I don't "get" art

I'm not going to deny that there's a lot of crappy art out there. However, this article is such bullshit that I suspect the writer is just trolling.<p>For those who are nodding along with this article, consider the Obfuscated C contest: <a href="http://www.ioccc.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ioccc.org/</a><p>That's art. But it's art that most people in the world can't begin to appreciate. You need years of coding experience to really get it. You need context. When hackers sit down and study those works of art, they're not just posing.<p>A lot of modern art is like that. I look and scratch my head. If I go with a friend who understands the context, they can explain to me the history: movement Z is a reaction to Y, which in turn is a reaction to X. The artist is grappling with themes A and B, and exploring materials C, D, and E.<p>Many of us can do similar analysis with video games. Look at the Upgrade Complete series, which is a fun set of commentary on games at the same time it's a fun game. Look at the rise of the 8-bit look and sound that harks back to an earlier era. To an outsider, the 8-bit stuff could just seem like shitty graphics, but to many insiders it's awesome and nostalgic and charming. That's art.<p>Of course, Kongregate and GameStop are both full of shitty games. It'd be easy to write an article like this one, condemning all videos games as crap. But I and many other HN readers are willing to wade through the crap because when you find the gems, they're real works of art. Art requiring context to really understand.

The percentage of art <i>qua</i> art that is bullshit pretension simply used as a signalling device for an in-crowd of self-congratulatory people is not 100%.<p>But it's also not 0%.<p>Fortunately, I don't need to care. The art <i>qua</i> art crowd are welcome to their signalling parties and occasional strokes of insight, and I'm welcome to think the TV series <i>Buffy the Vampire Slayer</i> was really rather artistic, and by and large we two need not even cross paths to growl and yip at each other like two little teacup poodles viciously defending their turf on the matter of whose definition of art is correct. Viva la freedom.

I never got art until I started doing it myself. The internalization of the creative and technical processes of it are, IMO, crucial to "getting" it.<p>And like one might expect, I still only really "get" art that has a close enough analog to the work <i>I</i> do. So... sculpture? Right out.<p>And like others have brought up, art is contextual. One fundamental fallacy I see people make is that all pieces of work need to be conceptually complete and self-contained. A lot of good art can only be appreciated in aggregate.<p>FWIW, I don't "get" any of the art in the article either, save for the photograph of the woman. It's important to know that for photography geeks, it's often not about the subject, but rather about geometry, tonality, color, and more abstract notions. After all, there's a <i>huge</i> genre of photography dedicated to the everyday and the banal, whose only real claim to anything is beauty in composition and light.<p>As with all art though, there are territories that are incredibly facile, and therefore tend to be heavy-handed. Pictures of kissing couples, that "ring in a book with the shadow of a heart" thing wedding people use all the time, portraits of the homeless, etc etc. Stuff that's conceptually and technically been done to death, and IMO makes the artist appear more self-absorbed than anything else. Likewise, my gut reaction to the "money against the vagina" shot is "how obvious and ham-fisted", but that's just me. It's a me-too "exploration" of a topic that's been explored to death, without adding anything new to the concept or discourse.<p>In general, if you want art that you might find personal connection in, look at artists without an ego the size of the moon, and run far, far away from ones that do.

I knew my wife was the woman for me when we visited the Tate Modern on our first date and both walked out after 30 minutes agreeing that it's all garbage. [and went to Greenwich park and observatory which is awesome]<p>Art is the ultimate example of social proof at work. Another great one is wine. I live in the Bordeaux winelands and the only difference between Premier Cru wines like Chateau Margaux at $400 a bottle and equally great non-premier cru wines is that everyone believes that Premier Cru is the best.

