reverent entertainment

reverent forums => Art-Books-Music => Topic started by: RonPoetIllinois on May 29, 2005, 05:11:18 AM

Title: Art Test
Post by: RonPoetIllinois on May 29, 2005, 05:11:18 AM
THe fakes are just as good as the junk, LOL and your point is? My point would be, why pay when you can do as good for free. Ron


This post is about  True art or a fake? (http://reverent.org/true_art_or_fake_art.html) quiz --admin
Title: Re: Art Test
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on May 29, 2005, 11:10:58 PM
Quote from: "RonPoetIllinois"
THe fakes are just as good as the junk, LOL and your point is? My point would be, why pay when you can do as good for free. Ron

I have a certain horizon before me, which did not yet contracted to a point. The quizzes were written to conduct a scientific inquiry into the issue, and I wiil make up my opinion when there will be enough experimental data.
Title: True art or fake
Post by: Persephone on May 31, 2005, 11:31:32 AM
If the meaning of communication lay in interpretation then how may art succeed; what is artistic sucess? What predicates art? What is "Art"...and what is not?
Title: Re: True art or fake
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on June 02, 2005, 07:37:54 PM
Quote from: "Persephone"
what is artistic sucess? ... What is "Art"...and what is not?

This is a rhetorical question. What one can practically do is to take the paintings of prominent artists, which hang in famous museums, and check if they can be distinguished from fakes when artists' names are detached from them.
Title: Re: True art or fake
Post by: guest on July 09, 2005, 02:16:05 PM
Quote from: "Mikhail Simkin"
Quote from: "Persephone"
what is artistic sucess? ... What is "Art"...and what is not?

This is a rhetorical question. What one can practically do is to take the paintings of prominent artists, which hang in famous museums, and check if they can be distinguished from fakes when artists' names are detached from them.
I find this quiz very interesting. It would be also very interesting to know the results. Dear Mr Simkin, just continue with this. I tried with "MIDI or Virtuoso?" but it seems that it  doesn't work :(((
Title: Re: True art or fake
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on July 10, 2005, 09:58:11 PM
Quote from: "guest"
It would be also very interesting to know the results.

I am not yet ready to make the results public, but I released a  videoclip (http://reverent.org/movies.html), which shows how some of the fakes were produced.
Quote from: "guest"
I tried with "MIDI or Virtuoso?" but it seems that it  doesn't work :(((

The MIDI or Virtuoso?  (http://reverent.org/midi_or_virtuosi.html) quiz appears to work fine. However it takes a lot of time to download the audioclips if you use a dial-up connection.
Title: resonance
Post by: Melechko on October 31, 2005, 09:32:41 PM
True art? Art is merely self expression.

You can express yourself in the toilet, check out  Dali's Diary of a genius (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0132085216/102-3215044-9880933?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance)"

What makes a work of art "true" is resonance (http://webkew.blogspot.com/2005/05/lesson-4-where-do-visitors-come-from.html).

I like the "famous" or "obscure" definitions much better.

What made a particular work resonate depends on time and social setting. Would Picasso's "Guernica" make resonance today?  

  just making pictures  (http://www.freescience.org/art.htm)
Title: Re: resonance
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on November 02, 2005, 09:22:12 PM
Quote from: "Melechko"
What makes a work of art "true" is resonance (http://webkew.blogspot.com/2005/05/lesson-4-where-do-visitors-come-from.html).

Actually there is a mathematical theory of this phenomenon (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504094). That paper is about scientific citing but results are fully applicable to web-links, dicussed in the blog you mention.
Title: Art Test
Post by: Nexus on November 05, 2005, 01:53:24 PM
I guessed %83 but i know that i would guess %0 (would say all is fake) if i wouldn't have seen the National Art Gallery in Washington. I saw all these weird things called art and was shocked back then already. When the future generations will see how art changed from the Renaissance peiod to our oeriod they will laugh at us and think that the value of art has decreased every day. I am sorry but i don't call this art.
Title: Art Test
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on November 08, 2005, 04:45:50 PM
Quote from: "Nexus"
I saw all these weird things called art and was shocked back then already. When the future generations will see how art changed from the Renaissance peiod to our oeriod they will laugh at us and think that the value of art has decreased every day.

