Abstract Art - why talk about it if you don't get it.

[i-need-a-martini]

I volunteer at a regional gallery and get to meet some wonderful, weird and wacky people.

But the ones that get up my goat are the ones who say "That looks like something a 5 year old would do." and expect me to agree with them.

And whilst we have a lot of community exhibitions that are amateurish enough (so perhaps the comment may be fair enough), the comment is usually reserved for iconic artists in major travelling exhibitions who are extremely well known.

Does anyone here like abstract art? And if you really hate it, why?

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@janeababe wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@j*oono wrote:

Martini, I can see now how there are some people that you'd never want to guide through an art gallery.

---

Oh my god yes lol! I thought I'd come back from lunch to a few comments and I got this...

No offense all but please stay away from me on a Saturday morning lol. Or at least keep your opinions to yourselves. Because saying out loud "this could be done by a 5 year old" whilst standing in front of a Fred Williams or Brett Whitely makes you look like a fool.

Sorry to be so blunt but there it is.

---

... You asked for opinions, then finish off by telling us that we are fools!
Just because YOU might like the works of Fred Williams or Brett Whitely doesn't mean we all do, and sorry to be blunt here... but I think their art is ridiculous, esp Brett Whitely.

Just because some like this art and some like that art , doesnt make them FOOLS! - or Uneducated! - and to suggest that some people should just stay away from art galleries *if they dont get it*  shows narrow-mindedness IMO. I like going to art galleries. That does not imply that I have to like the ART that is in there at that time!
And, each person to their own opinion, doesnt make them right or wrong.

You asked a question, but it seems you ONLY want people to agree with YOUR VIEWS on the subject!

---

I am afraid you are mistaking what you think I said with what I actually said.

I never said that anyone was a fool for not liking abstract art. In fact, I have said there is much abstract art (including the Duchamp piece) that I do not like. There is quite a bit of art (abstract and otherwise) that I detest.

What I DID say was that anyone (including you) would look foolish if they stood in front of a reknown work of art (such as a Whiteley or a Williams) that has a history and a story and exclaim "A 5 year old could do that!". 

As I also suggested, anyone can have an opinion on modern art. But there is a time and place to express that.

This thread started because I often encounter people who, after being given a lengthy explanation on a piece, will smugly tell me their 5 year old can do it. Do they really expect me to agree after I have just talked for 30mins about the qualities of the painting?

Even worse is when they say things like this to a curator who has worked hard to research, select and bargained for a piece to be shown in an exhibition and who is willing to donate professional time to explain pieces to the general public.

The phrase "A 5 year old could do it" when uttered out loud and particularly in a place where others are apprecitaing the art, is offensive.

And I will say it again, the person who is silly enough to say this in a gallery looks like a fool.

[j*oono]

Hear hear.

[poddster]

Do you mean to say that somthing looking like a duck is not a duck?

Interesting

[*pepe]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@j*oono wrote:

Martini, I can see now how there are some people that you'd never want to guide through an art gallery.

---

Oh my god yes lol! I thought I'd come back from lunch to a few comments and I got this...

No offense all but please stay away from me on a Saturday morning lol. Or at least keep your opinions to yourselves. Because saying out loud "this could be done by a 5 year old" whilst standing in front of a Fred Williams or Brett Whitely makes you look like a fool.

Sorry to be so blunt but there it is.

---

woud it be unkind of me to point out that getting well known sayings wrong also could make people look foolish to some?

if someone does not like a piece of art that has been put on display for people to review and give opinions on then why is it  the done thing to ridicule them for that opinion?

ever heard of 'different strokes for different folks' or 'live and let live'?

[i-need-a-martini]

Ok Pepe, let's put it another way - 

Your partner (mother, father, child, whatever) is in hospital and is being attended to by a nurse.

You watch her do her job for 30mins or so and then you say to her (or him) "Why would anybody want to be a nurse cause all they ever do is wipe peoples behinds. What a job!" Then you smirk as if you have said something really clever and walk away.

Regardless of what you THINK you know about what a nurse does, would you look real smart if you uttered this sentence?

And if you really were stupid enough to think this, would you really tell her this after she has just gone through the process of caring for your loved one? 

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@poddster wrote:

Do you mean to say that somthing looking like a duck is not a duck?

Interesting

---

See explanation for the Duchamp piece earlier for your answer to this.

[*pepe]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Ok Pepe, let's put it another way - 

Your partner (mother, father, child, whatever) is in hospital and is being attended to by a nurse.

You watch her do her job for 30mins or so and then you say to her (or him) "Why would anybody want to be a nurse cause all they ever do is wipe peoples behinds. What a job!" Then you smirk as if you have said something really clever and walk away.

Regardless of what you THINK you know about what a nurse does, would you look real smart if you uttered this sentence?

And if you really were stupid enough to think this, would you really tell her this after she has just gone through the process of caring for your loved one? 

---

you are comparing apples with oranges.

an artist puts their work on display, usually with the ultimate goal of selling that piece and making a name for themselves - if they or their agents choose to ridicule potential customers for their opinion I would say THAT is foolish.

[Anonymous]

i don't get your analogy.

did someone criticize your job?

[poddster]

Some wise words in the form of a drawing 🙂

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@poddster wrote:

Richo, how sad is that? Millions spent on carp, just because of the ramblings of an art critic/advisor. Even sadder that there are still some who would be willing to pay millions just so that they can say I have Blue Poles.

---

I am only just getting to some of these comments so will respond to a few if I have time -

Blue Poles is a classic example.

Would I want it on my wall at home. Not particularly. Can I appreciate what a work by Pollack represents? Absolutely! Do I enjoy looking at it when I visit ACT? Yep it is the first painting I go to.

I am no art expert but I do know that Jackson Pollacks art form defines a time in our art history that is critical. He was the leader of a new style of art that dominated Australian, Eurpoean and American art for a long time and he set the benchmark for Abstract Expressionism and the New York art world in the 30's through to the 50's.

Sure, I could say "I could have done that". Cause of course I could. A couple of large paint brushes and some dripping paint and some careful balance of colour and form. But I didn't. And more importantly, I would never have been able to do the work nor would I have had the thought processes that underpin Blue Poles.

And how lucky were we to have the amazing James Mollison as the Director of the National Gallery at the time? Because his astute recommendation that we purchase Blue Poles was the best single investment that any Australian state run gallery has EVER made.

That $1.3million dollar investment is now worth anywhere between $50-$100million.

I doubt if the ACT is terribly sad about that lol!