reverent entertainment

reverent forums => Art-Books-Music => Topic started by: JLNobody on July 28, 2006, 09:40:22 PM

Title: Ape or artist
Post by: JLNobody on July 28, 2006, 09:40:22 PM
I checked them all as "artist". After seeing the "correct" answers, I still think I was right.  I would love to paint like that monkey.


This post is about  An artist or an ape? (http://reverent.org/an_artist_or_an_ape.html) quiz --admin
Title: Ape or artist
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on July 28, 2006, 10:05:25 PM
I can understand someone wishing to paint like Leonardo, but why you want to paint like an ape?
Title: Ape or artist
Post by: Some art Ignoramous on January 03, 2007, 04:28:14 PM
Personally, i really really liked the first painting done by the Ape (Blue, black, white, and a dash of crimson on a background of off-white).  The color choice and arrangement was very pleasing to me, although i wasn't impressed in the slightest by the other ape compositions.
Title: Ape or artist
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on January 07, 2007, 03:42:35 PM
How about this one:

(http://www.brookfieldzoo.org/pagegen/images/fix/pintopaints23.jpg)

Swine Pigcasso from a Chicago zoo creates a masterpiece of abstract art.

(from: http://www.brookfieldzoo.org/pgpages/pagegen.202.aspx )
Title: Ape or artist
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2007, 01:52:40 PM
I got 100% on this test, as did several other respondents apparently.  Even with the tiny little images the total random actions of the ape are easy to seperate from the loose actions of the man.
Title: Ape or artist
Post by: Anonymous on September 01, 2007, 02:36:30 PM
100% as well, though you could have picked harder human paintings.  Guest is right - while there are plenty of human paintings that are random paint smearings, you didn't pick any.  That said, I thought the first and last paintings by the monkey looked good, too.  You don't need to be a brilliant artist of any kind to make pictures that look good.  I think the problem is more people's tendency to idolize people who make good art and see them as more than they really are.  Jackson Pollock was someone who was capable of making cool-looking abstract paintings.  Then again, so was Congo.
Title: art, or just abstract nothingness
Post by: bama on October 15, 2007, 11:53:07 AM
these quizzes truly show that abstract art can be done by an ape, elephant, or any other creature you can tie a brush to...its not true art but an idea of expression, picked by someone who claims they're an expert in art....
art is truly in the eye of the beholder....im tired and bored of absrtact art, i get better abstract art from my 8 month old daughter and a box of crayolas free of charge...
Title: ape or artist
Post by: jamaican rose on October 18, 2007, 04:18:30 PM
100%!  I'm so awesome! (OK- my kids helped me)
Title: 100%
Post by: prying1 on November 30, 2007, 12:37:31 AM
I got 100% and was I surprised. - I didn't know i was so smart. - Guess I'll give up my day job and become an art critic.

P.S. Please don't ask me to take it again. I'll probably get zero the second time around.  :roll:
Title: Re: Ape or artist
Post by: Joel on February 10, 2008, 12:02:48 AM
I overanalyzed and got 86%. It was pretty obvious which paintings were definitely done by human beings. Are we really not supposed to notice composition and design? If the idea was that they were all supposed to look random, I dissent. It was immediately clear that #3 and #6 were designed and not random splotches (look at the perspective in #6, and the way the black lines outline almost-human shapes. And in #3 there's an obvious pattern there). #4, too, is pretty orderly. Where I lost a few points was in presuming you were trying to be tricky, and take some more-or-less random-looking human paintings and pass them off as ape art. #2 is an ugly, sloppy mess and I knew right away it was the work of an ape. But I actually liked #1 and #5 - maybe it helps that they must have been painted on blue and black paper (whereas the other one was an ugly brown) and I assumed the backgrounds were painted as well. They did look pretty random, but I though perhaps they were random paintings by a person.

I have to say that though these quizzes are interesting your attitude is off-putting. I guess there are some art snobs out there who like to wave around their degrees and sniff at "plebians" but I tend to respond to works based on how they affect me. If your implication is that people are only pretending to respond to abstract art, I actually find that attitude more pretentious than that of the supposed snob's. How do you know what has an effect on me? How do you know what leads to a particular response? Why presume that just because you don't "get" something (and there's plenty I don't get too) the emperor has not clothes?