A lot of people (including in this thread) seem to have this idea that art is about realism. The more a piece of art, or its components, bear a resemblance to reality, or the more technically difficult the methods involved in its execution, the more worthy it supposedly becomes as "true" art.<p>But this is totally missing the forest for the trees. Art is ultimately about indulging in a perceptual experience. The true value of art is that it can do this not only by stimulating our senses in satisfying ways that are already familiar to us, but more so than this, art can fundamentally change the very way in which we perceive reality. Now it should be clear that in many cases even the definition of what constitute aesthetic beauty is fluid and often learned, as a result aesthetics become inseparably linked with the perception altering aspect of art.<p>This is what made the Renaissance artists truly great, not just more realistic looking pictures, but the shift in perception that allowed the realism to be seen. The invention of perspective is probably the best example and is such a fundamental shift we take it for granted today that perceiving it is not an innate ability but learned. As an example, people from cultures lacking contact with the modern world do not see realism in photography the way we do, they see what is actually in front of them: a flat surface with colourful smudges.<p>Realism has been done, it is fairly well established in the realm of the familiar. Many artists have moved on seeking new ways to open up and challenge our perceptions. It shouldn't come as a surprise that without foundation or context, the viewer sees nothing more than some "colourful smudges" in modern art.<p>This ability to make new things visible to us, is what makes art arguably as important to advancing our society as engineering or some other more "respectable" vocation.<p>All of this is not to say the world of art doesn't have its share of pretenders or rich people more interested in using art as display tokens of their status, rather than an actual interest in its meaning. However, it's very easy to succumb to the allure of denouncing anything we don't understand as therefore having no value.

PROTIP: not everything you find in a gallery labeled as "art" is necessarily GOOD art.<p>PROTIP: Your idea of what makes for "good" art may not coincide with someone else's.<p>I just came home from the Seattle Erotic Arts Festival. I hung out and listened to this year's judges talking about their decision process. Some pieces were unanimous decisions, some were the subject of arguments, some went in the show because everyone had a strongly REVOLTED reaction to them. Art's a complicated thing.

As a hacker, I think you'd benefit from spending some time appreciating art.<p>Good art (i.e. NOT Tracey Emin) challenges and rewards; it can<p>- expand your views beyond just coding<p>- challenge your opinions of yourself and humanity<p>- reward you for spotting complex references/patterns<p>- reward you for "solving" the meaning<p>- stimulate you purely by being visually beautiful<p>- make you sad/happy/joyous/nostalgic etc<p>- bring a new understanding viewpoint of important subject - especially politics, humanity<p>- make you laugh<p>- inspire you<p>- relax you… at worst if it's crap and you're staring at a wall for 3 mins, such a meditative break from work is good for you<p>I'd like to write a lot more about this (I've been contemplating "Introducing Modern Art for Hackers" post/series for a while) - @ me on twitter (same username as HN) if you think it'd be worth it.<p>EDIT: Three quick examples of accessible artists that give you much of the above: Antony Gormley, Jeremy Dellar, Gerhard Richter.

The art world is where the bleeding edge of culture can be found. Most of the cultural trends that are commonplace today have origins in the art world. The reason why art is hard to understand by pretty much everyone is that it usually disregards practicality in its original form, and then eventually overtime those same ideas are fused with a more practical viewpoint which brings it into the mainstream for the masses.<p>In some ways you could view it similar to the bleeding edge of scientific discoveries in that similarly many don't initially know what to do with them. Eventually overtime those discoveries are applied and brought to the masses through some form of productization.

Art, especially modern art is very contextual. Warhol's grocery carton sculptures were created during the golden era of advertising and globalization of trade, for example.<p>Art is also very subjective. Some like simplicity, some like complexity. Some like clarity, some like stories and implicit context. Some like subdued colors, some like saturated hues.<p>This makes art very complicated. That is why art history exist.

