Why are people these days so interested in weird art?

Just because you don’t understand a work of art does not mean you should simply cast it aside as meaningless or think there’s very little skill or talent involved. Art is supposed to make one think critically and invoke emotion. From someone who enjoys and appreciates all forms of art, your view of art seems to be narrow and closed to all but what you think has artistic value or talent.

Errrr, I tend to agree more with Glow. If it’s something that I can easily emulate, I don’t tend to think of it as art.

I enjoy mixed media art and abstract painting. I enjoy it because it makes me think and also provokes an immediate emotional response.

Now I have seen art that was “weird” and didn’t interest me but I just let it be.

Art is expression and is sometimes just about the artist. It is healthy to allow them to express themselves so even if you don’t get it or enjoy it just take heart knowing that it was healthy (probably) for the artist to create that piece.

Art is expression and we will never all agree on what we like and dislike. But the freedom of expression is what drives some people to create “weird” art. Just that they have the freedom to express themself in whatever way they want. And that is a great thing (whether we like the outcome or not, lol).

@syz – Why should it matter if you can easily emulate it or not? That’s not the purpose of art. It doesn’t mean it’s not art or there’s no skill or thought involved.

@KrystaElyse – I did not one time mention in my questions description that the art style was meaningless and it just boils my blood for some one like yourself to make assumptions about my views on various forms of art. All that there is is that I do not understand the art form and thus can not appreciate it.

I do agree with you RedPowerLady. Art is indeed an expression and these people are simply expressing themselves. Thing is, I just want to know why it seems that this style of art has become most popular these days, especially amongst college students. Are people bored with the other forms of art?

I think of art as requiring skill – if I can emulate it, it’s not skilled. And if art requires no skill or thought involved (your words), then what the hell value does it have?

Why is having artistic skill or talent a requirement towards creating art?

Perhaps, if you find it hard to understand and thus appreciate it, you can take appreciation in the un-understanding. Someone was able to elicit a reaction from you which you did not have prior to encountering that art. That, in and of itself, is art.

We are already getting into the underlying question of “What is art?” And my friend, this is right alongside religion in questions that get discussed often but resolved rarely.

I’ve taken to deem art as being any unique expression, in any form, which did not exist prior to the artist creating it. The quilts I create are just as much art as any Michelangelo painting, they are just as unique and expressive as any of his paintings, in fact mine has an advantage cause it can keep you warm!

Looking at an “art” that is a broken equipment piece: Someone took the time and effort to purposefully break that object and present it as art. The artist could be making a statement, equally they could not. The simple fact is that the expression did not exist before the artist created it.

@syz roughly said: And if art requires no skill or thought involved, then what the hell value does it have?
Why does it need to have value? If it can still express something, is that not value?

I guess it comes down to semantics, for me. Art, in my opinion, is different than expression.

@Glow lol, maybe they are bored, would make sense with this age of fast technology where everything is fast and changing all the time. And my apologies if I misunderstood the question

I never took an art history class but as I understand it forms of art do change throughout history. At one point in time different forms of art would be more prevalent. Maybe someone with art history experience can illuminate why certain forms of art are prevalent during certain periods in time. It might help us understand our current time frame and why people are engaging in such abstract art in larger numbers.

I really think a lot of it is about freedom of expression that has not always been available. Also as a way to have a voice against all the wrong doings in the world. The peeing pictures for example seem to be a reflection on feminism or patriarchy.

@syz – How exactly is art different from expression ?

Art
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

etc. etc.

@KrystaElyse i was thinking the same thing

If I want to take a crap on a picture of Dubaya and display it, that’s expression. That’s not art. Not to me.

Because it’s different and offers an immediate reaction. In today’s fast paced world and mindset, anything that grabs your attention ‘quickly’ is well, likeable, I guess is the word I’m looking for. Most people I feel don’t really look into all the details anymore, they look into the general feel of something, and they don’t usually spend too much time even looking at that.

@syz All expression may not be art. But all Art is expression.

@RedPowerLady I can agree with that. So how do you differentiate? One of my criteria to differentiate is skill or talent. If I look at a Monet, I think “Wow, that’s an amazing piece of work”. I may look at a photo that expresses some complex emotion and think “I wish I could take a picture like that”. When I look at this piece, I do not think “art” (That’s an actual urinal, by the way, in no way modified, put in glass and displayed.)

@MooKoo I was thinking along those lines as well, well worded

I’d have to see the sequence before I could give an opinion.

Why are so many people drawn to Thomas Kinkade’s art?
http://www.thomaskinkade.com/

He’s awful, care-bear on canvas – No, non-art.

His blog gives a clue, and believe you me it was written to maximize sales, he knows his customer base.

I create paintings that inspire people. I paint things people believe in. Things like home, family, and the beauty of nature. We live in a crazy world and so much bombards us continuously! Life is just too complex. We have chaos all around us! Through my artwork, I want to remind you of the simpler things in life – things worth believing in.