Do not forget how opressive the political system was in the period you call  Renaissance. Historically the humankind moved to more democratic forms of government. Also art gradually became more and more democratic. Nowadays everyone can create art. Check out my tutorial: A new kind of art (http://reverent.org/Le_Rouge_et_le_Vert.html).
Title: true art or fake
Post by: kassis on December 07, 2005, 06:39:43 AM
I think this test was fun!
I relegated some art to the junk pile, and I'm wondering if all "real art" was shown whole, or if, for instance. the Klee was cropped.
Title: Re: true art or fake
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on December 08, 2005, 01:43:21 PM
Quote from: "kassis"
I relegated some art to the junk pile, and I'm wondering if all "real art" was shown whole, or if, for instance. the Klee was cropped.

Yes, the Klee was cropped. I cut his important name from the painting.

Here is what was in the quiz:

(http://reverent.org/Images/Abstr_quiz/image1.jpg)

And here is the complete painting:

(http://reverent.org/Images/uncropped_klee.jpg)

I'm sure you wouldn't  put this one in junk.
Title: Why I did ok
Post by: Elroch on December 21, 2005, 06:03:45 PM
I got 11/12 (just the first one wrong) and I was pretty chuffed at my new-found artistic sensibility.

But when I read other comments, I realised that to some extent I had half-consciously rejected the images that looked like they had been knocked up using simple drawing software [the first may have escaped because it is not so obvious).

So my comment would be not that your creations were not good art, it would be that they were not good fakes. I reckon using software like GIMP you could create utterly convincing (and deeply meaningful) fake art.
Title: Why I didn't do better
Post by: Elroch on December 21, 2005, 06:10:09 PM
On a little further reflection, I don't know how I got the first one wrong. For some reason I said it was a fake, but it does not have the characteristics of the other ones I correctly identified as fakes, and now looks obviously genuine. I suppose it is possible to imagine something similar being created with fairly simple software though.
Title: Re: True art or fake
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on January 05, 2006, 11:36:58 PM
Quote from: "guest"
It would be also very interesting to know the results.

I was hesitating to do this, knowing how embarrassing the quiz results will be for the artistic community. But soon or late the truth has to come out, and here it goes:

Properly Prescribed

"He suggested I play golf, but finally agreed to give me something that, he said, "would really work"; and going to a cabinet, he produced a vial of violet-blue capsules banded with dark purple at one end, which, he said, had just been placed on the market and were intended not for neurotics whom a draft of water could calm if properly administered, but only for great sleepless artists who had to die for a few hours in order to live for centuries."
--Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita

Are the sleepless artists really great, or merely properly administered?

keep reading (http://ecclesiastes911.net/properly_prescribed.html)
Title: quiz
Post by: artmeliana on January 15, 2006, 08:46:30 AM
I made 67%.  You could say shame on me because I have an art history degree, but contemporary art was not our focus, we merely touched on it at the end.  In our course we mostly disdained it for more classical stuff.

Still, I could identify by name Kandinsky, Rothko, Mondrian and I even remember our lecture on the Black Circle (who wouldn't, it's so odd!).  The rest were educated guesses.