Art is just like any other type of human creative activity. There are various genres of it and no one is going to like everything.<p>Saying that you don't like something or don't understand something is cool. No one likes or understands everything.<p>Most art has a narrative behind it and to really understand what the artist is about you <i>do</i> have to know that narrative. Now a lot of older art, or art designed for a purely visual experience can become disassociated from its narrative and still appreciated. Or we can bring a new narrative to it.<p>This is not a new thing. It's always been that way in art. A lot of old art is appreciated for aspects that would confuse or even outrage its creators. (Also, a lot of old "junk" or popular art is now appreciated when in its day it was considered throwaway and trivial.)<p>Most people don't really care about the political situation in France in the mid 19th century. At least not the extent that they pick sides. But we can still appreciate Daumier's satiric political prints because we bring a new narrative to it. We can see ourselves and our current situations in it.<p>A lot of modern art is <i>about</i> art and the whole process of communication, perception, and expression. As such, the narrative can get pretty self referential and abstract. Recursive to a high degree. (I'll admit, after too many iterations, I start to loose interest myself.)<p>One way to look at a lot of modern art is to understand that it operates a bit like satire, only the without the joke aspect. Though not always. A lot of it is actually pretty funny if you can follow the conceit. Whether this is interesting to you or worth the effort is a personal choice or preference. Another way to look at some modern art is to approach it like jazz. It is artist riffing on themes and ideas that other artists have done. Again, a knowledge of the works being referenced is usually helpful.<p>No one said liking art was going to be easy.<p>But don't automatically assume that because someone else likes it, they aren't sincere or are chumps.<p>Edit: It just occurred to me that possibly the best way to explain art to the Hacker News crowd is to say that art is like hacking. Hacking perception. Hacking expression. Hacking communication. It doesn't have to have a point, though it might. You do it because you can, because you want to, or because you need to. Or, possibly the most fun, because you shouldn't.

From the engineers prospective, I understand the reason for what you are saying.<p>However, I've always made an effort to exercise the left side of my brain for balance. I played cello for a decade in childhood and toured Europe; currently, I compete in salsa performance (after having been the most lead-footed lame dancer four years ago).<p>What I've learned is that expressing my creativity allows for introspection. The expression of oneself through music, art, dance, etc. culminates like the completion a programming project, albeit using a different set of skills. While the extrospective nature of art galleries and concerts is exciting as an artist, it more provides a denouement of ones introspection as a project draws to a close.<p>Making this realization allows you to enjoy galleries and concerts more. It doesn't have to do with what is produced. These expressions of self allow you a direct route into the thoughts and feelings of the artist, and suddenly the question becomes 'why' more so than 'what.'<p>Heading back to 'hacking,' the most successful engineers, scientists, and programmers I know balanced the technical and the creative, and the latter allowed for approaching a project from a unique perspective.<p>My comments and arguments may sound abstract, but I do not present them as fact. I just request that you keep an open mind - do not view 'different' as inferior; instead, view it with an open mind.

That art seems boring to me. But 2001 was boring to me until I knew what went into the model work for the spaceships. I'm not sure I could appreciate this art if I studied art, but I'd be willing to try. This is what I usually think of when I think art: <a href="http://mkr.deviantart.com/favourites/" rel="nofollow">http://mkr.deviantart.com/favourites/</a><p>Maybe the author is going after the wrong kind of art. Not all of it needs a manual.

If Glen Coco (The author) never "got" art I'm not sure why he devoted so much of his life to it. I felt like this article was a farce.<p>I've often contemplated writing a blog post titled "Art analysis for the uninitiated". If you'd be interested please let me know.<p>Some analysis from an art student:<p>1st piece with the flowers: This looks to be an homage to still life paintings. Still lifes are about the cycle of life; Birth, Life, and Death. Seems pretty straightforward to me but then again I'm "initiated".<p>2nd piece with the woman in the desert: I couldn't tell you exactly what the artist was looking to portray but to debunk the "how quickly they'd be skipping over this photo if it was in their mom's holiday snapshots" line, I'd assume that is exactly the point. See Duchamp's Urinal fountain for more along this idea of "things out of traditional context".<p>the 4th piece (film): Art is either done without reason or with specific reason. The chairs, the screen and the video all have a reason for being the way that they are. It's your choice to interpret this but don't dismiss what the artist is saying because you are scared to "look like a twat".<p>I can go on and on but I think I've made my point. This has meaning. It may not be valuable to you but then again no one forced you to view this art.

This is a very old article. He did a follow-up piece last year: <a href="http://www.vice.com/read/frieze-fair-trying-to-get-art" rel="nofollow">http://www.vice.com/read/frieze-fair-trying-to-get-art</a><p>It's good to see that the irony of VICE has been largely lost on the HN crowd here as we discuss what makes "good" art. Haha.