By the way, no person designed the Grand Canyon. It's still a pretty amazing sight.
Title: Re: Ape or artist
Post by: Matt on February 10, 2008, 06:47:09 AM
I got 100%.  An early composition lesson is to fill the frame.  You can sort the apes from the humans just by looking to the edges of the paper/canvas.

Title: Re: Ape or artist
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on February 11, 2008, 09:17:46 PM
your attitude is off-putting.
I simply convey the discoveries which I made during my idealistic quest for knowledge. Thus, it is not my attitude, but the truth, what is off-putting to you.

If your implication is that people are only pretending to respond to abstract art, I actually find that attitude more pretentious than that of the supposed snob's.

Please check out this eye-opening video:

Title: Re: Ape or artist
Post by: feo takahari on April 04, 2010, 10:09:11 PM
I found an alternate way of getting 100%. I marked anything with solely blotches and near-straight lines as "ape," and anything with curved lines as "artist." Apparently, apes don't draw angles very well.
Title: Re: Ape or artist
Post by: mtgradwell on May 13, 2010, 04:47:50 AM
100%. The only marginal one was #5 - nice use of colour, and it could be interpreted e.g. as two standing figures - an abstract version of Millet's Angelus, say - flanked by ghostly trees. But the elements were so few in number and so roughly constructed that it was obvious any apparent structure could have arisen by chance. That's not to say that the chimp isn't an artist, but chimps take a different approach to art than humans do.

If the aim is to criticise modern art, then a better approach would be to take the works of deliberately anti-art "artists" - those who slap the label "art" or random objects and don't make even the slightest attempt at composition - and compare their work with that of a chimp; not asking people if they can tell the difference, but rather asking them which one they prefer.
Title: Re: Ape or artist
Post by: Erik9adison on December 25, 2010, 12:06:13 AM
your attitude is off-putting.
I simply convey the discoveries which I made during my idealistic quest for knowledge. Thus, it is not my attitude, but the truth, what is off-putting to you.

If your implication is that people are only pretending to respond to abstract art, I actually find that attitude more pretentious than that of the supposed snob's.

Please check out this eye-opening video:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pj4MVtoNWZc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pj4MVtoNWZc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Brilliant video! I think this is what you call Modern art as well as Modern Brain...
Title: Re: Ape or artist
Post by: ratibor on October 12, 2015, 03:09:33 PM
This is how I got 100%:

I very quickly tried to decide if the picture contained something _d_e_p_i_c_t_e_d._ This one ape obviously did not have the intention to depict something. Had you included works of _a_c_t_i_o_n___p_a_i_n_t_i_n_g_ by humans, I could not have told them apart from the ape's random work.

So maybe it is the question of _w_h_i_c_h_ kind of art: The one that wants to tell us something and is using however abstract _d_e_p_i_c_t_i_o_n_s_ of whatever far-off objects (that can be very similar to pictograms or resulting letters) on _o_n_e_ side - or the one that counts on random process and respective outcome.

The latter only consists in the _c_h_o_i_c_e_ of the artist what to show/sell and what to put into the trash. No matter if you have a lot of random photographs, computer automated music compositions, or action painting results - the art is to choose what _b_y___c_h_a_n_c_e_ is up to art standards. So I could actually choose from the ape's work something that would look nice on a white wall above my sofa, i.e. what is _d_e_c_o_r_a_t_i_v_e_  and could serve as a replacement for a wallpaper. The prole would just pick the least unpleasant wallpaper in the store around the corner and I would prin out the least unpleasant picture made by the ape, frame it and hang it above the sofa. To be clear: I could do so with the human artworks that you chose as well, only that it is not their _p_u_r_p_o_s_e_!_ On the side of the buyer, it still can be!
Title: Re: Ape or artist
Post by: Mikhail Simkin on November 23, 2015, 07:22:00 PM
Had you included works of _a_c_t_i_o_n___p_a_i_n_t_i_n_g_ by humans, I could not have told them apart from the ape's random work.
There actually was in the quiz one action painting by Pollock.

This is how I got 100%
You will find this quiz far more difficult: Bremen Artists (http://reverent.org/bremen_artists.html)