http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/5090878/

^ The above-linked journal is on the topic of the value of art. The following was my reply, and a full follow-up topic in its own right:

On this topic, I've had a bit of a debate in the past, both internally and with friends, if certain minimalist modern-art pieces can claim the same value. If I were to see in an art gallery, for example, a single black line drawn across an empty canvas, and art snobs enthusiasts were standing around declaring that single black line on a canvas to be utter genius and attributing it a value of hundreds of dollars... I would actually be a little angry. I'd be angry because I feel that art's value comes from the skill and lifetime of experience of the artist and the fact that most of us could not have made what any given individual artist gives to us, and that it is valuable because of that uniqueness (and partially due to the amount of effort an artist puts in to the work) whereas something like a single black line drawn across a canvas, literally any one of us could have made but none of us would have dared call it art. I feel angry when I see such minimalist pieces because they put them up next to the pieces such as Nocturne in Black and Gold and people say "this single line drawn on a canvas, that any one of us could have made, is of comparable value to this piece that only Whistler could have produced. This single brushstroke is equivalent to two days work. This lack of substance is as significant as this inspired vision".

What do you think? Is it a righteous anger or is it simply "not getting it" the same as someone who looks at any art and doesn't appreciate it?

Addendum: Anger is merely what I feel; I'm willing to accept that there IS something I'm not getting, if some person can explain it to me.




Update: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeAB.....inglePage=true

Samsaranmusing posted this link on Tumblr. It's very relevant to the discussion.

TL;DR summary: a news channel took some art by highly-acclaimed modern artists, along with some pieces painted by common four-year-olds and some stuff painted by monkeys and elephants and then quizzed not only common people but also professional art critics and art historians on how they ranked the pieces.

Nobody could tell them apart.

Actually the pieces by the prestigious and successful modern artists often rated lower than the four-year-olds' paintings.



I'm starting to think for certain that modern art is actually about intentionally making a big deal over nothing for the sole purpose of having an excuse to be snobby and materialistic.

On the other hand I do have one friend who thinks pretty highly of the minimalist stuff and defended it to me at one point; he actually has a brother who produced a successful fashion show in Canada not too long ago, with the fashions all homages to some specific artist I forget the name of. Admittedly, I thought it all looked pretty stupid and if I wanted to look at people strutting around in silly-looking and impractical "clothing" I'd just watch a Lady Gaga video or something.

We argued on the value of modern art quite heatedly but I don't recall what conclusions were drawn..