Jirō Yoshihara, Japanese 1905–1972
1958
Oil on canvas
Carnegie Museum of Art
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
25 points (77.8% liked)
artporn
3949 readers
110 users here now
Wander the gallery. Look at the art. Be polite. If you feel able please post some great art :)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand this kind of art. I don't think it's art. The artist is most probably very talented and could likely do real art but choose to make this. Is it about the texture of the painting ? Maybe, it's bullshit stuff like "it's about how you feel when looking at it" ? Is this kind of art truly just a way for mega rich to launder money ?
I like paintings like this. I think it's important to remember that art is subjective. Different people can look at the same thing and interpret it differently based on their different life experiences and all the various idiosyncrasies that make people unique. That's not a bad thing.
While I absolutely agree that art is subjective, I see nothing in this that can entice a dialogue about the piece meaning or the emotion it radiate. I saw paint splashes on a wall that were more interesting because of strong pareidolia effect they give off. Talking about pareidolia, I have yet to see an artist use this strong feeling in their art. Draw random lines until you see something in them.
I actually do it ( not an artist ) as a form of relaxation and de-stressing. Leaving my brain inner mechanism do the work for me. I highly suggest doing it when feeling stressed. You'll likely see a pattern in the drawings and it's gonna tell you something about yourself. Mine is that the right hand is a stump as if amputated and it's something i do really struggle with since birth due to a handicap.
I personally don't like this particular painting, but how a painting makes you feel is everything. It's like music or dance, it's a language to express emotion. Calling that "bullshit" is to defeat the entire purpose of art. While skill and accuracy are part of it, even a machine could appreciate that. The human part is emotion.
I agree. I should've precised that I meant it in the context of these type of art. I feel nothing looking at such piece. Real art make you feel the emotions and naturally express them, you don't need to ask yourself what do you feel looking at this.
This is a really interesting conversation! This is actually my favorite kind of art so I might also be able to help explain. Sorry if this is boring, I love modern art and have spent a decent amount of time in a modern art museum as a visitor!
It’s not about asking yourself how it makes you feel, but more recognizing that art makes you feel something whether you want it to or not.
The moment you see it and think “I don’t get it.” Or “that’s just smears on a wall,” you are already experiencing the art and feeling something. Even if it’s derision! Or disinterest! It may not be for you, but the trick is realizing you are still feeling something. I think it’s fun to wonder about what I feel or think about an artist’s intent. It adds depth to the art for me.
One of the main reasons I love art like this is that the artist is often really intentional and, in an unintuitive way, it’s reward looking at them more than once and in 3D. They have texture and oftentimes you can see very clear intent on the artist’s part. The size of the painting makes a difference, what’s around it, etc.
I also love art that requires more than surface level to understand it. If I’m like “why would someone like this?” it almost attracts me more. I learn what the artist is putting into the art, often emotionally and/or with a lot of thought, and that can make it more meaningful than people who are really good painters painting the Virgin Mary again, you know?
I could keep going, with examples, but I’ve written a lot. I love art, man.
I enjoyed reading you comment and what i got from it is that in a sense, it's impossible for me to understand, enjoy the piece unless I see it in person and it's shame. Also, while I can understand having to read about the piece conception and its artist to **further ** understand a piece. Making it a requirement to even feel anything toward the piece, while an interesting concept in itself it can get tedious really quick, especially when several art piece demande it.
I really like this explanation of modern art. Personally, I don't connect to this painting either, but I also have no context for it.
Edit: I do actually think this painting would be awesome to see IRL. Just look at all this texture.
I think it’s easy to forget that paintings have texture and it can change your experience of one when you see them in person!
The video is in a style I don't really like and I'd rather wished I read a lengthy article instead but I watched it fully and first things first, I don't hate modern art : collage, surrealism and cubism are my favorite art styles. Second, throughout the video he basically say " yeah , I don't like this painting either" and it's what I am saying too. I don't feel anything toward the piece and similar ones. I don't consider a blotch of paint art but it's personal and you may find a deep meaning in it. Maybe as you pointed out, these pieces are meant to be experienced in 3d and enjoy their texture and unless I see them in person I can't understand it but this remove the universal nature of art by being inaccessible. Hopefully, I am not talking nonsense. It's hard to find the right words since English is my third language.
Totally! Also, I get it, not everyone likes long video essays.
I mostly posted this because of the generally dismissive attitude of some people on the internet towards modern art. It is only logical that while there is good abstract paintings, there are also not so good ones. In the end it is also quite subjective.
In the end, I think art museums and other places that display art could and should do a better job at giving the context for a given piece to understand it. There is this perception that good art is understood regardless of its context, but I don't think that's true. No art is made in a vacuum, and knowing the historical and maybe even personal context to a piece can truly enrich it (as it has done for me with the works of Pollock).
I can understand a piece made by cavemen thousands of years ago without needing any context. Context should make you enjoy the piece even more, or to contrary flip the emotions it made you feel and make you despise it. Art that is only understood via it's context, while a nice gimmick at first, ultimately doom it to become meaningless if that context is ever lost. If the apocalypse come and humanity is destroyed. Hundreds years later, a survivor find the fan given as an exemple in the video above. It is now an ordinary fan among millions of others.