|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Jun 25, 2010 2:21:05 GMT -5
As much as I like David Lynch, the guy is always incredibly up his own ass. What I mean by that is I dislike how artists in any medium try to be too smart for the room all the time. While some mystery can be fun such as not explaining what the song "Horse with No Name" is really about, artists just seem to do it so much. Like with Lynch's "Eraserhead." From what I've read Lynch has one clear interpretation of it that he just won't tell anyone.
And I don't want to just pick on Lynch here as I actually enjoy his work, but I mean people from Fellini to Salvador Dali to Lady Gaga. Although some mystery is fun, I just think it takes more balls to make some that can actually be interpreted and then judged on those merits.
I don't know i have mixed feelings about the subject obviously, but I was just reading the Lady Gaga thread and it got me thinking about that stupid "Telephone" video and all the buzz it created. Making people think that it was avant garde and weird when Salvador Dali was doing things much more edgy and "odd" 70 years earlier and never had to censor a vagina in an uncensored video to do it either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobain on Jun 25, 2010 2:55:21 GMT -5
I hate when people cop out and say "oh it's whatever you want it to be"
that's why pearl jam quit making videos and used live footage instead. eddie felt he was robbing people of opinions.
i love pearl jam but eddie is so secretive about his music that he comes acroos uptight.
i tell people what I write my music about and they tell me what they think it's about. no harm in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Jun 25, 2010 9:25:56 GMT -5
Shepard Fairey has a permanent spot on my "foot up ass" list. Dude's a plagiarist sellout that passes off his works of Photoshop as art. And the fact that people glean any greater meaning from his shlock just amazes me. I started referring to him as Photoshop Fairey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ultimo Chocula on Jun 25, 2010 12:08:53 GMT -5
I have a rule about things like this: If you have to explain it, it didn't work. This shuts down any argument some pretentious half wit can come up with to justify their crappy, crappy art.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 25, 2010 12:13:38 GMT -5
It's about what the art is intended to be.
Sometimes in literature or film, for example, you want a character and his/her motivations to be explicit and his/her character arc clearly illustrated. Other times, you leave things ambiguous, and allow the audience to come to their own conclusions.
Hell, I even think they did this a bit in Return of the King; when I first saw the scene where Frodo sends Sam away (before Shelob's Lair), I liked how it was possible to read the whole thing as "Frodo is being corrupted and can't recognize his friends anymore", as "Frodo is afraid of Sam being possessed by the Ring, as well", or as some hybrid of the two meeting in-between. No explicit explanation necessary.
I have my limits with that, of course, as most people do, but there are times when it's plenty fair to allow an audience a chance to put things together in their own individual ways.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Jun 25, 2010 12:19:28 GMT -5
If an artist creates something with real meaning/symbolism, I'm not about to criticize them for it, even if I don't understand it or even like it. People labeling other people as pretentious because they don't like the symbolism in their art reeks of the same type of elitism they accuse the artist of, imho.
However, some people just act odd and create random, non-nonsensical stuff and then try and pass it off as something deep. That I don't like. I love random, non-nonsensical stuff, but if you're someone who creates it, don't try and pass off your random script as the next Chekhov and say I'm too dim to understand it. Say you just like random shit so you wrote a script.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785 
|
Post by The OP on Jun 25, 2010 16:49:04 GMT -5
I disagree with almost everyone in this thread. I see way too much of the attitude lately that everything should be simple and easy for everyone to understand. There's starting to be way too much of a backlash against both intellectualism and abstract thinking. I enjoy simple things too, but every show shouldn't be like Family Guy, every painting shouldn't be the Mona Lisa (it's a painting of a woman. Get it?), and every musician shouldn't be the Ramones.
Artsy fartsy smartsy has it's place too.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 25, 2010 18:05:59 GMT -5
I disagree with almost everyone in this thread. I see way too much of the attitude lately that everything should be simple and easy for everyone to understand. There's starting to be way too much of a backlash against both intellectualism and abstract thinking. I enjoy simple things too, but every show shouldn't be like Family Guy, every painting shouldn't be the Mona Lisa (it's a painting of a woman. Get it?), and every musician shouldn't be the Ramones. Artsy fartsy smartsy has it's place too. I mostly agree, though I'd make a distinction between what comes off to me (subjectively is the only way these things can be judged, really) as truly abstract and challenging, and what comes off as "artsy fartsy". That said, I agree that it's dangerous to have a natural snap reaction to anything that could go remotely over one's head, and it often completely misses the point of some art. |
|
|
|
Post by EZ: Brainy Bae on Jun 25, 2010 18:27:40 GMT -5
I think what certain people miss a lot of the time is just the experience. I'll use Lynch as an example since he was brought up in the first post. I love David Lynch and his movies but I'd be lying if I said that I have any clear understanding of what goes on in "Eraserhead" or "Mulholland Drive", despite my own thoughts on what transpired. But I don't love those movies for their plot, or lack of one as some might say, but rather for what they evoke and make you feel. Sometimes I just like the feeling of getting lost in something that isn't meant to be understood or have a point. I think when someone complains, specifically complains, about a meaning not being clear instead of trying to figure it out on their own or just enjoying it regardless of the lack of one, that they're only limiting their potential enjoyment.
It isn't to say that there aren't hacks out there who fling so many things at the wall and then claim that it's too deep when it's just crap, because there are. But the crappyness is in the content, not the flinging.
|
|
Jay Peas 42
El Dandy
Totally flips out ALL the time.
Is looking forward to a Nation of Domination Kwannza Special.
