<p>I think most of you guys will find this amusing then</p>
<p>[Disumbrationism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disumbrationism]Disumbrationism”>Disumbrationism - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>in response to the original question, it takes more than just one or two art history classes to really fully understand or grasp the reasons why a curator thinks the way they do or why something that looks arbitrarily done matters more than the 5 year old who does the same thing . a lot of the stuff that makes it to major museums has to do with the context of the time/period as well as the artist’s statements or purpose for the art. i’m not going to say that there isn’t “politics” behind choices, because there is, but ask art history majors or professors, and really ask them.</p>
<p>an in general some would argue that modern art ended when Jackson pollack came in. He is arguably the beginning of contemporary art.
i don’t think your criticism of modern art should just be limited at stereotypical forms of art painting sculpture etc. look at literature and film. the subjectivitiy and the praise that some critics give to lit and films that aren’t necessarily on the same consensus as the general public, and later considered classics or part of a “canon” deals with criteria.</p>
<p>if you’ve ever taken an art class, and a “serious one” where the students are art majors and not “non-art majors” part of your class will consist of criticism and class discussions in respects to the work. “the random” stuff you see, that just about anyone can do, tends to not be “random.” it tends to be planned work, the exceptions of course are the few who are great with language and can bs their way into getting people with money to pay a hefty price tag for nothing. those types of “artists” if they’re even to be considered artists, learned the conning aspect of it probably from life experiences or those in class discussions art schools teach you on how to market or speak of your work.</p>
<p>although not traditional art, and not random as the stuff you were talking about, many many many many many praised “slumdog millionaire” going on to win the oscars, etc. I personally thought it was no were near the level of depth “revolutionary road” was, and even at that its my interpretation based on my subjective experience. Although I will never agree with slumdog millionaire being the best film, there were themes I read into the fil that no one i’ve spoken to picked up. Forget the “Underdog” story, the real story that should have been played out and was never mentioned by those with the power of opinion(the critics) is the theme of money and western society. example the scene where the taxi cab driver had his tires robbed. the taxi cab driver starts screaming and beating the little kid who had been the guide to the real india. the two american tourists felt sorry for what they were seeing, tried to solve the problem(or at least make it go away) with money, as heard in the statement when they say “here’s a little piece of america” and giving the kid a benjamin to essentially make up for whatever trouble the little kid was dealing with. that little statement/scene within itself blew out of water the whole underdog story. but that’s my brief critical analyzing of one scene of the film. the “Curators” or i guess “film critics” or “the academy” might not agree with me, and that’s fine. they’re relative knowledge is what matters when they have the power, which frankly is questionable especially considering the lack of credentials one needs to be a part of “the academy” who votes in the oscars.</p>
<p>lastly check the credentials of all these artists who you wonder about, because most of them(not all of them)tend to have had formal training, or tend to have been doing it since a very young age. a lot of them tend to “see” the world differently than the average person, and it has nothing to do with surface level “see-ing.” Even if the artist isn’t aware of it himself, the work tends to be a representation of how he or she sees the world, and that may very well be an “unconscious” aspect to that particular human.</p>
<p>I don’t know where you currently reside, but a recent film out about a modern artist is “seraphine” which is of the artist named S</p>
<p>liek0806, that was a very lengthy and informative answer, and I appreciate your point of view on all this arts stuff I don’t understand. However, my question isn’t really asking about the art itself, of course we can’t always know that meaning. What I’m wondering is how the curators/critics decipher the meaning and choose what’s the best to put in a museum. For example:</p>
<p>5 year old fingerpaints squiggles for fun. </p>
<p>18 year old Art major fingerpaints squiggles for his college portfolio.</p>
<p>35 year old fingerpaints squiggles for his portfolio, is discovered by critic, and sells squiggle for $1 million!</p>
<p>78 year old fingerpaints squiggles for fun because she’s bored in the nursing home.</p>
