Old news. This guy and this particular work were mentioned on the web a year or two ago, perhaps before that assuming I didn’t see it then. Some are true enough, but many like this one are false constructions.
Who here, especially artists, believes this formula is true? Is addition even the correct operation?
Haha … it’s a simplistic view. I agree, tudza, there is waaay more to being an arist than just merely being ‘able’ to do something. ‘you didn’t', to me, means that you didn’t because you didn’t live the life that created that piece of art. ‘you didn’t’ because although you may be physically able to put that yellow dot on a canvas, you didn’t because in fact, you are not ‘able’… because it is not yours to put there … it didn’t come of your unique exploration and experience. Make any sense? Juliette
Srsly, the way to stop people complaining that modern art is crap is not to make smug little cracks and sell them for a zillion bucks an inkjet-printed copy. Relevance to the world around you would be a great start, but I suppose if that were what your rich patrons wanted then you’d already be doing it.
It all just depends on whether you think skill is necessary to express things in a profound way.
People’s life experiences add up to their opinions; some opinions are insightful and others aren’t, but expressing an insightful opinion doesn’t automatically make you a poet. Expressing that opinion in a way that skillfully makes use of language to convey the truth of that opinion to makes you a poet. Otherwise its just an opinion.
So likewise you could argue that using your medium skillfully to express the truth of an idea makes you an artist.
In a lot of people’s views modern art is just like opinion, a not of points of view and no substance.
Just because I didn’t think of it it doesn’t nesiserily give any value to the quality of the work or even make it art, and maybe many genuine artists did think of something similar but realized it was utter bullshit. And before you jump ship to the conceptual relm, a couple of brush strokes doesn’t say anything well. maybe, just maybe stop placing your philosophy on these works, the artist probably didn’t, because they know what they are selling they are selling the bullshit to you, so you can fill their blank canvases for them. You defend it because you can’t paint or create, wishing ever so desperately you could. And when you do go out and buy the best paint brushes you can with the best paints you can afford, it’s still terrible work. You know it, but to comfort yourself you just jump on board the conceptual train putting your half baked philosophy’s on terrible art. This still doesn’t give any value to the quality of the work. And finally You accept and support it and say it over and over, this idea, so that your hope of being a philosopher can live on vicariously through the art history gize. Which is destroying what you pretend to love.
Yes I’m aware I can’t spell but apparently skill doesn’t matter to you