Thanks to my studies, I have a least a better appreciation of abstract art even though I still don't like them - BUT I do like Kandinsky, for some reason.
Title: Art Test
Post by: Anonymous on February 28, 2006, 02:18:50 AM
Interesting, having done the test and then read the ecclesiastes 9:11 article I discovered that the two that I mis-identified were the two weighted closest to 100g.  Imost certainly would not count myself amongst the knowledgeable about art - music yes, art no.  I recognised the Mondrian as my daughters have both seen his work and had to produce similar as homework, but I am not sure that I had even heard of any of the other artists, much less could correctly identify their work.
Perhaps there is a 'quality' measure somewhere and the results seem to indicate that your fakes didn't all have the same amount of that 'quality'.  Perhaps some people are more atuned than others to distinguishing the quality.
Would be interesting to correlate the results along that axis - i.e. was it the case that those who scored well had trouble with the 'near-100g' works, while getting the 'far from 100g' works more correct, whereas those who do not have the 'gift' you might expect to randomly get the wrong answer.
As I say... interesting.
Title: Art Test
Post by: Someone Else on May 24, 2006, 09:55:49 PM
I missed the first one (the Klee), the rest were fairly straightforward even though I have no formal art education. I just don't 'get' whatever the Klee is trying to say, but then I have never found Klee's art compelling at all. However many do, and I think it's because the subject matter at the root of his work is something that I don't find at all interesting.
Title: Art Test
Post by: Pascal on June 03, 2006, 05:30:34 PM
I am right there with you Someone Else. I am no art major or professional, but I do enjoy going to museums to appreciate beautiful and profound works. I scored a 92 on the test, but this can be attributed to my knowledge of playing around with paint programs on the computer, not my knowledge of modern abstract art. The two-color squiggled lines is something that I have done myself, messing around with MS Paint, and have seen various friends do. Also, the overtly pixel-like work was obvious.
Title: Art Test
Post by: Anonymous on June 06, 2006, 12:45:36 PM
I liked number 6.
(which was a fake)

The rest looked; kinda; whatever.

So, I would guess that makes me a chimp.
Title: art quiz
Post by: enamel on February 06, 2007, 04:23:07 PM
i do like art but i have only visited a the art museum in chicago once maybe 5 years ago and i hade a class in highschool but other then that dont know anything about art and i got  a 100% guess i could tell the ones made with MS paintbrush
Title: Got 100% on the true art quiz
Post by: Alla on February 10, 2007, 04:20:02 PM
Recognized all of the classics except for the last one right away.
For the last one, I could tell that it was an artist's serious endeavor, and not random tests like the other fakes.
The only one I had to think about for a moment was the dragon-looking one with teeth. However, it was definitely manufactured on the fly.
Title: the art quiz
Post by: WEC on February 23, 2007, 01:51:27 PM
How do you know that with this quiz you are not simply testing whether or not a person recognizes the particular piece displayed?  If anyone recognizes a piece, then all the psychological baggage of whatever they 'know' about that artist comes into play.  For this quiz to provide meaningful results, every single piece displayed would have to be unknown works.  Which is no problem for the 'fake' ones, but a big problem for 'real' ones.  As it is you are  measuring socialization.
Title: Re: the art quiz
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on February 23, 2007, 07:34:31 PM
Quote from: "WEC"
How do you know that with this quiz you are not simply testing whether or not a person recognizes the particular piece displayed? ... For this quiz to provide meaningful results, every single piece displayed would have to be unknown works.

Actually, I estimated the fraction of the masterpieces previously seen by an average quiz-taker. Results of the quiz are quite meaningful and very scandalous (http://ecclesiastes911.net/properly_prescribed.html).
Title: Art Test
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2007, 02:01:22 PM
Tell you what, when you actually get some paint and canvas and run this test with actual paintings instead of tiny reproductions, let me know.  Scale, surface texture, subtlety of brush marks all are lost when paintings are viewed on the computer, particularly when the images are small and cannot be zoomed in on.  You can keep claiming your results are significant all you want, but that does not make it so.  Of course you have a vested interest in believing they are meaningful, don't you?  Maybe mama didn't love you enough.
Title: Art Test
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on March 09, 2007, 11:41:56 PM
Quote from: "Anonymous"
Of course you have a vested interest in believing they are meaningful, don't you?  Maybe mama didn't love you enough.

