the art itself. What the plebs like or don't like makes exactly zero difference to them. You aren't asked to find personal meaning, you are told that the artist's intent is much more important that what you get out of it.

So IMHO it's hardly due to a "loss of widely shared culture and iconography", whatever that means.

Rather, Art Criticism has ruined Art for lay people by turning Art into a fascia of inside jokes, obscure references and commentary from people without anything meaningful to say.

Other than that it's not so bad...

Re:Art is subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

s/fascia/circle-jerk/

There, that should fix it.

Re:Art is subjective

[techpawn]

I know many artists that create works they know they have to sell in order to eat

Then they are not being artists when they create it.

Then what are they being? The next closest thing I can come up with is craftsmen at that point. They are using their talents in a craft make money. Then so would people in IT, we aren't programmer and admins, we're craftsmen. But what about the pieces that they did not intent to be success? Where they WHERE passionate about it during it's creation and sold it despite themselves.

besides, It's not a profession as much as a way of life. It takes artists to model movie sets and any form of entertainment. Just like acting. Is acting or being in a band or singing a profession? It's a fine line. It's a honed skill. Something that takes many years working.

Re:Art is subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then what they create during those times is not art, it's product."

Artists are funny people. It's an interesting question whether the intent in creating a work of art should matter to the person appreciating it.

It's not unusual for the greatest works to be produced as commissions.
The fact that people like your work want to pay you for it spurs you on against self doubt, and deadlines make you drive yourself to produce something worthwhile in the time you have. And getting paid means you have more time to dedicate to your art rather than doing a normal job.

Some people just don't work well when they have no pressure.

Re:Art is subjective

[imgod2u]

Then what are they being? The next closest thing I can come up with is craftsmen at that point. They are using their talents in a craft make money. Then so would people in IT, we aren't programmer and admins, we're craftsmen. Craftsmen I suppose would be the best term. A thing to note about IT people. In my job, there are often times when I have to write little programs here and there but it's never more than just because I need a piece of code to do something. I know people who do it full time whether it be in IT or software engineering. There are some who do it because it's a good job and they do what they need to do to make the thing work. Then there are those who are real nerds about coding. They will spend hours on fully functional code just to make it elegant to please themselves. They are artists at that point. It need not be a guy painting or someone on a macbook in a coffee shop. Anytime anyone does something just for the hell of it because it tickles their inner nerd, they are an artist. Anytime they're not, they're being a laborer.

It's not a profession as much as a way of life. It takes artists to model movie sets and any form of entertainment. Just like acting. Is acting or being in a band or singing a profession? It's a fine line. It's a honed skill. Something that takes many years working. A 5-year old putting lego's together in a way that pleases him/her is just as much of an artist in my eye as a 20-year old set designer veteran. The point is the intent. If a set designer goes out of his way to make something that is, in his eyes, perfect. Even if, in utilitarian terms, the director, the audience and the movie studio would be just as happy with less, he is being an artist.

So no, I don't think it's about skill or way of life or anything other than the fact that you have an inner child that beckons you to do something just because you like it and for no other reason whatsoever. Be creative. Make a pretty garden. Build a model ship. Conjure up an elegant equation. Design an elegant and efficient circuit (when you're not required to for work). Think of a mathematical proof for an already proven theorem because you think the existing proof isn't elegant. Write an essay that you can talk about for hours about all the clever little literary devices you used. Make a character on Second Life. Anything you do that is totally useless but you will dote on for hours like total nerd is art.

Re:Art is subjective

[techpawn]

Anything you do that is totally useless but you will dote on for hours like total nerd is art.

No, that's just being a nerd...

Be creative. Make a pretty garden. Build a model ship. Conjure up an elegant equation. Design an elegant and efficient circuit (when you're not required to for work). Think of a mathematical proof for an already proven theorem because you think the existing proof isn't elegant.

Now that I can agree with, at least in my mind, as art for geeks. As I said at the top of this. Not everyone will like everything that is out there. Some "art" people will go on about why this artist is good in front of one of their pieces where as we'll enjoy the aesthetics of mother boards at the local computer shop talking about why it's better than the one next to it.

Do I personally believe that there is a difference between what is ART and what isn't... Of course I do, but as we've proved (to death) it's all in how it's viewed and my view my be different than yours. If art to you is a well put together garden, a piece by H.R.Giger, or even a well crafted D&D character more power to you. But, please, don't take anything away from the men and women who make their livings creating their artistic expressions for others to enjoy.

Re:Art is subjective

[wanderingknight]

Man, art is a way of conveying a way of perceiving things. It's not something that comes out of someone's ass; in fact, I'd expect geeks, who tend to be more analytic in their behavior, would understand this better than anyone. Art conveys a way of thinking, a way of perceiving the world, and that has tons of different connotations: historical, sociological, and even political. You may argue about, for example, the frivolous music we get shoved down our throats by the western music industry these days, but that's also a way of conveying a message which, when interpreted in the future, should give someone a way of understanding the current era (as in, a frivolous society that consumes every piece of crap that's shoved down their throats). THAT's the reason why it's taught at schools, or at least, the original reason. It might not be taught correctly in every school, but at least, that's the reason why it should exist in an academic environment.

And, on the other hand, art is important as a piece of entertainment. If you can't understand the beauty of discussing a work of fiction (of any kind, be it movies, animated series, novels, short stories, etcetera), of a dialog that involves the exchange of different ways of understanding the same work (which is also part of the beauty of art), then I feel sad for you.

Re:Art is subjective

[techpawn]

There's a very obvious reason for that, you know...

yeah...I know

Re:Art is subjective

[Hatta]

I would like to hear your opinion on professional sports, dancing, philosophy and pretty much all the other "useless" courses being taught at universities.

College sports are a huge waste of money, time, and effort. Dancing and philosophy are usually not required for every freshman. I don't care if you take an english class, just don't force me to take one and tell me it's for my own good.

Actually, more important than that is whether you actually put your thoughts down on paper in a way that's easy to read and understand. Again, over-glorified writing class.

But that would require I actually have thoughts about literature. I don't. Other than that it sucks that is. And no matter how hard I tried to understand what they were doing to come up with these thoughts, I just end up asking "how do you know that?" over and over again until my teacher/professor can do nothing but stare blankly at me.

If you want to test my writing skills, put me in front of pubmed and ask me to review the literature on a given topic. The only thing English classes test is the ability to bullshit.

There are many universities that offer courses where you sit around and watch Family Guy.

But they don't force every student into it.