<p>Let’s say all 5 pieces look exactly like. They don’t require skills and anyone can make them. What makes the art critic choose a specific squiggle over another? Unlike classical art, it’s not based on skill, it’s based on “meaning”. The meaning of all 4 could potentially be the same, or completely different. So what are the qualities present in the museum-works that aren’t present in similar works done by millions of people? If anyone can create this <a href=“http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/upload/2007/06/art1.jpg[/url]”>http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/upload/2007/06/art1.jpg</a> then why specifically is this chosen? So far some good reasons I’ve read are:</p>
![http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/upload/2007/06/art1.jpg[/url]](http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/upload/2007/06/art1.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<ol>
<li>Artist is the first one to try new creative idea he/she came up with. </li>
<li>Critics see that the artist has lots of potential to make $$$ and “invests” in him by selecting him/her. </li>
<li>Work is so aesthetically pleasing that it belongs in a museum.</li>
</ol>
<p>to the two posters that defamed the entire nation (Poland) – Jackson PollOck was one of the greatest modern painters of our time. All the Pollacks in the US wont probably achieve his fame. To the OP-- In terms of not understanding the rationale for curators picking particular artists – it seems that Art Hist. dept is not one of your colleges greatest strengths, or else you slept through the class</p>
<p>
Wait, who was defaming Poland? Maybe I missed a post…but I think you’re the only one who brought up Poland…someone mentioned Jackson Pollock as an example of a modern artist who branched out and did something new. </p>
<p>And actually, I didn’t take an Art History class, i said I took a general ed class in which we had to visit some art museums - didn’t learn about any art history. But way to be condescending while also failing to answer the question!</p>
<p>^You guys were saying Jackson POLLACK instead of Pollock (thinking of maybe Sydney Pollack possibly?). But mhmm was wrong because the slang term for a Polish person is a Pollock.</p>
<p>I think a lot of it is chosen for its revolutionary aspects. People want something that is new and uncommon such as a revolutionary style of art. This is hard to explain because I myself don’t understand. I think it’s chosen for it’s obscurity/mystery. Also, I think it helps if there is a story behind it like when people say it’s haunted or something. lol. I’m seeing a lot of those “haunted paintings” on youtube. It’s interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only one defaming an entire nation is you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can only really ask a curator to give you the answer you seek. But like I stated in my lengthy replies, its a combination of things. I apologize if I was rambling and wasn’t as clear as I could have been.
Its a combination of:
which could refer to family/financial ties.
and a lot of other things that the curator/critics use in their decision, including, but not limited to a “name” that is on the rise(which really just means marketing) or an established name. Many museums just acquire any thing they can by someone who is already established as they tend to go up in value regardless if its “good” “original” or the “best.” a simple signature of Picasso matters to a critic because its’ a picasso, and in the elitist world of art, ITS A PICASSO! that’s enough to bring people into your museum, regardless if you like it or not. </p>
<p>your question assumes that curators/critics are presented with identical pieces all the time with no context(be it name, time, period, etc). That is almost never the case. THEY MAKE THEIR CHOICE BASED ON who what when where why how along with their time and place. art deals with humanity. reason why the study of art history is considered a humanity. a 5 year old who doesn’t know what he or she is doing isnt as significant or meaningful as someone who is and can discuss it. at 40 are you more likely to be aware of what you are doing than someone who is 5? are you able to criticize humanity on the same level as someone who is older(of course assuming they are also wiser) You’re blowing your question way out of proportion, and its not that big of a deal. PLEASE PLEASE if you’re interested take art history courses, and more than just one, from different periods and cultures, including the ones you’re not interested in. That’s when you’ll realize the differences and reasons behind curators(who tend to have PhDs in art history)choices. It’s a complex system and its more than just arbitrary pick and choosing. Educating yourself and not just by asking a question on a forum is key to understanding it/why. It will also help you distinguish the difference between your preferences vs being critical of something based on set guidelines(that do exist in the art world given type of work, time place context etc). there is no 1 answer.</p>
<p>^ Yeah, I get what you mean…as soon as people stroll into MoMA they immediately head over to see Picasso’s works because even if they know nothing about art, they instantly recognize the name and it draws gaping people.</p>
<p>I’m not so interested that I would take an Art History class and study this (plus I have no room in my schedule for the next 3 years lol) but your answers have been pretty informative…i’m guessing you’re an Art/Film major? Sorry I didn’t watch Slumdog Millionaire so I couldn’t respond to your critique. </p>
