Author Topic: True art  (Read 76603 times)

Mikhail Simkin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: True art
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2008, 03:43:25 PM »
The problem is that the article implies that truly exceptional art can be distinguished from computer art despite the fact that the masterpieces have been shrunk down, their colors have been reduced to whatever quality one's computer screen allows, and their distance from the observer cannot be adjusted in any practical way. What is lost when a painting becomes a .BMP? Plenty. You're not comparing works of art: you're comparing the digital re-productions of art with other digital productions.
This is not the first time I hear this objection. I wrote the special article Let us be fair to Malevich to address these concerns.

Peter

  • Guest
Re: True art
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2008, 07:29:48 PM »
From the link, Mr. Simkin assumes that simple magnification makes up for the quality lost when a masterpiece is digitally reproduced. That's simplistic. Not only do you lose the image's detail when a painting is digitally reproduced, but you lose the color range as well. Not only do you lose the color range, but you also lose the circumstances available to the viewer of the original piece--sometimes the point of modern art involves its context, i.e. the lighting, the wall color, the position within a gallery, etc.

And to answer your question, "Are my opponents now happy?" simply no. I don't think your glib response adequately resolves the problems of the study. While I think your study is valuable inasmuch as it provokes further interest in the definition of art, I still find it lacking, still for the reasons I described in my earlier post. As a scientist, you should work to find a better way to disprove the talent of the artists you interrogate than using a joke, which is what your link ultimately is. Maybe redesign the study with non-digital objects and no computer screens.

Mikhail Simkin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: True art
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2008, 08:31:00 PM »
From the link, Mr. Simkin assumes that simple magnification makes up for the quality lost when a masterpiece is digitally reproduced. That's simplistic.
That simple magnification did a lot of service to Brullov's painting.

Not only do you lose the image's detail when a painting is digitally reproduced, but you lose the color range as well.
What color range was lost in Malevich's masterpiece? Does the original painting have different black color then the image on the screen?

Not only do you lose the color range, but you also lose the circumstances available to the viewer of the original piece--sometimes the point of modern art involves its context, i.e. the lighting, the wall color, the position within a gallery, etc.
And, most importantly, the names of the gallery and of the artist.

And to answer your question, "Are my opponents now happy?" simply no.
Of course. Nobody is happy to lose an argument.

As a scientist, you should work to find a better way to disprove the talent of the artists you interrogate than using a joke, which is what your link ultimately is.
I am not waterboarding Malevich. I just exhibit his work alongside real art and it becomes a torture for Malevich's admirers.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 08:33:01 PM by Mikhail Simkin »

i

  • Guest
Chimp quiz
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2008, 02:49:30 PM »
We get it: most people hate abstract art. 

But those of us who study it do a lot better on the monkey quizzes. 

For a good book on frauds, read F is for Fake, the biography of Elmir de Hora (sic), rumored to be the greatest art forger of the 20th Century.  That will make for a more interesting discussion than blustering over chimpanzees.

flake

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: True art
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2008, 08:59:16 PM »
Just found this site, nice. You all need revise your take of Marshall McLuhan. I have yet to experience art on the internet other than the phenomenon of utube.

harico

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: True art
« Reply #35 on: February 10, 2008, 05:40:31 AM »
    I scored 83%. The Klee threw me, I thought you had cleverly tried to fake a Klee and outsmarted myself! As to the question why does this stuff belong in museums and our own random blotches don't; the answer is partly historical precedent. Pollock ,Kandinsky and all the 20th century pioneers of non-representative art had the courage to go out and discover new continents of expression and aesthetic experience, freeing us to discover our own. I 'see' Pollocks and Rothkos all the time, in hedgerows, sunsets, weathered doors etc.
     That apart, it has always puzzled me why of all the 'difficult' arts abstract art gets such a hard ride from joe public. My guess is that its down to the essential nature of visual arts: you take it all in at a glance. No-one could honestly declare, say, Joyce's Ulysses to be a load of rubbish without first having made an attempt to read the thing. The (imagined?) effort itself demands respect and a certain amount of humility. Looking at a painting though? Anyone can do that!
    If you're interested in the deeper structures in Pollock work and a possible explanation for his lasting reputation as an artist, you could do worse than take this article as a starting point. 

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock

   I am enjoying your blog, but if you re-stage this experiment maybe you should consider producing work on paper or canvas, and see how the results stand up...you might also consider using less 'iconic' abstract painters for comparison, there are thousands of good ones out there. The fact that the images were so recognizable and yours so obviously computer generated undermined the value of the exercise a bit, I thought. I hope this doesn't come across as too snide or snipey, I really have found this to be an enjoyable and stimulating exercise and I'm just about to go and take all your other tests.

artangel134

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: :-)
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2010, 05:09:01 PM »
I scored 50%.
I would like to note that I dont believe in the existence of art in the way most people see it.

This test proves that. The only people who could "see" the real thing from yours were those who knew the art pieces from before.