Think of it as a history/anthropology class but dedicated to fictional stories. I suppose you think history shouldn't be taught either.

Well history actually happened, so it's a lot more important than fiction. As they say, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Those who don't know fiction are doomed to... Um, I'm just not seeing a downside to not being exposed to fiction.

Re:Art is subjective

[imgod2u]

No, that's just being a nerd...

Now that I can agree with, at least in my mind, as art for geeks. As I said at the top of this. Not everyone will like everything that is out there. Some "art" people will go on about why this artist is good in front of one of their pieces where as we'll enjoy the aesthetics of mother boards at the local computer shop talking about why it's better than the one next to it.

Do I personally believe that there is a difference between what is ART and what isn't... Of course I do, but as we've proved (to death) it's all in how it's viewed and my view my be different than yours. If art to you is a well put together garden, a piece by H.R.Giger, or even a well crafted D&D character more power to you. But, please, don't take anything away from the men and women who make their livings creating their artistic expressions for others to enjoy. "We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he
does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless
thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless."

- Oscar Wilde

Re:Art is subjective

[imgod2u]

College sports are a huge waste of money, time, and effort. Dancing and philosophy are usually not required for every freshman. I don't care if you take an english class, just don't force me to take one and tell me it's for my own good. My college curriculum didn't force me to take literature courses. I don't think many do. You're usually given a set of electives you can choose from. They range all the way from Greek history to anthropology to sex ed (yes, that was an elective, giggity).

If your college made literature mandatory, I'm truly sorry.

But that would require I actually have thoughts about literature. I don't. Don't take a literature class then....
Did you honestly not expect a literature class to expect you to have thoughts on literature?

But they don't force every student into it. Read the above. I have a hard time believing your (I'm gonna assume a fairly good university) school would make a curriculum that didn't give you a choice of electives that allows you to steer clear of any literature courses.

Well history actually happened, so it's a lot more important than fiction. I think you need to re-read what I wrote. The scholarly part comes from analyzing the historical trends. E.g. Oscar Wilde lived in a time of a severely pretentious and rigid Victorian upper-class society. This has a huge influence over his writings as they almost all contain satire of said society. This also contributed to his biting cynicism about nobility, marriage, love and earnestness (The Importance of Being Ernest was actually a pun, it made fun of the superficial reasons the main characters wanted to be named "Ernest", equating this with the superficial desire of the English upper class at the time to appear "serious" (or earnest if you will) about "important affairs". This was a time when it was actually *frowned* upon to read fiction because it was deemed "trivial" and "unimportant" by the pompous and pretentious gentlemen of the time) but also his hopeless idealism of beauty in the world (the desire for a better society).

One would, of course, be required to back up all of that speculation with references, either to quotes from Wilde himself or from quotes of the text in question that made the pattern apparent.

Re:Art is subjective

[DerekLyons]

So IMHO it's hardly due to a "loss of widely shared culture and iconography", whatever that means.

It's meaning is quite obvious if you stop and think a little bit. None of the words are particularly hard or used in any obscure or unusual manner.
 
Although it might help if you knew a little history rather than just reguritating [ignorant] bile and bias.

Re:Art is subjective

[Lucidus]

Your first post made me feel really bad, but as I read further (specifically, when you mentioned your Ds in English), it became apparent that this is a political stance you have chosen to adopt. You can write well-structured sentences and paragraphs, and you can reason coherently, so you have everything you needed to easily pass high school and introductory college English courses. As others have already stated, there is no one correct answer to a question of interpretation. Your teachers were just looking for a thoughtful and well-written response to the material presented, and given the amount of semi-literate crap they have to wade through, your writing skills would have given you a huge advantage. Hell, you could even have argued this exact point of view, as long as it was in response to the specific work under consideration, and received decent grades.

Apparently, when you felt that literature was being 'forced down your throat' (as many high school students feel about most of their classes), your response was to reject it so adamantly that, even years later, you still refuse to acknowledge that pretty much everone else in the world might be onto something. Everybody enjoys a good story, and while you can analyze anything to death, you don't have to; it can be just a good story.

I'm not even going to start on the things artists try to express that cannot be reduced to a logical argument or summarized in an essay.

If you had no imagination, if you lacked the ability to speculate and anticipate, you would be seriously broken and that would be tragic - but you're not. You loved "Alice in Wonderland" (Although, I have to say, if you took it at face value, you missed most of it!), so you already understand the joy of reading. Maybe, just maybe, there is another book out there that you will enjoy even more . . .

Re:Art is subjective

[caitsith01]

I don't care if you take an english class, just don't force me to take one and tell me it's for my own good.

What about if it's for everyone else's good?

Because frankly, I find it somewhat frightening to see the number of people who think that art/literature is "empty" and a waste of their perfectly rational time. It's not about 'writing skills', it's about an ability to experience emotions and deal with ideas which go beyond your everyday experience.

Most art and literature is ultimately an attempt to express something about the subjective experience of living. When someone outright rejects (or refuses to try to understand) that expression, it raises some serious questions in my mind about their ability to empathise with other humans and their own lack of experience and expressiveness.

Re:Art is subjective

[zobier]

Yes, the creator creates for themselves, but (as much as they'll deny it) they need to be able to move pieces off galley walls and will make works that appeal to the audience while still maintaining their integrity as an artist. Yes, because the slaves have such a high disposable income.
JK

Re:Art is subjective

[Lemmy Caution]

Art, literature and philosophy are also better oriented toward asking "why" (as in "to what end" or "for what purpose") in a way that the natural sciences are not.

Re:Art is subjective

[H3six]

No, so many people that are into "Art" sound like pompous asses because of the increasingly divide between Art and the general public. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the biggest is a the loss of widely shared culture and iconography over the last century-and-some. An interesting point. I wish I had more to add to it...but I don't. Maybe I should add that for most of human history art has been a rich mans game. Paintings and sculptures could only be afforded by the rich and this lead to a division between what we now see as artists and craftsmen. In the present time I think we will see this barrier being broken down again and art made more accessible. This has already begun with art movements like Pop or Street Art quickly overtaking more esoteric styles like abstract and post modernism in popularity.

Re:Art is subjective

[LunarCrisis]

Here's the rule I follow: If it is even meaningful to ask whether or not something is art, it's art.

Re:Art is subjective

[syousef]

"Art is not simply something that someone made that you like to look at/listen to/read/etc."
Yeah, actually it is.
No, actually it isn't. And never has been.

Now, if we were talking about science, mathematics (or to a lesser degree law and politics) I could ask for a rational discussion based on argument and evidence.