In order to comply with Godwin's law I just want to recommend the following article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art</a>

I personally believe art's purpose is to create and distribute beauty. By extension, a secondary purpose would be to distribute that beauty to the masses, and to further increase the "net beauty" of the world, if you will.<p>In no way, shape, or form is "My cunt is wet with fear" beautiful. This is simply an artist trying to be shocking and radical, but without the courage to actually do so in a meaningful way, is simply couching it in "art".<p>I would argue that much of modern art (not to be confused with abstract art) is simply an excuse for the artists to be ridiculous without reprimand. If you look at the art of da Vinci, or Raphael, or even some modern artists (One could argue John Mayer's skill with a guitar constitutes art) they did not need to be shocking to have an impact- their work stood on its own.*<p>That, I guess, would be the crux of the matter. All these other comments explaining that we don't get the "context" or that we simply need to "understand the background" are more or less re-iterating the foolishness found in The Emperor's New Clothes. Art is meant to stand alone. The Mona Lisa does not require context to appreciate it's nuance of color, and the skill with which the expression is painted. Andy Warhol's (in?)famous Campbell's Soup Cans can be lauded on their symmetry and juxtaposition of color alone, while incorporating the mundane into the abstract. The Sistine Chapel can be admired simply by the scale and breadth of the murals within, not excluding the skill with which they were painted, or the beautiful imagery. I've even had non-religious friends admire it more than my religious ones.<p>One cannot simply say that "you don't get it". Beauty does not need "to be got". Beauty is inherent, and all perspective simply does is skew the appreciation of the beauty. I don't have to like Picasso to appreciate it, just as I don't have to like jazz to appreciate the beauty in syncopation. Even if you do not agree with me, we can all concur that true art will stand the test of time. So I ask you, do you see people talking about this exhibit 20 years from now?<p>*This is not to say that bodies of work cannot heighten appreciation, or lend further enlightenment upon the individual works, however a broken bridge, a looped video, a sentence set in neon and various pots placed on pedestals does not constitute a cohesive body of work.

Art is like programming. The objective is to abstract the essence of something, and re-represent that in some other medium.<p>There are different degrees of that - obviously modern art attempts to represent the essence much more abstractly than, say, impressionism. And some artists accomplish this better than others (in fact only a very few do it really well - the 100x engineer theory applies to artists as well). But as with programming, there is a logic to all of it.<p>In fact, if you look at the history of Art, the progression appears to be from less abstract to more abstract. Probably because it's harder to do well, and takes time and experience for techniques like Cubism to emerge.<p>But once you start looking at all art from that framework, it starts making a lot more sense.

Hi. Amateur writer here. In my opinion, there's no such thing as "getting" art.<p>Why? There's a lot of differing definitions of art, but the one I like the most is Tolstoy's: art is about creating an emotional connection between the artist and the viewer [1].<p>Abstract art is made with this minimalist principle in mind - that one does not need to be realistic or even confined within the limitations of conventional artistic styles to develop an emotional connection with a viewer. That is, the viewer doesn't need to "understand" or compare a piece to reality to have an emotion from it.<p>For the most part, I think that classical art is enjoyed by those without an artistic background because there's at least an appreciation for the time and mastery invested into each piece. However, many people mistakenly believe that this appreciation is "getting" art. After all, you think "wow, that must have taken forever" when you see the Sistine Chapel.<p>However, that's just one emotion art can give you and it's a mistake to limit art to that. It's this belief that caused pieces that are potted plants on pedestals or red squares on large canvases to be alienating - "dude, I/my five-year-old could have done that!"<p>So let me put it this way - there's no such thing as "getting" art. Either it made you feel something or it didn't.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Art%3F" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Art%3F</a>

Art is expression and communication. Some get touched by the message, some don't. If some people like to pay big bucks for art, just let them.<p>Some might say Tracey Emin is a bad artist. But I think here message is very clear: pain from being raped and losing 2 kids. It's a sad message.<p>Like Hugh MacLeod (gapingvoid) I like to say: "Worrying about “Commercial vs. Artistic” is a complete waste of time.".

I'm still not convinced that art hasn't turned into some kind of long con or practical joke that's gone entirely too far.

We already know what art is, it's paintings of horses.

