how do you bullshit about paintings?

[Eulogy]

i've bullshitted my way through literature classes like it's my job. but this i cannot figure out.

i keep hoping that when the time comes, i'll just start writing and somewhat reasonable shit will pour out. but i really don't know. :-/

20th century stuff, to be specific. i've got to have a good grasp of 65 different works by wednesday morning and right now i feel like i'm completely lost.

[Charmbag]

how do you mean? are you talking formal properties, content, historical context? all of the above? after a semester at art school I feel like I have a pretty decent idea on how but it depends.

[JokeyLoki]

Jeebus... I don't know if it's possible to bullshit through something like that. Good luck :/

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

how do you mean? are you talking formal properties, content, historical context? all of the above? after a semester at art school I feel like I have a pretty decent idea on how but it depends.

hm. well one section is just identification and description....taking into account the themes/movements that were prevalent at the time of its creation. or whatever. and to discuss different media used and styles employed.

then the second section is two comparisons of two different works. coming up with some relevant connection between them. but i feel like if i can do a general description of two different things, i can figure out how they're connected or whatever.

THIS SHIT SUCKS.

[Charmbag]

it sounds like it's pretty unfocused, so you probably only need a cursory understanding of each piece? what kind of class is this? there isn't a specific era/movement or concept you're dealing with?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

it sounds like it's pretty unfocused, so you probably only need a cursory understanding of each piece? what kind of class is this? there isn't a specific era/movement or concept you're dealing with?

yes, that's correct. the class is called "20th century art." so everything gets a brief rundown, i guess. so it's not like i need incredibly in-depth knowledge. but right now it doesn't feel like i have any knowledge at all. hah.

[Skylarq]

I took a Picasso class in college that seems eerily similar to this. For tests the professor would show slides and we'd have to identify year, period, significance, etc. Then we'd have to compare two paintings like you described.

I learned that you really can't bullshit. I tried on both the midterm and final and the results were average at best.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Skylarq

the results were average at best.

i'd totally take that at this point.

i'm giving up for tonight and going to bed.

[maoi]

art history is mostly memorization so i guess thats your qualm huh? cause the styles among different 20th century are pretty heavily distinct.

[Trotskilicious]

Um, I think art interpretation is supposed to not have right or wrong answers so in other words totally bullshittable.

[Charmbag]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

I think art interpretation is supposed to not have right or wrong answers

that has not been my experience at all, in high school or college.

I think most of the things they will expect you to say are going to be obvious if you read about the major movements and which artists are associated with them. it is mostly memorization at this level.

[Trotskilicious]

That's why I never bothered with english or art in college or high school. It's all do as I say and repeat it back to me. It's fucking pathetic. That's not what art is about.

[Charmbag]

I don't know... I've seen it when people are allowed to go off the deep end with their totally unsubstantiated opinions at critiques and stuff, and it's pretty hard to stomach. I think to some extent art is concrete. it can have personal meaning and personal associations, but those aren't really relevant to an academic discussion. there can be multiple valid interpretations but that doesn't mean there are "no right or wrong answers".

[Trotskilicious]

So you're telling me if someone stands in front of an abstract painting and interprets it the way they see it, that they can have an invalid interpretation? IT's fucking ABSTRACT for fuck's sake! We're talking about MODERN ART. Are you telling me there's only one or two ways to interpret Rothko? Fuck.

Look if you're looking at Romantic art, or the Realists, then yes I can see there can be right answers and wrong ones, but not with abstraction.

[cork_soaker]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

So you're telling me if someone stands in front of an abstract painting and interprets it the way they see it, that they can have an invalid interpretation?

there is no invalid interpretation

[Charmbag]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

So you're telling me if someone stands in front of an abstract painting and interprets it the way they see it, that they can have an invalid interpretation? IT's fucking ABSTRACT for fuck's sake! We're talking about MODERN ART. Are you telling me there's only one or two ways to interpret Rothko? Fuck.