Bloody arts students ;-)

Hint: There is a smiley above. Don't flamez me bro.

Re:Art is subjective

[mwvdlee]

Perhaps it is the intent of the author for the readers to think for themselves.

Writing "Bush is evil" likely won't convert any Bush fans.

Creating a fictional story where the reader might come to that same conclusion by his/her own reasoning could convert them.

Re:Art is subjective

[NikolaiKutuzov]

"No, so many people that are into "Art" sound like pompous asses because of the increasingly divide between Art and the general public. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the biggest is a the loss of widely shared culture and iconography over the last century-and-some. See, now you sound like a pompous ass.

Dismissing popular culture and pop art of the past hundreds of years as "not art" is exactly what drives most people off bourgeoise classical arts. You think that Puccini's "Manon Lescault" takes more intellectual capabilities than listening to Napalm Death?

Regards,

Nikolai

Re:Art is subjective

[dzurn]

Regurgitating ignorant bile and bias.
</blockquote>

No, I developed this "bile" all on my own from my own experience and observation.

Got anything other than personal attacks? Where am I wrong?

Re:Art is subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

No one knows what the fuck you're talking about, so I sure hope you get something out of typing up nonsense.

Re:Art is subjective

[Kattspya]

No, so many people that are into "Art" sound like pompous asses because of the increasingly divide between Art and the general public. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the biggest is a the loss of widely shared culture and iconography over the last century-and-some.

Please elaborate because this strikes me as patently false unless you think shared culture means 200 people looking at the same stained windows in a church. There has never been a more widely shared culture and "iconography" than there is now.

Re:Art is subjective

[BeanThere]

It's not the product that is art, it's the process and the producer that makes it art.

So if you find a painting in an old attic, and nobody has a clue who made it or why, it's not art? That doesn't really make sense.

Art CAN just "be a pretty picture", or whatever. Or do you think it's only art if it's created as a premise for the embodiment or expression of some other philosophical values? The conclusion of this line of thinking reduces art to mere symbols almost arbitrarily associated with a discourse that lives outside them (e.g. Modern Art); I don't buy that. (Unfortunately in reality this viewpoint is manipulated as a tool to drive speculation and inflate the value of pieces.)

Re:Art is subjective

[Sciros]

Oh great another one of those "pompous asses" we keep hearing about :-P

(a me too! comment)

[turtledawn]

Oh, that's awesome! I love the map best, I think.. though Napoleon is definately up there. Thanks for finding me something to look at while scanning papers for work.

Disappointed

[foo fighter]

I'm a little disappointed. Yeah, I got a few chuckles out of it.

But I was hoping for more of something like "This work is important because it was the first use of x" where x is a technique that is then explained in mathematical detail. Or "this looks good because of the use of negative space which happens to be expressable as the function y".

Re:Disappointed

[beadfulthings]

Ah. That's because you were looking for some actual art appreciation rather than this lame bigotry. (Or I found it to be lame bigotry. The message seems to be that geeks are buffoons and clods who can't appreciate anything past the next release of Software X or Hardware Y. It's OK for me to make fun of them.) Head out to your nearest art museum some free afternoon, pick up a couple of brochures, maybe follow a tour around. You'll begin to find works that appeal to you, and you'll certainly be able to explore why that might be so. You'll probably also find that everybody is welcomed and treated with respect. The idea of a survey that looks at particular works of art in light of math or color theory or proportion or other geekly perspectives is a surprisingly good one. Too bad the site's creator took the low road instead.

Re:Disappointed

[raisin]

For that sort of thing, try the book "Visualizations: The Nature Book of Art and Science" by Martin Kemp. It's a collection of short articles by Kemp written for the journal Nature, discussing art and how it relates to science.

Re:Disappointed

[beadfulthings]

I'm going to hunt it down this evening. Hopefully somebody with points will come along and mod your interesting suggestion up.

Re:Disappointed

[autophile]

Well... I wouldn't call it lame bigotry. LOLart, maybe. That would make the "I can has cheezburger" art a meta-LOL. A LOL(LOLcat), if you will. Of course, it would have helped if they spelled cheezburger without an h.

--Rob

Re:Disappointed

[Jesus_666]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is someone you never ever want to involve in a joke, for he has no humor.

Those images are strictly tongue-in-cheek. They were made by a geek for geeks and by no means do they intend to convey that all geeks are completely incompetent when it comes to understanding art. It's the same kind of joke that we make when we revoke someone's geek licence because he said he has a girlfriend.

Those images are just varyingly clever approaches at looking at art from a new angle. If you don't think that any kind of art that involves self-depreciating jokes is tolerable, then I suggest you simply avoid said art.

Re:Disappointed

[foo fighter]

Thanks for the tip. I just put it on my Amazon wishlist. (I blew my entertainment budget for January about two weeks ago!)

Re:Disappointed

[foo fighter]

This looks good too, by the same author:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300052413/

Re:Disappointed

[Sigma 7]

Those images are strictly tongue-in-cheek. They were made by a geek for geeks No, they are made for those who still find lolcats funny. When you ignore the fact that I've seen relatively better implementations, these images are trivial photoshops that are on-par of pointing out the obvious - at best #19 would have been funny, but when browsing galleries that turn out to be substandard, I lose too much interest to go that far.

Have you heard the joke about two strings in a bar? I'm afraid not, but the readers of the rec.humor newsgroup saw that joke ad nauseum.

Re:Disappointed

[Jesus_666]

Even lolcats can be funny and smart if pulled off right. The edits in this gallery are rather trivial, yes, but some of them do put the image in a different perspective - at least to me. Might be that some have always seen them like that.

Yes, it's not the most intellectual thing ever, but then again Star Wars isn't too smart, either. Both aim to entertain, just with different methods. Putting an original work into a different context is something I resonate very well with; apparently most people on /. less so.

Some say 'lame', but as a former Studio Art major-

[capnkr]

I think that the creator of this series has done an *excellent* job, in a very funny and original way, of explaining why these particular works are regarded so highly in the art community (not by everyone, of course, but in general).

Kudos to the author of the series!

More like

[kevin_conaway]

More like art for people who waste enough time on the internet to know the current memes and cliches.

Re:More like

[Dirtside]

More like art for people who waste enough time on the internet to know the current memes and cliches.

...says the guy posting on Slashdot.

Re:More like

[kaizokuace]

The Meme is what gives a Internets its power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.

Re:More like

[Anonymous Coward]

Touché.

Umm, wouldn't those people be known as...