A few years back I was visiting MNCARS (Madrid) with a friend of mine who had no understanding of art whatsoever. He didn’t like my decision to visit the museum and I could tell he felt a bit uncomfortable. So I told him we should try something of an experiment. We would choose a painting, stare it for a while and then exchange opinions. And that was what we did, we chose a large painting and after watching it for a couple of minutes I asked him how he felt about it. “It makes me feel unease” he told me. “I don’t know why but it makes me sad, frustrated, in despair. I just want to take my eyes away”.<p>The painting was Picasso’s Guernica . Years after my friend told me that this single event had a significant impact on his life.<p>So my opinion is that if art needs explaining then it’s not art.

Art is incredibly subjective, but a gallery opening is potentially the worst place to experience art. You are socially obliged to look at each piece, not just scan past the ones you don't think appeal to you (which is easy to do at a museum or online).

It is art because it is in a gallery. Also I think it is not the single pictures that are the art in this example. The art is the whole thing: people looking at nonsensical pictures wondering if they are art.<p>Reactions like that article are exactly what that kind of art wants to provoke.<p>Not that I personally have a nerve for it...<p>Also it reminds me about an analysis of the popularity of football that I read yesterday: football is popular because it is irrelevant. You can get high on emotions without any side effects on your real life. Maybe some "art" servers the same kind of purpose. The article also states that football is approaching the popularity of "weather" as a conversation topic.

Art is just communication.<p>The thing that sets art apart from mundane examples of communication (such as perhaps instructions for a tax form) is that art typically is evocative of emotions and feelings. Or perhaps complex thoughts that must be arrived at indirectly.<p>Art is really no more complicated than that. But there is so many different ways to achieve communication through different forms. Sometimes people are prone to over-simplify art, or to try to make art objective, or to try to make a firm boundary between "high art" and mundane art, but none of that is possible. Art is inter-personal, and can mean different things to different people. Guernica, for example, could have a different impact depending on ones personal exposure to warfare and violence. And that of course means that trying to put in place objective standards about subjective communication is fool-hardy at best, as is trying to create some sort of ranking.<p>You don't have to like all art and it's fine if not everyone likes the art you like.<p>It's fascinating to me that the same applies to cuisine and we accept it just fine. Some people like sushi, some people don't, some people like steak, some people are vegetarians. Art is the same way. Liking some types of art may make you appear more sophisticated in some circles (such as liking red wine and salmon vs twinkies and big macs) but in the end it's all just personal preference.

Most contemporary artists works need to be appreciated as a whole, not as isolated pieces. The author here looks at trees but misses the forest.<p>Most people look at art as if they are portfolio pieces in dribbble.com. (Hmm, I like this icon, Hmm, I don't like that color). But art does not merely reproduce the beauty of forms, instead, it gives language to the "soul" so that it may speak.<p>Protip: Keep an open mind.

I don't "get" Vice's articles.

if you're buying art and putting it on display in your home - don't think about the narrative of the artist. think about the narrative the buyer might have had, when he saw the picture. I believe most people who spend a lot of money do so because they want to express something about themselves.

I think an oft overlooked point is the distinction between art and <i>good</i> art. "Is this art?" is a boring, answered questioned. "Is this good art?" is what everyone is actually interested in answering, but seems to confuse it with the former.<p>Yes, art is whatever you want it to be. As soon as someone intends something to be art, then it is so. But that gives it no higher status than anything else. However, a <i>good</i> piece of art usually is interesting, elicits emotion, and enriches the consumer. These are fairly subjective terms but they can still be roughly gauged within the context of the culture.<p>Anytime someone asks, "Is this art?", just say, "Yes, of course it is, and it is good/bad art because of x/y/z." Don't let that question distract you from what is actually at hand, rather than semantics.

I can't claim to 'get' art, but I absolutely love beauty. Some art is beautiful. Other art sucks. I think the key is to find and appreciate things that you consider beautiful and ignore all the critics, trust fund collectors, and scenesters...