Folksy nostalgia is never art, I don’t care for Norman Rockwell for similar reasons, although he as at least timely. He too relied on the heart-string effect of the idealized, simple life

@MooKoo Most people I feel don’t really look into all the details anymore, they look into the general feel of something

This is the expert’s take on it. Detail in painting was very important in times past as it was very hard to capture, not to mention labour intensive.

Even the great masters can not compete with a good photographer with photoshop skills. Highly detailed work has become easy to produce

I don’t like that kind of art either. I don’t deny that it is art, but it isn’t my kind of art. I prefer art that shows that it was difficult to create, where talent is displayed. Something I could do is not something I tend to enjoy in art. Because I am not an artist (for the most part—I am not a painter, let’s put it that way). I am a photographer, however, and I think this is why I am drawn to art that is more realistic because I like looking at photographs and taking them and when I see a painting that resembles a photograph 1) it must have been very difficult to paint and required much talent and 2) it’s more aesthetically pleasing to me.

I agree completely with @syz ‘s last comment.

I’d rather look at this over this any day. But that’s just me.

@RedPowerLady – Oh yes! Art history definitly will tell us more about this. Actually, I just got out of my art history class and the teacher spoke about salon de refuse’, I believe is what it is called. It was basically a selction of works in which the gallery owners considered laughable. Works such as this .I think the peeing pictures probably do have to say something about feminism, it is just that they are so visually unappealing, I have a hard time appreciating it. Its not that I choose to not appreciate it, I just have a hard time doing so.

@syz , the example of the toilet is exactly what im talking about when I say weird art. What I have noticed, is that people are now taking art styles such as this, and putting them into exhibitions/galleries. I very rarely see anything that is at all aesthetically appealing, and if I do, it is usually the minority.

Now, I am a firm believer that anything can be art. Art is a broad term. Math can be art. But, whether it is called ART or not, I cant help but wonder WHY people are appreciating this more than something we would see in the past, such as Venus of Urbino, Danae, or anything by Durer! Works that the artists spent grueling hours on to create. Now, since this type of art isnt my preferred type, I want to say something like “oh, they are just making excuses to create something and call it art and gain recognition, because they dont have the talent or skill or ability to do what Titian, Correggio, and Monet can do.” BUT, if some on out there who appreciates this form of art can back it up, than I can say otherwise. And thats what im looking for.

@Glow lol, i get what you mean about the peeing pictures being visually unappealing, I don’t knock the art at all, but i certainly have no desire to see what you are talking about

@Glow I think the peeing pictures probably do have to say something about feminism, it is just that they are so visually unappealing, I have a hard time appreciating it. Its not that I choose to not appreciate it, I just have a hard time doing so.

That’s what makes for good art actually, it’s suppose to make you uncomfortable and it’s meaning is very subtle. You either get it, or you don’t.

Works that the artists spent grueling hours on to create
bleh, read Michelangelo’s diaries from the Sistine chapel period, you can read for yourself how much he hated painting that damn ceiling. Who’s face is on Judas:D :D

Why should the value of a piece be dependant on how hard or long the artist worked?

Michelangelo also provides a counter example – his statue of David which is indeed impressive. People would comment how exquisite it was leading to his famous quote “David was always in he stone, I just chipped away the extra pieces”. That is what makes him an artistic genius – Most people would just see a big rock, he saw David.

As for detail, consider Audrey Flack(who is also an accomplished sculptor)
http://www.podgallery.com/images/gallery/3836A.jpg

That’s a painting, not a photo Which leads back to my previous response – It’s a very impressive display of artistic talent, but I could accomplish a similar feat using a camera and photoshop in a matter of hours.

@HarmonyAlexandria

Yes, you could copy it with Photoshop, but that doesn’t mean that talent isn’t a factor in what makes art appealing for some people. Even if your copied version looked the same, I would like the painting better on the knowledge that it is a painting and require more talent and ability to create. Some people don’t care about that when looking at art, but for others, it is part of art.