[capnkr]

..."geeks"? :)

Re:Umm, wouldn't those people be known as...

[The One and Only]

No, geeks are people who waste time coding, writing proofs, or working on similar projects.

Re:Umm, wouldn't those people be known as...

[bugnuts]

The more correct version is "Geeks are people who convert coffee into code, hardware, and proofs."

Re:Umm, wouldn't those people be known as...

[bwalling]

No, the word for that is "teen".

Who would have thought!

[Anonymous Coward]

That my self created wallpapers were Slashdot content!

Art for geeks? I can think of one...

[Nemilar]

xkcd is true art for geeks. And yes, comics are an art. There's drawing involved.

Am I missing a plugin or something?

[damn_registrars]

The one that was supposed to be "very clever" is just a painting with some windows on top of it. It looks like my browser thinks I need another plugin or something, but it doesn't tell me what this would be.

If this is supposed to be clever, I'm missing something, either personally or in my browser. Some of the other ones were pretty decent, I guess...

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

The original painting is missing something.
(It is badly damaged in parts, and restoration hasn't been succesful)

Whoever assembled this added the (image failed to load) windows on top of the damged sections to highlight them.

Perhaps I missed the /sarc tag in OP

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[turtledawn]

I think that was the point. Windows in particular is bad about showing you there's something there but not telling you what it is or how to make it visible.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[bunratty]

Yes, you understand the painting. You see, some of the paint has rubbed off. That's why you can't see what it would be. ;-)

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[kamakazi]

jeez, I hope this guy was being sarcastic. Or maybe he can't see what is under the "missing images". Duh.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[ebcdic]

Yes, it's "something" you're missing, not a plugin.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing something. It is called intelligence.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[__aawdrj2992]

Most of this painting was damaged over time, most likely in an epic battle between wizards and elves. I know of this because I am an art trader and that's where we get most of our paintings.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[Dan East]

I'm missing something, either personally or in my browser.

The former. This is art for geeks.

Dan East

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[Peeet]

I bet you're one of those guys that clicks the fake "No" or "Cancel" button on the faux "dialog box" image popup ads asking if you want your computer raped by malware.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[Chris Mattern]

The one that was supposed to be "very clever" is just a painting with some windows on top of it. It looks like my browser thinks I need another plugin or something, but it doesn't tell me what this would be.

If this is supposed to be clever, I'm missing something, either personally or in my browser. Some of the other ones were pretty decent, I guess...

You're missing something, personally, I'm afraid. The picture was a painting on wood that had been damaged by the passage of time, with large patches of paint having completely flaked off. The joke was that the flaked-off patches had all been enclosed in "broken image" frames.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[xant]

Bah, except - they weren't. They were enclosed in "loading image" frames. Which just made it confusing. Had they been broken image frames, I would have gotten the joke much faster. So that means I'm a geek, but the person who posted the series is not.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are personally missing a plug-in. Apparently whoever modded this as Insightful is also.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[Frogbeater]

They are pictures of broken links!

That's the best part! The image is showing that there are portions of the painting that have deteriorated and can't be seen.

To represent this issue he has placed broken image links over the areas that an observer can't see.

I thought it was kind of funny on it's own, but it gets better and better as I see more people confused by the image.

In the case of the original, the missing portions of the painting add something to its qualification as art. For me, the number of people that don't "get the joke" of the revised piece add to its qualification as art.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[geminidomino]

Thanks for explaining it. I thought it was just random splotches of brown paint...

I'm not kidding...

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[geminidomino]

Actually, as mentioned elsewhere, they are pictures of loading images, not broken ones. Might have been clever if the painting was "unfinished" instead of damaged...

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[xtracto]

Haha, it is sad that I thought the same after looking at it. The enclosing pictures are placeholders for images that are to be loaded, The "broken" image have the same icon but with a scratch or an X like these.

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[Frogbeater]

Right, good call.

Still, I like the idea of people hitting the "reload" button when they see the painting.

It reminds me of:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/24/cursor-kite.html

Re:Am I missing a plugin or something?

[Brandybuck]

You didn't understand the subtle humour? I guess you're just not patient enough. The cleverness becomes obvious after you attempt to reload the page ten times. Note however, that this won't work with Firefox. It only works with IE.

appreciation of art is similar to literature ..

[wakim1618]

Several friends of mine teach art history at a large university and in my conversations with them, I came to appreciate that the study and appreciation of art is similar to that of the study of literature or film. For example, throughout history, there are innovations in story telling, eg Shakespear introduced the device of a character speaking aloud to himself exploring his own inner thoughts and conflicts or eg Griffith's camera work in Birth of a Nation and shooting in 'natural' not studio settings. At another level, looking at works of art as a reflection of social structure and myths and understanding how innovations in aesthetics and story telling accompanies social changes and transformations. For example, prior to the Renaissance, much of art was iconography (the representation of icons of religion and pivotal moments in the story of Christianity) whence the Renaisannce introduced the human subject into art. More recently, cubism and modernism movements in art and architecture reflects the rise of industrial society and the capture of the imagination of the cultural elites by marxist ideologies. Hence the change in materials in housing and furniture and crafts from arnate woods to then modern materials such as glass, concrete and steel and the mass production of quality housing and furniture.

Another strand of the study revolves about the construction of a social canon (the 'great' works of genius and orginality) and how it reflects the social shifts in power. One way of understanding this is the common complaint amongst film afficiandos that the academy awards are a popularity contest and that, over and above the wonderful movies, Speilberg has been a brand and is a socio-economic construction.

In short, the appreciation of art is much more than aesthetics and more than meets the eye. In fact, it engages the intellect and a deep appreciation involves a broad understanding of the social historical context.

Re:appreciation of art is similar to literature ..

[value_added]

prior to the Renaissance, much of art was iconography ...

Your professor friends don't consider graffiti to be art? That's like referring to Slashdot articles as electronic scribblings. ;-)

From the Wikipedia article

Historically, the term graffiti referred to the inscriptions, figure drawings, etc., found on the walls of ancient sepulchers or ruins, as in the Catacombs of Rome or at Pompeii. Usage of the word has evolved to include any graphics applied to surfaces in a manner that constitutes vandalism.

Re:appreciation of art is similar to literature ..

[bar-agent]

You're talking to art historians. They care about historical context, but I don't. What about the study of art without the history?

Re:appreciation of art is similar to literature ..