Banksy's film "Exit through the gift shop" explored this argument well I though, indeed took it to the next meta-level and asked "how can you rip-off a modern artist's work?".<p><a href="http://www.banksyfilm.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.banksyfilm.com/</a>

For me, the best way to understand art is to compare it directly with music (and the comparison holds very well, as music is a form of art).<p>Think about pop music, and your feelings towards it. Many of my peers think that much of pop music is usually a bunch of crap and hardly ever listen to the radio (myself included). People love to proclaim which music is 'the best' and which music 'sucks', and they also love to argue about it endlessly. But if you look at this from a logical standpoint, you are a dog chasing your own tail if you want to argue about music opinions. You are pitting opinion against opinion, and there is nothing concrete to support either side, which makes it an utterly stupid and useless argument to have.<p>Let's add some logic to the music argument, then, to actually make it productive. Here's a good metric - which musician has the most fans and makes the most money off their music. If this is the metric you are viewing it from, you could most certainly say that pop is technically the "best" music out there, then prove it with numbers. And there would be no debating it.<p>But I bet there are a lot of people squirming to disagree with me at this point. And they wouldn't be wrong. Perhaps popularity isn't the metric that defines the word "best". In fact, the word "best" is a stupid word to use in arguments overall. Just replace that with "most popular", "most lucrative", or "my personal favorite", and we have an argument that can actually be carried out in a civil manner and solidly proven.<p>The words "good" and "best" ALWAYS mean "in my opinion, good" and "in my opinion, the best". And like music, art is all about opinions. You can call anything art, and you can call anything crap. If you can convince enough people to think your art is "good", it will then likely become more popular and lucrative. This part of it is all about psychology, and taking advantage of people and their emotions.<p>My personal opinion about art is that it is a piece that evokes emotion in the viewer and sends some message about the world that the artist is trying to get across. The "better" in my opinion the art is, the higher the percentage of viewers get this message, and the stronger it resonates with them.<p>Hope this helps...

To get art, you need to see the intention.

An informative read is The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe (yes, that white suit wearing writer). It's a fairly short book, and written from personal experience in the art world.<p>He talks about the evolution of art toward something that can only be appreciated if you know the theory behind it, and also about the interplay of the (poor) artist and the (rich) patron and the psychological aspects of what the patron it buying (often: they get to be an "insider", with the whole notion of being an insider being something that the artist has constructed.)

I've seen the bottom piece in person - the city on fire with the two people flinching from it.<p>It is absolutely fantastic.<p>I have no such belief that the rest of this 'show' illuminates anything in the human spirit except foulness...

note: if you read one part of this, read the last paragraph.<p>"I paint objects as I think them not as I see them." - Pablo Picasso "Art is what you can get away with." - Andy Warhol<p>I do not buy the "this isn't art, I can do this. art requires skill" train of thought. firstly, if we appreciate skill then we are not appreciating art. we are appreciating a craft. to appreciate art we must appreciate creativity. who's the artist: the engineer or the architect? the engineer has more skill, but i'd say the architect.<p>Secondly, let's assume that the "art requires skill" argument is correct. hence, a white painting is not art. but then what's the converse. is photorealistic painting (when a painting looks as though it were a photograph) the best art? because it contains the best skill at imitating reality? because I would say Michelangelo or Rembrandt are far superior to any photorealistic painter (try to name one).<p>Lastly, here's an interesting spin on modern art: it has a greater effect on you than regular art does. You've probably had a lot of conversations about modern art but little about real art. And it has a greater emotional effect on people (generally anger or disdain) than regular art, which usually leads to boredom. After all, I bet there are tons of blog posts on modern art like this one. I doubt there are many on the Old Masters. Modern art challenges us, makes us think more, and make use talk more.

That kind of reminds me of this:<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rb3Pc8a2CM" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rb3Pc8a2CM</a><p>What makes a guy who draws blobs or squares on a canvas his ENTIRE career, sell paintings for a million dollars while another guy who draws blobs or squares is never heard from? Is it really all about the end product, or is it more about the relationships? And if it's the latter, then what is "artistic" about the paintings when it's about knowing the right people at the right time?

Vice Magazine is a troll.<p>Tracey Emin is a troll.<p>Don't waste your life looking at art you don't like.

relevant xkcd<p><a href="http://xkcd.com/915/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/915/</a>

Peter Bagge made a nice little comic on his view of modern art:<p><a href="http://reason.com/archives/2004/08/01/real-art" rel="nofollow">http://reason.com/archives/2004/08/01/real-art</a>

For me, art is what ever I say it is. It is irrelevant to me what other people think. If I find art in something, then to me it is art. That should be the same for every one else. If you find art in something, who the hell am I to tell you you are wrong? My opinion should be irrelevant to every one else. Nice if we think the same, but not necessary. No one should be allowed to definitively define art. It is personal.