And you think them to be art? Did your mama drop you on the floor head down?
Title: Pollock or birds?
Post by: Akapodon Xela on April 06, 2007, 03:16:29 PM
They were all feathery jobs a la Pollock  :lol:
Title: Re: Pollock or birds?
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on April 07, 2007, 02:25:13 PM
Quote from: "Akapodon Xela"
They were all feathery jobs a la Pollock  :lol:

Note for casual reader: This comment is apparently related to Pollock, or birds? (http://reverent.org/pollock_or_birds.html) quiz.
Title: Art Test
Post by: lin on May 21, 2007, 09:12:17 PM
I get 12/12 correct.
I confess that I've seen some of the real artisitic works, yet the fakes, except the black and red, crocodile-like one, are easy to recognize. Maybe the color and the line of the fakes can be more delicate.
well, maybe I'm too serious....never mind.
Title: Art Test
Post by: NicceL on May 22, 2007, 05:20:17 AM
Ok, so I - with a mild interest in art (atleast abstract), and what I thought inability to understand abstract art scored 100%. It should be said thue that I was quite unsure and thought for a while and was severly helped by the notion about the half-fake, half-true relationship - that is a severe flaw I must say. Comments per pic:

1. My spontaneous reaction was to call it fake but upon a more thourough look it looks like coming from a creative process. There are certain details that convinced me.

2. Not have I only, and possibly all test-takers, seen this pattern on numerous places but it sure just looks good to the eye.

3. Partly representative.

4. Again, looks good to the eye differenting from number 10 who had severe colour clashes.

5. What is there to say more than that this couldn't have been made free-hand.

6. Tendency to symmetry and partly representative, draws focus away from colour-form relationship which is the abstract foundation.

7.  :roll:

8. Clearly art. Not only crafted with advance techniques but also investigating colour relationships.

9. Rothko. As for number 2, possibly all test-takers recognize this.

10. see no 4

11. As for number 6

12. Again, form-colour relationship make it look appealing.
Title: Art Test
Post by: semaj on June 25, 2007, 06:56:45 PM
Scored a 67% on this, but what needs to be taken into account is that replies can be justified. For instance, the Klee painting isn't particularly interesting, and the Kandinsky gets a value judgment as being a study, not art. I was pretty sure I had seen 6 & 11 somewhere before, so I misattributed them, though I wouldn't have called them great art - and therein's the crux of the problem: the question is to tell the "true masterpieces" from the junk, without acknowledging that, even in terms of abstract art, there are variations of quality. The "famous vs. unknown artist" quiz better conveys the discrepancy between quality and junk by being more apples to apples (an 83% for me on that; missed the rather boring Gauguin and overestimated one Churchill as possibly a boring famous work); I've seen a test like that with abstract art which was a better one than this. The ability to tell the difference in something like that is based upon more minute aspects of the way art works, rather than a slapdash junking of abstraction based on "true masterpieces" and "fakes" when both are actually arbitrary terms.

Yes, I like abstract art. And yes, it's really easy to make shitty abstract art - even "immortal masters" did so. And while we're listing things based around your tests, yes, monkeys can make some really nice paintings (Michael the Gorilla's "Apple Chase (http://www.koko.org/world/art_portraits.html#APPLE)" is a personal favourite), and the "Pollock or Birds" is such an obvious joke.
Title: Art Test
Post by: Anonymous on July 15, 2007, 03:03:43 PM
I scored 87%, mostly by trying to tell apart scanned photographs from images created directly on the computer.

Something interesting happened at number 2, though. I am not much of an art knower, but the name "Mondrian" somehow popped into my head when I saw the  image. I don't think I have heard that name uttered since high school 15 years ago, but something must have stuck. However, the question then is, is this a real Mondrian or a fake one? It would be fairly easy to cook up something that looks sufficiently Mondrian-like to fool me, particularly if one had a few samples of actual Mondrian available as a style reference.