[wakim1618]

The study of art does not take place in a vacuum. So to appreciate/study a work, you end up comparing it to something else, perhaps other mediums of art or other works in the same medium that preceded it. Or you examine how it speaks about a comtemporary situation in an innovative way... why it captures a moment or vision better than other works. This inevitably means situating the work in a socio-historical context. Even if you believe that it is all a matter of taste and preferences, studying art and understanding art means to understand the language, method, or device that makes a particular painting, novel or work of art more effective, more immediate or deeper than other works. I can go on (eg how does a particular work build or borrow from previous works and why the product is more than the sum of its borrowed parts) but the central idea is that it does not take place in a vacuum. You can call it a historical context but history is just a short-hand for past societies and their many subcultures and how it sees its past, its present and its future.

Re:appreciation of art is similar to literature ..

[DerekLyons]

Several friends of mine teach art history at a large university and in my conversations with them, I came to appreciate that the study and appreciation of art is similar to that of the study of literature or film.

For example, prior to the Renaissance, much of art was iconography (the representation of icons of religion and pivotal moments in the story of Christianity) whence the Renaisannce introduced the human subject into art.

I'd be very suspicious of someone who claims to teach art history - but doesn't understand (or explain) that iconography was a key part of art right up into the late 19th century, even in portraiture [1] or other works centering on the human figure. Equally specious is the claim that the human subject was absent prior to the Renaissance, as even the briefest survey of Roman, Greek, Ancient Egyptian, etc... art will show you.
 
 

Another strand of the study revolves about the construction of a social canon (the 'great' works of genius and orginality) and how it reflects the social shifts in power. One way of understanding this is the common complaint amongst film afficiandos that the academy awards are a popularity contest and that, over and above the wonderful movies, Speilberg has been a brand and is a socio-economic construction.

Anything can be justified ex post facto.

[1] Those regal portraits so popular in history books? If you know the iconography, you can tell as much about the person as if you were reading a hyperlinked article of Wikipedia. A globe on a table meant this, a map on a table or on the wall meant that, etc... etc...

Why *some* of them are, at least...

[capnkr]

Having seen more, some of them are just silly, but even so, still clever.

Re:artistic

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great! Not only did you get the girl but she also eats your cake too!

Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Lame

Flickr is for Photography

[DigitalisAkujin]

Insert shameless promotional link here lol

Better than the originals...

[owlnation]

...in many cases at least. These seem to me to valid art - or at least as valid as Duchamp or Warhol. Certainly, they are considerably more entertaining, exhibit more social commentary, and are more thought provoking than many of the originals do today -- although they were once thought provoking themselves.

The wikipedia one is masterful. It's occurred to me for a few years that Gallileo is the perfect example of why wikipedia is flawed. (among many other potential examples of free individual thought)

Re:Better than the originals...

[4D6963]

It's occurred to me for a few years that Gallileo is the perfect example of why wikipedia is flawed.

I disagree. In Galileo's time, there was no scientific consensus in favour of his theories. Therefore, if Wikipedia had existed by then, he could have gotten a few paragraphs or even a few articles regarding his work while acknowledging it as controversial work. With this respect I don't see how Wikipedia is flawed, unless we assume that Galileo would solely have tried to publish his work by vandalising Wikipedia, which no serious scientist would do as a sole effort of promoting their findings.

Re:Better than the originals...

[The One and Only]

This is what makes it such a great example of art. After all, most art that does have a social or political message, has a message that's poorly thought out and superficial (i.e. Marxism).

This guy isn't a geek or an artist

[Anonymous Coward]

Witness lame (PHP) code from the first image...

<?
$i=1
while ($i <= 2){
  echo "water\n";
}
?>

Any true geek would have written...

while (true) print("water\n");

... saving a single assignment and comparison for every loop iteration.

Re:This guy isn't a geek or an artist

[Rigrig]

<?for(;;)echo"water\n"?>

Saves you even more typing.

Re:This guy isn't a geek or an artist

[Jesus_666]

Every half-decent PHP coder would tell you to stop using the shorthand tag because it tends to break on systems that don't allow it. So the shortest reliable way would be:

<?php for(;;)echo"water\n"?>

Re:This guy isn't a geek or an artist

[Cheesey]

And as for this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulthewineguy/2180851706/in/set-72157603619920398/

Oh noes! You have 0 nerd points! God's PC isn't i686-compatible: such an ISA could only have been created by the devil.

God actually uses a PDP-11. He is the original greybeard programmer. At least they got His username right.

Re:This guy isn't a geek or an artist

[Rigrig]

I know that, but obviously Mr. Escher has short_open_tag enabled, or the original waterfall wouldn't work.

Or maybe you don't get the joke.

[flaming error]

It's usually not like me to help with the punchline, but read this and you'll understand.

Re:Or maybe you don't get the joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's just really fucking lame.

Gots to use the physical logisticals

[Quiet_Desperation]

You're supposed to have the monitor facing *away* from the doorway.

OMG! LOLCATS IZ WERKS OF DEVILLY PERSON

[Quiet_Desperation]

Oh, we were doomed long before lolcats.

Re:Art for geeks? I can think of one...

[gardyloo]

Fan: So do you like draw this or something?
Banky: I ink it and I'm also the colorist. The guy next to me draws it, but we both came up with the characters. Next...
Fan: (snidely) What does that mean, you ink it?
Banky: Well, it means that Holden draws the pictures in pencil, and he gives it to me to go over in ink. Next...
Fan: So basically you just trace.
Banky: It's eh...it's not tracing, alright? I add depth and shading to give the image more definition. Only then does the drawing truely take shape.
Fan: No-no-no-no, you go over what he draws with a pen. That's tracing.
Banky: Not really. Next...
Fan: (To next guy in the line) Hey man, let me ask you something. If somebody draws something, and you draw the exact same thing like, right on top of it, without going outside the original designated art, what do you call it?
Other Fan: I dunno man, tracing?
Fan: (Laughing, to Banky) See?!
Banky: (Losing patience, to Other Fan) You want your book signed or what?
Fan: Hey-hey-hey-hey-hey, don't get all testy with him just because you got a problem with your station in life!
Banky: Oh, I'm secure with what I do.
Fan: Then just say it...you're a tracer!
Banky: (To Other Fan) How should I sign this?
Other Fan: I don't want you to sign it man, I want the guy who draws Bluntman & Chronic to sign it. You're just a tracer.
Fan: Tell him, little shaver.Collector: You're mucking with a G, you fuckin' tracer.
Banky: I'll trace a chalk line around your dead fucking body, you fuck!
Holden: [to Security Guards] Will you get him out of here!
Collector: [as he's being dragged away by Security Guard] Hey wait a second! He jumped me, you fucking tracer!
Banky: YOUR MOTHER'S A TRACER!