I would like to point out that I indeed scored a 100% on this quiz. I knew NONE of the pieces before me, and I don't really have much art experience except for a few art classes at school.
"If I were a better artist, I'd be a painter, and if I were a better writer, I'd write books.. but I'm not, so I draw cartoons!" - Charles M. Schulz

beckylup

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: True art
« Reply #37 on: August 03, 2010, 11:13:22 PM »
WOW! this is truly stupid! i got 33%! everything that i put as fake art was true art! i mean, anyone can draw that stupid picture wih a huge black circle, and u call that true art! wow. true art is not that crap that they showed a second ago.i can draw myown squigly lines...

brianvds

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
    • Brian's Notebook
    • Email
Re: True art
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2011, 07:55:30 AM »
The question of real art versus parodies or animal art keeps on fascinating me. I scored 83% in the quiz, so most of the time I managed to distinguish between the work of famous artists and animals or untrained artists with a computer. But the thing is, I know a bit about art history, so I recognized some of the work, or at least the style. And I notice in some other messages that some people did well by simply noting which pieces were obviously done with a computer.

I think a better test might be this: give a few people examples of the work of, say, Rothko to study for a few days. Then have them all paint fake Rothkos (mind you, NOT by copying real Rothkos, but by making their own in the same style). Mix these up with real Rothkos, and redo the quiz. It will already eliminate one objection, namely that the masterpieces lose something in the reduction to computer screen size, because now both real and fake art works will be at the same disadvantage. I have a feeling that in this test, only people who know Rothko's work well enough to recognize specific works will do much better than chance.

But there is a larger issue here, I think. I scored 100% on the Pollock/bird poop quiz. It is pretty easy to distinguish Pollock from bird droppings once you are familiar with his style. But here's the question: is his work actually better than bird poop? After all, it is pretty easy to distinguish the handwriting of, say, Barack Obama from that of Nelson Mandela, once you are familiar with their handwriting. But does this mean one's writing is in any way superior to that of the other? The mere fact that you can distinguish A from B does not necessarily tell you much about whether A is any better than B.

The question isn't really whether we can distinguish between the fine motor skills of an experienced adult and that of an animal, child or person inexperienced with a brush. It seems to me reasonable that most people would fare better than chance on such a test. But what if you took an artistically inexperienced adult and gave him a month's crash course in abstract expressionism, and then had him paint ab-ex works? Are the "experts" going to be able to tell the difference? And if any average person can become an expert abstract expressionist in a month, then what does that tell us about the prices fetched by some of these works of art?

But with these issues there will always be endless room for debate. Perhaps it is kind of obvious that there is little mastery to producing a Pollock or Rothko. But what about Picasso or Matisse? Or Van Gogh, whose work is technically rather crude but enjoys very great and apparently very real popularity, not just among learned "experts" but even lay people, and is more popular than the work of technically far more skilled artists? What about the work of non-western artists, that follow a completely different aesthetic?

I have not quite worked out for myself what I think about that... ;-)

As an aside, it might be useful to do a similar quiz on whether people can distinguish some 20th century classical music from random noise... ;-)
Brian
brianvds.blogspot.com

Mikhail Simkin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: True art
« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2011, 01:05:32 PM »
But there is a larger issue here, I think. I scored 100% on the Pollock/bird poop quiz. It is pretty easy to distinguish Pollock from bird droppings once you are familiar with his style. But here's the question: is his work actually better than bird poop? After all, it is pretty easy to distinguish the handwriting of, say, Barack Obama from that of Nelson Mandela, once you are familiar with their handwriting. But does this mean one's writing is in any way superior to that of the other? The mere fact that you can distinguish A from B does not necessarily tell you much about whether A is any better than B.
Since the great majority of people get 100%, Pollock is better than his fellow drippers. If they merely could tell them apart, they woulde be equally likely to score 0% as 100%. BTW, in  Bulwer-Dickens  quiz people get 0% and 100% equally often.

But what about Picasso or Matisse?
Did you read the history of creation of the quiz, or named those two by chance? The mentioned picture also enjoys some popularity

brianvds

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
    • Brian's Notebook
    • Email
Re: True art
« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2011, 10:23:15 PM »
Since the great majority of people get 100%, Pollock is better than his fellow drippers. If they merely could tell them apart, they would be equally likely to score 0% as 100%.

In other words, people cannot just tell them apart, they can tell which is the art and which the bird droppings. I'm not sure this necessarily makes the drippings better than the droppings, because most people have some idea of what a bird mess looks like, and Pollock's paintings do not quite look like it. But I'm not sure they actually look any better either. Most people would probably also be able to tell pools of vomit from bird droppings, and tell you which is which, but I'm not sure that makes a pool of vomit a superior artistic statement to bird droppings.  ;-)

Did you read the history of creation of the quiz, or named those two by chance? The mentioned picture also enjoys some popularity

I did read the article, but then forgot that you mentioned Picasso and Matisse. I doubt whether your computer created art actually resembled Picasso? Perhaps the people you showed it to didn't know Picasso? His name has become a sort of byword for modernist excess, but his work is actually mostly relatively conservative, and almost all of it is more or less representational. Much of it doesn't really look like child or monkey art. Whether one needs to be particularly skilled to come up with it is another question. A Picasso quiz might be an interesting exercise, though once again one will run into the problem of many of his images being well known. Monkey art or child art it clearly isn't. Great art? Perhaps that's a subjective judgement...













Brian
brianvds.blogspot.com