The point is, I think, that it is not too clear to a taker of this test whether the task is to distinguish between masterpieces and parodies of particular masterpieces, or to distinguish between masterpieces and parodies of the more general idea of nonfigurative art. It becomes a guess-the-tester's-intentions game just as much as an experiment in recognizing actual excellence.

In the end I tagged #2 as real only due to the signs of brushwork  at its lower left, end I didn't think that so much effort would be invested in a casual fakery for a web quiz.
Title: loved the quiz
Post by: slji on July 19, 2007, 06:26:38 AM
I got a 67%. I think the only reason I scored above chance level (which is 50%, by the way people -- 50% is equivalent to random guessing) is because I recognized 1-2 of the real art pieces, and I could tell another 1-2 of them were created on canvas. It is true, though -- I think that modern art is not that hard to make. I do believe that these artists will in general create better, more meaningful, more aesthetically pleasing pieces than the average person, but the differences is quite small so what's the point of paying thousands to buy a work of art from these people?
Title: Art Test
Post by: Marin County on July 23, 2007, 12:27:08 AM
I work for a living. I drive a Ford truck. Against all odds, I managed a score of 83....no mean feat for an avowed philistine on whom the subtleties of modern "art" are utterly lost. Not so long ago a girlie friend (a N.Y.C. native of a deeply provincial bent) brought over the DVD of "Pollock".."good" I says to myself..at least I can oggle  Marcia Gay Harden's cute/funny little nose. Nothin' doin'..NY Girl proceeded to provide her own unintentionally hilarious SAP to "help" me "get it". "Oh..oh look! The intensity in the technique"! "She (Krasner) is setting her own career aside for him"! This went on for a while then she turns to me and says  "You just don't KNOW how exciting the New York art scene is , I mean..you've never been there..well , you know"

  I was preparing to give her a goodly dose of Left Coast righteous wrath when through my torpor I see ole' Poll' take his final ride in that Long White Cadillac...Kerrang! I loved it...couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. "My turn" I say to myself. "Well Dear, I don't ever want to see New York. And I think the whole New York art scene is a soulless, culture-wrecking swindle with fools on both sides of the money"

     "Oh" says she.   "More cognac"?

     

         John Lennon was right about Picasso

         John Cale was right about John Lennon

         Travis Bickle was right about John Cale...or was it New York?
Title: Pro artist gets a 92
Post by: peterohalloran on July 23, 2007, 01:21:33 PM
I am a professional artist and got a 92.  The Kandinsky color study threw me off.  What this shows is not that I can recognize masterpieces over what you call "fake art" but that I am familiar with the styles and works of artists who have been held up as masters.  I would like to make a few points.  First, not all works of art made by masters are masterpieces.  The Kandinsky is a color study, yes?  Not done in his signature style, and probably not considered very significant by the artist.  Any scrap of paper with a masters signature has value, might be hung in a museum, or be part of a "collection", but that has little bearing on its relative merit as art.  I think to call your attempts at art "fakes" is a misstatement.  Fakes are made to deliberately fool someone into thinking what you have made was produced by someone else.  A fake is an attempt to either copy a particular work or a style for the purpose of deception.  I don't see that here.  You have made genuine original works of art.  Their merit as art is subject to debate.  I would be delighted to give you a critique.  The validity of any results of your experiment here will be suspect, I'm afraid, unless you make more of an effort to produce some fakes.
Title: Re: Art Test
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on July 24, 2007, 03:27:11 PM
Quote from: "Marin County"
I work for a living. I drive a Ford truck. Against all odds, I managed a score of 83....no mean feat for an avowed philistine on whom the subtleties of modern "art" are utterly lost.

It may be surprising to you, but not to me. I discovered that the so-called intellectuals score on the test almost like the common folks. (See the scientific analysis of the results of the quiz (http://ecclesiastes911.net/properly_prescribed.html).)