Posts: 8,329 
|
Post by Jay Peas 42 on Jun 25, 2010 19:37:05 GMT -5
Art has pretty much lost it's purpose and utility since photography was invented, so what remains is pretty much a shell game.
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on Jun 25, 2010 19:52:15 GMT -5
A little something something I like to say: Art is dead, it just needs buried.
I'm not saying that artists can't do what they want to express themselves. But don't whine when someone thinks it's stupid. I like the opinion from a few posts up: If you have to explain it, you've failed. Also, on the other side of the coin, don't use "art" as a BS fallback excuse to do whatever the hell you want. Making a "painting" of the Virgin Mary out of feces is as much "art" as starving yourself is considered a "healthy diet plan". As much as I like Troma movies, having the motto of the movie Terror Firmer be "Let's Make Some Art!" made me wanna wretch. No Lloyd Kaufman, you don't make art. You make movies about penis monsters and mutated freaks.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Jun 25, 2010 19:56:28 GMT -5
I would argue that the "if you have to explain it, you fail" thing doesn't make sense at all. If you have to explain to who? To anyone? To anyone who's at your particular level of intelligence or insight? Are you the standard for a person who should be able to easily "get" something? How is that any less pompous than somebody thinking their abstract art piece is really great?
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on Jun 25, 2010 20:29:37 GMT -5
I would argue that the "if you have to explain it, you fail" thing doesn't make sense at all. If you have to explain to who? To anyone? Yes. |
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Jun 25, 2010 20:34:08 GMT -5
I disagree with almost everyone in this thread. I see way too much of the attitude lately that everything should be simple and easy for everyone to understand. There's starting to be way too much of a backlash against both intellectualism and abstract thinking. I enjoy simple things too, but every show shouldn't be like Family Guy, every painting shouldn't be the Mona Lisa (it's a painting of a woman. Get it?), and every musician shouldn't be the Ramones. Artsy fartsy smartsy has it's place too. It reminds of of the finale of Lost. Where a lot of fans hated it because it didn't explicitly give answers to everything. The most fun part of the show was coming up with the theories. If we were giving answers and straight out proven wrong, it'd be less fun. |
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Jun 25, 2010 22:11:27 GMT -5
I would argue that the "if you have to explain it, you fail" thing doesn't make sense at all. If you have to explain to who? To anyone? Yes. Well, I don't agree. If everything was completely obvious and lowest common denominator, everything would have to be too dumbed down. If there was nothing artful or intellectual the world be just like that movie Idiocracy. It's good that there's stuff you have to be smart to get, or maybe you don't get it even if you are smart. |
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on Jun 25, 2010 22:25:04 GMT -5
Well, I don't agree. If everything was completely obvious and lowest common denominator, everything would be stupid. If there was nothing artful or intellectual the world be just like that movie Idiocracy. It's good that there's stuff you have to be smart to get, or maybe you don't get it even if you are smart. I just think that's a boring way to look at the world, to think everything should be super blunt and obvious. Oh, I'm not saying that everything has to be dumbed down. I'd definitely prefer if it wasn't. I'm saying that if someone's trying to be super-absurd for a stupid reason such as "I'm an artiste, you wouldn't understand!", then they've failed. |
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Jun 25, 2010 22:29:17 GMT -5
I can maybe agree with you if someone is like that but is oblivious to how silly they are. On the other hand though if somebody totally gets that they're being ridiculous but they enjoy it and it's fun for them, I don't see what's so wrong with that. I have some friends that are in a "noise" band, and when they play at a local show I usually end up going outside and talking to people because it's just so noisy and chaotic that it's not even entertaining to me. At the same time I'm not mad at them for doing it and I don't think of them as failures. Some people think that crap is good. I don't get it either, but who am I to judge?
|
|
Jay Peas 42
El Dandy
Totally flips out ALL the time.
Is looking forward to a Nation of Domination Kwannza Special.
Posts: 8,329
|
Post by Jay Peas 42 on Jun 25, 2010 23:03:02 GMT -5
Re: Explanation Required: Well, objectivity is a key measurement of an artist's skill. Art is a medium of communication where as abstract concepts are turned into concrete objects. Now, remember this, because this is important. Post-Modern Art is a shell game. There is nothing there, post-modernism denies the existance of objective reality, therefore, it's not really an attempt to capture reality, it's just an elaborate shell game. There is nothing under the shell, but the shell game makes you think something is under it.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Jun 25, 2010 23:22:49 GMT -5
Are you sure there's nothing under the shell? Take a closer look sometime. What you see may shock and/or irritate you!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ultimo Chocula on Jun 26, 2010 1:08:03 GMT -5
Well, I don't agree. If everything was completely obvious and lowest common denominator, everything would be stupid. If there was nothing artful or intellectual the world be just like that movie Idiocracy. It's good that there's stuff you have to be smart to get, or maybe you don't get it even if you are smart. I just think that's a boring way to look at the world, to think everything should be super blunt and obvious. Oh, I'm not saying that everything has to be dumbed down. I'd definitely prefer if it wasn't. I'm saying that if someone's trying to be super-absurd for a stupid reason such as "I'm an artiste, you wouldn't understand!", then they've failed. Ding! Ding! Correct-a-mundo! I certainly didn't mean dumbed down when I made that comment. I've seen several art projects that I had to look at for a while before I figured it out, and that's totally fine. The thing is that even though I didn't get what was going on at the time, the artist did a good job of hooking me, keeping my attention, and letting me figure it out on my own. The artist said nothing. That's the difference. If I've been looking at it for ten minutes and the artist has to tell me what's going on, they failed. It doesn't take long to find out who's for real and who sucks. |
|