Anything without appropriate context is hard to "get."<p>Think of how often you have to explain something to someone when they react unfavorably. The problem with the pieces in this collection is that they are lazy. They don't come from a sense of expression; they use shock value to get their effect, and the result is often met with hostility.<p>I had a similar reaction when I saw a fluorescent light on the wall as a piece in the Met in NYC.

This is just Maddox's "I am better than your kids" remixed for 20-something gallery hoppers.

As a (somewhat off-topic) aside, I notice that every picture in the article seems to be slightly askew, and generally by the same angle. Can anybody tell me if there is a reason for this, or is it just an affectation of the photographer?

I went to design school, I visited Art Basil. Agree++<p>Seriously, maybe it's because I'm really a hacker that was interested in design but "Art" as in the starving/gallery kind is 99% crap - 1% mind blowing.

Whatever people choose as their monuments of highest value reflect directly on what sort of world they want to live in.

Very good read. And, btw:<p>"Art is anything you can get away with."<p>Or, in other words, it's about making money out of crap, sometimes literally.

If creativity were anything but random someone would have figured out the algorithm by now - Dilbert

This thread is great modern art

News flash: most art, like most things in general, is not very good. Film at 11.

There's no art but the artist.

Art is simple. It exists to decorate the walls of rich people. It's been that way for thousands of years. I'm not very rich, but I have some art around the place. It's pretty awesome.<p>The problem is that a lot of these <i>artists</i> don't get art. They are confused about their role in life, and they go round wasting their time making things that rich people wouldn't want on their walls. And that's just pointless and sad.

PROTIP: Tracey Emin is a Professor at the Royal Academy. It's art that a lot of the art world considers "good art".<p>This Emin person has gained tons of attention by displays so ridiculous that people thought they must be brilliant since no one had thought of doing something so utterly devoid of talent before.<p>From the Wikipedia article:<p>"In 1999 she was a Turner Prize nominee and exhibited My Bed — an installation, consisting of her own unmade dirty bed with used condoms and blood-stained underwear."<p>And engineers are supposed to be the scruffy, smelly disgusting masses of humanity.

Wow, there's a lot of hate for Tracey Emin here, from people who probably know little about her work.<p>All I will say is that I have several of her pencil sketches in my house, and they are poignant, provocative, angry and fragile. To me, they are art. If you don't think they are, that's fine, but try to not let your frustration at not having a reaction make you belittle those that do.<p>Also, anyone who walked around and saw some of Damien Hirst's work before the Sotheby's auction a few years ago might been stunned at some of what was seen. The shark in a tank was a spectacular piece but a lot of that was in how it was staged and presented.<p>Art is a very personal thing. There's plenty of stuff I really don't like, but if others do, that's fine.

I don't "get" sports. I do not understand the appeal of watching a bunch of dudes run around a field trying to get a ball in a goal. Not to mention all the evidence we've seen of what sports like football and boxing do to the bodies of athletes. (Or what that may imply about the organizational bodies and spectators of those sports.)<p>But, I don't get to pretend like the sports world is full of pretentious dickheads. Kinda funny how that works. Somehow what "normal" people do is always right and good and creative stuff is degenerate or snobby bullshit.

Art is about values. If you don't "get" a particular work of art, it's because the values embodied in it not only do not resonate with your own values, but aren't even part of the universe of values that you think about.<p>It's not because you don't "get" art as such. Of course you "get" art, so long as it's the kind of art that fits with your worldview.<p>The kind of art that I think appeals to many scientists and engineers is the kind that exalts the potential of mankind, e.g. the Star Trek universe.

All these examples of what is obviously not or very shitty art according to OP suggest for me that OP does not "not get art" but they cannot reconcile these examples of modern art with their own understanding of art.<p>The only question I would really, really like to get answered from OP out of personal interest: please tell us, show us or at least try to explain what IS art for you?