<p>Art is very subjective so a work that’s praised by critics around the world might look like a piece of crap to the common person (me). To those with PhD’s in Art History, I guess it’s easy to understand why a certain abstract piece consisting of simple shapes or fingerpainting was chosen…to the rest of us, it’s kind of a mystery. The more i think about it, the more I realize how complicated the answer would be. It would be like an artist asking a neuroscience major to explain how the brain works, when it’s ridiculously complicated and it’s hard to simplify the answer to simple questions because it’s so in-depth.</p>
<p>Modern sculptures are an even bigger mystery to me. Walking around NYC I’ve seen some really cool stuff like this <a href=“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/LOVE_sculpture_NY.JPG[/url]”>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/LOVE_sculpture_NY.JPG</a> but also some super-hideous ones and our taxes are paying to maintain them! :eek: I know art is subjective, but ugly is ugly and the public should have some say in public art. :p</p>
![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/LOVE_sculpture_NY.JPG[/url]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/LOVE_sculpture_NY.JPG%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>You know what my favorite kind of art is? Ceramics. It’s practical, functional, and decorative, and even the “abstract” ceramics stuff looks neat.</p>
<p>Haha! I took the art quiz and got a 83%, however I don’t think any of it was really art!</p>
<p>Nothing is more tired than people complaining about “contemporary art” (well, at least their conceptions of it–I doubt that most are familiar with it beyond what they see on TV or in the movies). Give it a rest.</p>
<p>Haha I got 83% too! well I guessed a lot =/ You can tell what was done on Photoshop as opposed to a real piece. </p>
<p>silence kit, I haven’t been “complaining” about art, I asked a question about it I was hoping an art major (or anyone really) could answer, which some people were nice enough to do. But kudos on being condescending while also contributing nothing to the discussion!</p>
<p>I was responding to </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol I’m not being half as condenscending as people claiming “heh. modern art is a waste of time. i saw an episode of law & order about an art dealer. i know.” I’m not saying that this is you, but this is some of the posters in this thread.</p>
<p>oh whoops sorry lol</p>
<p>well it’s true most people don’t know much about art…but art’s subjective, it’s not like taking a math class where you’re right or wrong. I’ve been pretty blunt about the fact that I don’t know crap about art, but I can still tell if something’s an eyesore. 
when I’m walking down the street and I see a giant black cube, just a big black cube, just sitting there…ughh. If it was the Fontana di Trevi or something i’d understand, but when it’s “public art” paid for by taxes…at least make it not ugly. Locals should be allowed to vote to decide if something goes or stays! haha now i’m getting carried away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know follow it much either, but I think that those who do follow it would agree that</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>this is a good way to tell if art is good or not.</p>
<p>A really good museum of modern art is the American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore. It showcases art from self-taught artists. It is really cool and unpretentious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahh, thank you! One of things that bugs me about the art world today is their seemingly lack of appreciation for crafts and art that is functional and involves implementing more technical skill than say painting or other two-dimensional media. While painting is indeed a great skill, physically making pottery, weaving, or woodworking is something that to me does not get as much recognition.</p>
<p>Speaking as a person who did coiled basketry as her AP 3-D design portfolio concentration,
crafts should be appreciated far more than they are now.</p>
<p>I know this is off topic from your original question, but I wanted to add my opinion on a slightly different “what is art” argument.</p>
<p>
Oh that sounds pretty cool…I did painting for my AP portfolio but wish I had done ceramics or something. I agree with you about crafts not being appreciated, which is a shame, because most ceramic works have artistic meaning, took a lot of technical skill to create, are aesthetically pleasing and functional. I also love pottery and weaving and want to learn woodwork! In some countries these are legit professions people pass on through generations and live off of, while here they’re considered fun arts n’ crafts stuff.</p>
<p>83%, although i was so confused.
i think what makes a museum worthy modern art is aesthetics. the composition, colors, style, and material all comes into play in determining the piece’s value. there is a distinguishable difference between a masterpiece and a child’s scribble. masterpieces are thought-provoking, aesthetically pleasing, and possess a certain style. i love modern art, but when i try to create my own pieces, it often looks like a disaster. if you think everybody can create “modern art”, then why not try it yourself?</p>