Look if you're looking at Romantic art, or the Realists, then yes I can see there can be right answers and wrong ones, but not with abstraction.

if somebody looks at a Rothko painting and says "this painting is about trees", I wouldn't say that is an invalid opinion but I would want him to substantiate it. if he can't then I would call it an unsubstantiated opinion. that type of thing isn't really what you're going to talk about when you discuss Rothko in an art theory class.

for example you might talk about the formal properties of the painting, like the fuzzy fields of color that are his trademark. this could bring about a whole discussion about color theory. or you could talk about his ideas on mythology, Freud, Nietzsche, the art of children and a million other topics that I've gleaned just from his Wikipedia page and how those fed into his art. how his art relates to other art from that time period etc.

I'm not saying "interpreting" art, especially art like Rothko, isn't complex. on the contrary. it's that art criticism isn't really like that anyway; "interpreting" the meaning and moving on, open and shut. it's about deepening one's understanding of the connections a piece of art has to other things. and while viewing art is personal, discussing theory and doing group critiques really isn't.

[Ihaman]

Abstract art doesn't mean that the visual concept is abstract, it means the concept represented is something other than an idea that can be represented by symbology. Like Jackson Pollock, I'm sure there are a few people who gained some kind of monumental enlightenment from them through some kind of newly discovered concept nobody else was able to gain, but they're supposed to represent a captured expression of movement, not much more.

It means that instead of paint working together in shapes to form, say...a house, the paint works together in shapes to form an idea. That's abstraction.

[Ihaman]

The real way to bullshit art, i've found is to use the word "study", and the phrase "counteract the balance/interplay" as much as possible. Say it's a commentary on something, and you're in the door.

[Ihaman]

Oh, and the word "narrative" make sure you say that.

[Ihaman]

actually, this is fun. Just fill in the blanks.


"I painted this piece as a narrative to explore the interplay between ________ and _______. The main focal point is a vessel in which to explore several __________ in today's society, juxtaposed by the secondary and tertiary focal points, i feel they balance the idea of ___________ in other culture's idealisms. This narrative is explored in the colors and use of stylization in my choice of illustrative technique (insert giggle here) which i think may be becoming my signature style.
I was heavily influenced by _______(mondrian, marenetti, pollock, the dadaists, the renaissance, the impressionists) as you can tell by the brush strokes over here, but i feel as though i captured the air of this ppm era with my use of mixed media.

[Charmbag]

Originally Posted by Ihaman

Oh, and the word "narrative" make sure you say that.

or better yet, metanarrative

you could also try
"mechanical reproduction"
"shared meanings"
"the male gaze"
and of course "modern" or "post-modern"

[Ol' Couch Ass]

Hey Ihaman I feel like I am wasting my life. Obviously I am not doing anything grand or super important to further the human species and was wondering if you had any tips on how I could become a super awesome person. I mean shit man I threw an Obama sticker on my car but am still feeling pretty useless. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[duovamp]

So can this be the new "POST YOUR DICK" thread?

[Kahlo]

Gah, I got an Hons. degree in Art History. Its all bollocks honestly.

[Boots Electric]

fuck modern art

if I have to sit through one more two-hour lecture designed to explain the significance of a giant red square with a black line down the middle I'm going to fucking scream

[Richard III]

Originally Posted by Boots Electric

fuck modern art

if I have to sit through one more two-hour lecture designed to explain the significance of a giant red square with a black line down the middle I'm going to fucking scream

Can you explain its significance to us, please?

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

if somebody looks at a Rothko painting and says "this painting is about trees", I wouldn't say that is an invalid opinion but I would want him to substantiate it. if he can't then I would call it an unsubstantiated opinion. that type of thing isn't really what you're going to talk about when you discuss Rothko in an art theory class.

for example you might talk about the formal properties of the painting, like the fuzzy fields of color that are his trademark. this could bring about a whole discussion about color theory. or you could talk about his ideas on mythology, Freud, Nietzsche, the art of children and a million other topics that I've gleaned just from his Wikipedia page and how those fed into his art. how his art relates to other art from that time period etc.

I'm not saying "interpreting" art, especially art like Rothko, isn't complex. on the contrary. it's that art criticism isn't really like that anyway; "interpreting" the meaning and moving on, open and shut. it's about deepening one's understanding of the connections a piece of art has to other things. and while viewing art is personal, discussing theory and doing group critiques really isn't.

Want to go with me to an art museum, darling?

<3 <3 <3

[Kahlo]

Brian Sewell FTW