People like art that they haven’t seen before, innovations with media. The movements within modern art aren’t at all like the well known masterpieces of the Renaissance or Baroque era because the genres of painting that were valued (history paintings and religious scenes) expanded. Some of the modern pieces you see aren’t as easy to create as one would assume; Jackson Pollock was very precise with his splatter paintings, and they took quite a lot of effort. Did he recreate a 3D scene on a flat plane precisely? No. However, he managed to express something with his innovation with his creation process. Art requires skill, but not necessarily the type of skills one would think. An artist does not have to have the technical proficiency to draw a detailed recreation of a human body, interior space, or still life. An artist does not need to be able to sculpt marble or do bronze casting. An artist simply needs an eye for composition and the ability to convey the emotion, mood, or statement that she intended to with the pieces she presents. For example, I can’t draw by typical standards of what is considered “good drawing,” but I am attending one of the most prestigious art schools in the country, expressing myself in multiple media (photography, drawing, painting, 2 and 3D design, time-based media). I would be highly insulted if someone told me that what I was creating wasn’t art. As a photographer, I take issue with the fact that people seem to have the idea that painting is the ultimate form of art because it takes time and “skill.” Photography may seem instantaneous and easy, but it really isn’t. Darkroom and photoshop work is time and labor intensive as well, and there are a plethora of photographic artists who are far more talented than some of the painters out there, even if their creations took half the time. I would like to see some people who seem to think that there is no talent and ability involved in photography be thrown into a darkroom (better yet, a color darkroom, where they would have to work in complete darkness) or a digital post lab to try their hand at it and see just how “easy” it is.

not saying he wasn’t immensely talented but art went out the door, skill wise, with Duchamp. He made it able to do stupid shit and still be an artist. C’est n’pas un Art?

thats Magritte but you get the point…

What about Jean Claude and Christo? They wrap gigantic pieces of fabric around things like buildings and bridges. Art? One would assume so, because they are some of the most recognizable figures in the contemporary art world.

Curiosity about new stuff in general. Art is just one way to satisfy curiosity.

I just wanted to point out how in history, it seems that people are changing art so much from what it used to be (im not saying in a negative or positive way, im neutral to this). In the past, artists who could achieve highly realistic paintings were the most revered. Than they began changing so much, such as the inclusion of mannerism and rococo. Than impressionism and cubism and abstract. It seems that the most appreciated art has gone from the Super realistic to complete abstraction. And yes, not all super realism has gone unappreciated, but it definitely isnt like how it used to be. (btw, im keeping this in the realm of fine arts, so digital arts doesnt really apply much).

I still havent gotten many real answers as to why any one would truly appreciate this, especially from some one who truly appreciates this contemporary work. Most answers seem to be argumentative and critical rather than informative, but hey, you can only expect so much from a place like fluther :P I just like to get thinking about things and read other peoples opinions on it.

I don’t place much stock in abstract or op art myself. Being of modest artistic talent, I confess to prefer art that mirrors life so closely that one must ask: “Is it live or is it memorex?”
However, to get at your question, I think our society and the world at large is by far, more relativistic than absolute these days, and this philosophy is reflected in the arts. When such displays that you mentioned are favored by people, its because such art leaves to the beholder what is seen. Its very subjective and asks the beholder “What do YOU see?” Thus its open to interpretation without any absolutes involved.

I think most of that weird art stuff is bullshit. People just do it to stand out. I am pretty sure that the process of getting to the final result involves thinking how to make it more weird. A true approach would be more focused on expressing the emotions of the artist.

the idea of not needing talent to make artwork has been around for a while now… I think that the Pop Surrealist movement is starting to throw away the Postmodern idea of “concept is the most important aspect of art and talent is secondary”. Pop Surrealism is art that has a concept, but is very skillfully executed. I suggest you take a look at Mark Ryden or Ray Cesar to see what I’m talking about.

Interesting answer TheKNYHT :)

Thanks to all who have answered ^^

Weird is subjective. That being said, not everyone’s going to like that answer either.

If there is no technique, and no composition, there is no requirement for a conscious mind, nor any manifestation of creative impulses.
Art is a manifestation of creative impulses, constructed by a conscious mind.

If there is a higher than 50% chance that, given the same materials, a crazed monkey would produce something similar, I am wary of calling that piece ‘art’.

Many young artists like this stuff, because:
1. Famous artists have got away with it and made money.
2. It’s really fucking easy.

I went to dictionary.com to find out what they thought art was. They have 16 entries. It is not clear by definition.

The problem with defining art is similar to the problem of defining consciousness. It is experiential, subjective and very hard to define.

Young people want to rebel and be original so they choose the most outrageous (notice the RAGE in this word) ideas to express themselves; artists more so than others. It used to be that art was an expression of the real visual world around us in different styles; now it’s mostly subjective from within the artist – good or bad feelings, but I’m sad to say, mostly bad. Some of today’s grown-ups (art curators, judges, jurors, gallery owners, etc. – mostly in art centers such as N.Y., London, San-Francisco, etc.) are the puppet-masters of the art world; they dictate what is good and sellable art and what is not; they must keep themselves young and original so they choose the most outrageous – and ridiculous – artists to become the next “great and brilliant thing”. Talent and skill seem to have taken a back seat in today’s top-of-the line art world. As to the idea that art “has to make you think”, this is an entirely modern idea. I don’t think that any of the Old Masters created their art to make the public think. If you want to think, read a book, take a course, write something yourself…but of course, it’s easier to just slap some paint or broken pieces of something in a canvas and call it art and tell people that THEY have to do the thinking.