These pseudo-intellectuals work hard to cheat you and me into beleiving that they are smarter, but in reality they are not.

Quote from: "Marin County"
And I think the whole New York art scene is a soulless, culture-wrecking swindle with fools on both sides of the money

You are right on the money.

Quote from: "peterohalloran"
I am a professional artist and got a 92.

Not a brilliant achievement for such an advanced individual as yourself. A truck driver one post ahead of you got an 83. Now I would like to see how you can handle an 18-wheeler. I suspect that you will wreck it somewhere into a ditch, sit there and cry like Paris Hilton.

Quote from: "peterohalloran"
The Kandinsky is a color study, yes? Not done in his signature style, and probably not considered very significant by the artist. Any scrap of paper with a masters signature has value, might be hung in a museum, or be part of a "collection", but that has little bearing on its relative merit as art..

They sell the posters of Color Study everywhere.
Title: Art Test
Post by: Bread on September 01, 2007, 02:23:17 PM
I got a 75% without any experience in art in any form.  Thing is, some of them looked like they were made with brushes, not a computer - especially 8 and 9.  There's a little imperfection in #2, I think - it looks like it's a photo of an actual work as opposed to something you made yourself and uploaded.  The blurriness of 7 and the pixelization of 5 make them seem computer-made.  I'd made ones like 6 and 11 myself just by screwing around in Word and Paint, so I was pretty sure they were fake, too.  I had to guess on the rest, but the point of the quiz is upheld by the fact that I couldn't get any of them based on artistic merit.  Knowing that you had put very little time into making the fakes, and having a little bit of experience making cool-looking line drawings and so on using a computer, I could guess what a few of them were, and that's it.  This is a very interesting site and concept.  The funny thing is, I don't dislike modern art by any means.  I just don't think it takes any special talent to create much of it.
Title: Re: Art Test
Post by: Hzhane on July 15, 2009, 07:30:53 PM
             I just depend my answers on my interpretation of the art work by the artist.



_________________
California Orange County Lawyer (http://skbesq.com/)
Title: Re: Art Test
Post by: artangel134 on April 02, 2010, 04:50:48 PM
I think it's very unusual that when I looked at the article about the results, and It said an art critic got a lower score than I did. I got a 100%. Did I mention I'm not out of MIDDLE SCHOOL yet? It was really quite easy to tell what was art and what wasn't. The fake art lacked any fluidity or meaning, more like it was an optical illusion thrown on paper..
Title: Re: Art Test
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on April 04, 2010, 12:57:29 PM
I think it's very unusual that when I looked at the article about the results, and It said an art critic got a lower score than I did. I got a 100%. Did I mention I'm not out of MIDDLE SCHOOL yet?
There is nothing unusual here. Check out the video where unsuspecting advanced art critics are praising a painting produced by children even younger than yourself:


It was really quite easy to tell what was art and what wasn't. The fake art lacked any fluidity or meaning, more like it was an optical illusion thrown on paper..
Lacked what fluidity? Perhaps you mean what other people call pixelated (because generated using a computer)? Anyway, there is a quiz where you are not going to get a 100% : Bremen Artists (http://reverent.org/bremen_artists.html).
Title: Re: Art Test
Post by: Joanna Casey on June 14, 2011, 02:20:41 AM
I'm currently studying Fine Art Photography and I found this test very interesting.  I scored 92%, and I would have scored 100% if I hadn't missed one of the questions, which I would have marked with the right answer.  This score was a relief because it shows I have learnt some art history!  I looked long and hard at the images and even though I didn't know all the 'real' works and made a couple of educated guesses, there was just something about the quality of the fakes that made them seem fake.  Who knows what brain processes made me make the right choices.  I think it would  be interesting to get a group of children with little knowledge of art history to take the test and see what they make of it.