Meh

[glwtta]

Most are exceptionally lame, plus, they really missed the point of "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".

Re:Meh

[doom]

Most are exceptionally lame, plus, they really missed the point of "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".

Yes, I was thinking that it would be clearer in psenudo-perl: $pipe_ref = \$pipe; $pipe_ref <> $pipe.

A side-effect of many features being "hacked-in" to perl, is that you need to think about what's going on a little more than in some other languages, as in this case, where you take references explicitly, and you need to understand that there's a difference between the reference and the thing referenced. The entire point of the paradox in this painting is to make people conscious of the fact that they often conflate the two... ("the map is not the territory").

Re:Some say 'lame', but as a former Studio Art maj

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, I didn't look far, but I wouldn't say he explained much of everything. Escher's waterfall really needed no explanation. Any geek should agree that that's cool. For the second picture, the Picasso, apparently you just have to understand "green".

I appreciate that artists do what they do to make a particular impression or have a certain message, but I'm content with just looking at what I enjoy looking at, without going any deeper.

Re:Art for geeks? I can think of one...

[ari_j]

The true art in xkcd rarely has much to do with drawing. :)

Art is easy to spot

[PPH]

If it has a frame around it, it must be art.

Macintosh Classic

[chord.wav]

I've just had a "functional" Macintosh Classic as a present for my birthday. Now THAT's art.

Re:Macintosh Classic

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac fanboys... jesus... Had a wank over it yet?

Puzzled ...

[jc42]

That "very clever" Annunciation image is baffling. It's covered with white rectangles, each of which has a little icon in the upper left that looks like a "broken link" icon. But there's nothing active associated with the rectangles or the little icon. Clicking on various things gets nothing except the usual image menu, and that gets me another copy of the Annunciation.

It's not the browser, because I tried it on a number of different browsers from different sources, including Firefox, Opera, Safari, iCab and SeaMonkey. They all show the same thing, so presumably that's what's supposed to be on my screen.

But it doesn't seem at all clever; it's just baffling. And there's nothing resembling an explanation or other clue that I can find. What am I so non-geeky as to be missing here?

Re:Puzzled ...

[MacarooMac]

Take a look at the "Am I missing a plugin or something" thread above

Re:Puzzled ...

[jc42]

Hmmm ... So it's really just a very poorly done visual pun. After all, as someone else pointed out, the icons really mean "image loading" (which I realize now is true), not "broken image". And there are big chunks of the image missing paint that aren't labelled, such as most of the left character's clothes. So this isn't "very clever", it's "rather lame".

Looking around at the rest of the series, I conclude that "rather lame" describes most of them. The best I could manage was a weak grin at the Mondrian painting with the HTML <TABLE> overlay, and even that one I'd call "lame".

Oh, well; onward to the next story.

Re:Puzzled ...

[MacarooMac]

Ah. On my first parse of your initial post none of my browsers (Konqueror, Epiphany, Enigma, IceWeasel) detected the über-sarc!
BTW, to successfully browse paintings from the Italian Renaissance period you need to use Mosaic.

Re:Puzzled ...

[MrCopilot]

But it doesn't seem at all clever; it's just baffling. And there's nothing resembling an explanation or other clue that I can find. What am I so non-geeky as to be missing here?

Notice that the painting is damaged in those areas. Then note how incredibly dense you were not to notice this before commenting and then laugh uproariously like we all did at your post.

Re:Puzzled ...

[edraven]

Where's the +1 Rimshot Mod when you need it?

Re:Puzzled ...

[painandgreed]

I really, really hope you're looking for Funny moderation with this post. Otherwise, humanity is doomed.

Re:Puzzled ...

[Brandybuck]

You must be that guy I met last week at the Geek conference. All I did was try to ask him where the restrooms were, and he starts ranting about some grammatical error I made. Then he tells me the differences between bathroom, restrooms, lavoraties and water closets. Then he sees that I'm wearing a FreeBSD shirt, and starts droning on an on about how FreeBSD really isn't free because it isn't GPL, and how he wanted to use it but it needed a primary partition, and he didn't want to delete his ReactOS install to try it out, and why they really need to port the base system to ports. Eventually I had to pee on his shoes.

Quick guide

[antifoidulus]

ln -s /dev/random Jackson.Pollock

Mod+1 insightful

[Anne Honime]

I won't go as far as saying "better than originals", but there's something inside that work that desserves a good mention. Like you, I found the wikipedia one extremely to the point. Most have a "punch line" quality. The /. summary is misleading ; it's not art for the geeks, but it's definitely a work from an arty geek.

Understanding Art

[arigram]

Being an artist myself, understanding Art is simple:
You either like it or you don't.
You shouldn't -try- to like it if you don't and you shouldn't -try- to understand it if you think you don't. Art has to be appreciated by the instinct, knowledge, aesthetics, etc one has at the moment, otherwise any further analysis will detract from the appreciation and real meaning and push you further away. One can't understand why a flower is beautiful by chopping it to pieces and measuring its parts.
When you don't like something and think you don't understand it, then back away, forget about it and give it another chance later in life. If you have changed, your perception will have too and will see the artwork in a new light. That doesn't mean you will like it then though. Maybe you never will or maybe it will take you half a lifetime.
If you don't like something, keep an open mind and be prepared to give it a chance later on. You never know...

Re:Understanding Art

[Jesus_666]

Of course there are some works where an explanation will give you an "aha" moment and you suddenly do get it. Not many, though.

Re:Understanding Art

[Anonymous Coward]

Being an artist myself, understanding Art is simple: You either like it or you don't.

Uh, sort of.

You could reduce pretty much any human endeavor to a pithy quote. "Creating a painting is simple: you just put the paint on the canvas." But that doesn't exactly capture anything useful, does it?

To understand and appreciate pretty much anything, including art, you need to place it in context and cross-reference it with other experiences.

I'm not into wine, for instance. It all tastes like alcoholic grape juice to me. But other people who are into it have learned, via the "cross-referencing" process, what's different between each glass. Also, there's "context": why do different wines taste this way? Can I reverse-engineer certain facts about a wine by its taste? Is there any interesting history about this wine or vineyard? What do other people think about this wine? Can I score that hot librarian chick who always goes to those wine tasting parties?

When a person looks at a piece of art they need to really stop and consider what they are seeing. That's what art is about, to me.. somebody put a frame around something, or recorded something, or whatever, and what do I think about it? Not just "do I like it", but what thought processes does it trigger? WHY do I like it? That slight bit of "meta thinking" is what separates humans from animals, right?

Re:Understanding Art

[arigram]

Being an artist myself, understanding Art is simple: You either like it or you don't.

Uh, sort of.

You could reduce pretty much any human endeavor to a pithy quote. "Creating a painting is simple: you just put the paint on the canvas." But that doesn't exactly capture anything useful, does it?

To understand and appreciate pretty much anything, including art, you need to place it in context and cross-reference it with other experiences.

I'm not into wine, for instance. It all tastes like alcoholic grape juice to me. But other people who are into it have learned, via the "cross-referencing" process, what's different between each glass. Also, there's "context": why do different wines taste this way? Can I reverse-engineer certain facts about a wine by its taste? Is there any interesting history about this wine or vineyard? What do other people think about this wine? Can I score that hot librarian chick who always goes to those wine tasting parties?

When a person looks at a piece of art they need to really stop and consider what they are seeing. That's what art is about, to me.. somebody put a frame around something, or recorded something, or whatever, and what do I think about it? Not just "do I like it", but what thought processes does it trigger? WHY do I like it? That slight bit of "meta thinking" is what separates humans from animals, right?

Did you read what I wrote past that line you quoted?
I did write that one has to use knowledge, aesthetics, instinct, etc, but what one has at the precise moment. Yes, you do get to think about the artwork when experiencing it. But no, I am against researching about it if you don't like it and try to find reasons to do so.
You see, why are in agreement, even if you had a negative knee jerk reaction. I agree with everything you say, if you take time and compare our posts.
Of course, one thinks about "why do I like it", as one thinks about "why I don't like it". Thinking is not the problem you see, being told what and how to like something is. And that is exactly the tricky part: learning about art without being trapped in a confinement of someone else's ideas, but being liberated by the knowledge.
Let's say you reject the Surreallists. You don't understand them, you don't like them, yet you know little or nothing about them. Then you go research what they believed in and why they created artwork like this. And so, your attitude may change. And maybe you begin to like them. But that idea would be immature, because you would be too much influenced by your new knowledge which is still just information and not wisdom, part of your experience. You have to let the knowledge mature inside you, become part of you.
I will use an example (wine I am afraid was not a good one):
You can either learn everything about a movie from imdb before seeing it, or learn just the theme of it, or go completely "pure". You watch the movie, you like it and then want to read everything about it. Or, the opposite, you watch it, you don't like it, then read everything about it in hopes you understand and like it. If you do so and decide you like it because of the information you read, then it would not be you who liked it, it wouldn't be your experience, but someone else's.
I hope I am more understood now. After all, we didn't really disagree.
And yes, you can reduce pretty much any human endeavor to a pithy quote and yes it is quite useful to do so: you don't need to write a lot and the reader doesn't need to read a lot. But it requires the reader to have some imagination and abstract thinking capacity and of course some faith for the author. You can well spoon feed the reader, but that would also defeat my whole point about Art, wouldn't it?

Smurfs dude.

[rivendahl]

I sense a crotchedy, moldy, cynic somewhere in the comments on flikr who seems to "not get it". Oh well, not everyone is/can be a pedagogue, so someone has to do it.

Riv

NSFW. Like the Orsay.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was studying in Paris, I liked to walk American friends past this painting:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulthewineguy/2184039108/in/set-72157603619920398/

Their reactions were priceless.

Re:NSFW. Like the Orsay.

[Brandybuck]

You do have to admit, it's very "in your face". You're strolling down an aisle of sunflowers, still lifes, and Flemish portraits, when all of a sudden you're staring at a rude twat.

Re:NSFW. Like the Orsay.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

If you'd walked me by that painting, I doubt you'd describe my series of reactions as "priceless."

Bah

[hcdejong]

I prefer Calvin's perspective on art.

Underneath Geeks are Romantics

[Simonetta]

Underneath it all, Geeks are Romantics, which explains their basic conservatism and penchant for order. In that light, it's surprising that the Geek Art Guide doesn't emphasize the paintings of Renaissance artist Sandro Botticelli. Botticelli nearly single-handedly created the modern (that is post-Renaissance; one must think long term when considering the social impact of the fine arts) ideal of a beautiful woman with his stylized paintings of Simonetta Vespucci (1453-1476), the first Italian super-model. She was the inspiration for The Birth of Venus and her image is found in most of his other surviving paintings. Even 550 years later, her beauty stops traffic.

    The best way to approach the fine arts from a Geek perspective is to read some of writings of Camille Paglia; the thinking man's radical lesbian feminist. She is one of the few modern social and art critics that makes any sense and because of that she is despised by the entire politically-correct liberal arts academic community. She is the one who has shown that after the invention of photography, the artist's obsession with feminine beauty created the advertising industry and abandoned painting. Check out the front third of any issue of Vanity Fair and you can believe it. It's like visiting an art museum. Her books on art criticism are dense but worth the effort.

Re:Underneath Geeks are Romantics

[geminidomino]

the thinking man's radical... feminist. That seems a bit... oxymoronic

Some of my favorite artists

[troyboy]

Here are some of my favorite artists, with works that other slashdotters might enjoy:

1. Brian Dettmer : Dettmer reshapes and reforms older media like old textbooks, technical manuals, cassette tapes, and dictionaries, to make really fascinating derivative works. My favorites are his carved books, many of which are viewable here.

2. Jason Salavon : Salavon uses software to make art out of preexisting information, with some diverse and surprising work. His work is all displayed on his website.

3. Ai Kijima : Kijima recycles original bed sheets, table cloths, kimonos, and other fabrics to make colorful quilted collages, many of which use pop culture icons. Her work is viewable on her website.

Enjoy.

That's not art for geeks, that's just lame

[DaleGlass]

Pasting a lame bit of PHP over a perfectly nice picture by Escher (whose pictures are about as geeky as they get) isn't very clever, IMO.

Art that appeals to me: Escher, Da Vinci (Mona Lisa excluded), Boris Vallejo (not all of it), works by Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland, but Sylvie and Bruno is another good but much less well known one), Dali, xkcd, pbf, Jin Wicked (check out her painting of Stallman)

Art that doesn't appeal to me: Piet Mondrian (except the Piet programming language, that is funny), Warhol, Mona Lisa (I agree with another poster that Da Vinci made much more interesting things), cubism, most very abstract things that don't look like anything in particular.

Re:That's not art for geeks, that's just lame

[Brandybuck]

Pasting a lame bit of PHP over a perfectly nice picture by Escher (whose pictures are about as geeky as they get) isn't very clever, IMO.

I take it you didn't catch the error in the PHP then. No wonder you thought it was lame.

Mod Up Please - Re:Understanding Art

[SixFactor]

In my opinion, the above sums up the relationship of art to an individual. I've posted before that I can't abide most abstract art of any sort (music, paintings, sculture, etc.), since demonstrated skill is what counts with me. But there are exceptions, but as a rule, and unfortunately, I tend to forget them as I walk away.

Art's importance to a person is instinctive and perhaps more importantly, transient.

Re:Art for geeks? I can think of one...

[SixFactor]

You forgot:

... Collector: [as he's being dragged away by Security Guard] Hey wait a second! He jumped me, you fucking tracer!
Banky: YOUR MOTHER'S A TRACER!
Collector: DON'T TRACE ME, BRO!

Re:artistic

[Killjoy_NL]

Apparently that cake wasn't a lie :D

think geek

[tinkerton]

the other server where the links in the image point to got slashdotted.

Re:Art for geeks? I can think of one...

[that IT girl]

Mmm, a fellow /.er who appreciates the brilliance that is xkcd. I applaud you.

Although the speech bubble with the :o face in it on Munch's The Scream was probably the funniest thing I've seen all day.

I think he summed it up nicely

[Joce640k]

It was lame

"Alien"

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you're too subtle for me, but Giger did actually design the Alien creature and the architecture seen in the alien space ship.

That was interesting reading...

[blorg]

...I also found this, a machine that produces shit.

If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

If only every picture did not have some smartass comment from gargamel242 :(.

Re:Some say 'lame', but as a former Studio Art maj

[Darinbob]

For the second picture, the Picasso, apparently you just have to understand "green".

It also helps to understand that this is from Picasso's "blue period", where he produced a lot of paintings with similar monochromatic bluish colors. I think some of these images work because they echo the original criticism of the art with a modern cynical geek view. Ie, "that's just the same soup can repeated over and over, that can't be art!" or "that's just random paint splotches, it's not art!" are interpreted geek-style. Even the Mona Lisa has had lots of debate over they years of whether she's smiling or not, so this image here gives a definitive geek answer to the question.

back to basics

[penapoco]

Dude, if it's not well-formed, it can't be valid art.

A wise man once said.....

[trouser]

"If you want to call it art, yeah, okay, you can call it what you like. As far as I'm concerned, 'Art' is just short for 'Arthur.'"

Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones.

Re:Some say 'lame', but as a former Studio Art maj

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the creator of this series has done an *excellent* job, in a very funny and original way, of explaining why these particular works are regarded so highly in the art community (not by everyone, of course, but in general).

Kudos to the author of the series! Aww, thanks Mom!

Thank you, great post.

[GameboyRMH]

You just defined art properly.

Whenever somebody asks me if I'm into art, I quickly tell them no - it's a stupid question. By the proper definition, which you just used, of course I'm into art, everybody is. But by the definition that people who ask me if I'm into art use (noun: a pompous circle jerk of people who consider themselves "artsy") I am not.

Escher tribute == Shameless plug :-)

[h3rb3v0r3]

Escher is one of my favourite artists also, and I've recently completed one piece that you may like to have a look at. it uses the triangle illusion combined with celtic knotwork. http://herbevore.deviantart.com/art/Dice-Illusion-73842850

awesome

[theheadlessrabbit]

As a practising artist, I found this to be absolutely awesome.

My only advice would be to print the comments on post-it notes, sneak them into galleries and post them on the actual paintings.
just make sure to have a BS filled essay on you for when you get caught. Just quote asshats like Derrida and you will be considered a real artist and get off scot free.

no...really, you will. go do this!

Re:Some say 'lame', but as a former Studio Art maj

[Fuzzypig]

Too right. Art is appreciated by many for so many reasons. Your interpretation is very personal you. This is the perfect way to express that appreciation. "No Mr Art Critic I can't understand why you are so pompous about this piece or that. This is what I see, this is what it means to me.". I didn't find any of the work offensive, maybe a little funny in places, may be a little too silly in others, but it seemed very heartfelt. So what! If you enjoy it great, if not forget about it and move along.

A modern art theory

[Khelder]

I used to be confused about why some modern art aficionados called some things "art" and others not. I now think the problem is that I always thought art was about the actual art--that is, the artifact the artist produces (painting, sculpture, etc.). But I think at least for modern art, it's all about the story around the artifact. By story I mean stuff like how the artifact fits in the artist's life, the process that was used to create it, what it says about Humanity's Struggle Against/For Whatever, etc. If there's a story about the artifact that's "suitable", then it's Art. Otherwise, not.

I'm not saying I think this is a good way to determine what to call "art" vs. what not to, but it seems like the operating principle for a lot of folks who talk about modern art.

ART is R-Mind expression: not social-construct/sym

[AntrygRevok.net]

ART is R-Brain-Mind expression: not social-construct/symbol/iconography!

1. I'm slightly autistic ( + other damage ), so I didn't even know R-Mind ( Totality ) mode existed, until the
"You criticize it, but you can't really do it, can you?"
criticism annoyed me enough to force me to push through learning that brain-mode shift, in my mid/late 30's.
( it took years for me to do, though non-brain-damaged ones can do it in days )

2. http://www.drawright.com/
Betty Edwards, Ph.D ( don't know if it was teaching, or brain-mind stuff ) wrote
The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain
which can get even us aspergers-types to know the brain-mind shift ( Left-brain-to-Right-brain ) that art is founded on
from symbol/cutting/reductionism/logic
to emotion-depth-pattern-organic-whole-totality.

3. Having so late in life gained the entire-dimension of my own brain/mind that totality is made-of,
it's plain & bloody obvious that Stephen Jay Gould ( & countless others ) didn't know/experience it.
( which is a profound loss, both for them, & for our whole world.
How many die without knowing at-all, one's-own Totality-knowing mind?
Among our distorted world, most, it seems )

Nor, for that matter, did many so-called "artists".

The disconnect between what art-making is,
and what society says art is, is based on social-position/construct crap.

But if anyone wants to experience the totality/wholeness yourself,
honestly DO the work-through of that book,
whose exercises are specific to undoing the damage done to our minds by an L-brain-mode specific "education"

http://www.amazon.com/New-Drawing-Right-Side-Brain/dp/0874774241/

Symbols Don't Make Anything Be ART,
the Externalization of Totality, in a healing/negentropic way, is ART:
What IS, IS, even though what-is isn't obediently distorted by symbol-systems!