Comments on: A Turing Test for Modern Art?

By: marcelo naconeski

marcelo naconeski — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:37:24 +0000

Well i think today there are ways of observing the act of doing art . Modern artists have more tools today to express their hidden places, but also a larger field to work, because the references are diluted , and also so many sub-degrees , not like it was before. And making art today is harder , in my opinion, because it is harder to let a foot print different to many adventurers . Artists are not more important than non-artists. They only learned how to express and connect with the spectators . I don´t believe in leveling artists and non-artists in matter of sensibility , but only in matter of different nuances about what they have inside and what they can put out. Basquiat would be considered a vandal if he were not connected with a sub-conscious demand in his time. Connection is the key word in many senses . Sorry, English is not my language.

By: Rob Ridley

Rob Ridley — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 10:38:34 +0000

Hi, just stumbled upon this, very interesting.
I would like to comment, though this is purely how I personally feel at this exact moment, a little off kilter at present. So apologies before I begin.
Recently I have exploded back to my early years, painting whatever I feel, sort of ‘modern art’, I suppose. Purely trying to ease the inner anguish. I just have to do it to survive.
Let’s suppose nothing is right, nothing is wrong, absolutely nothing. A blank canvas, so to speak, or an empty space? Then all possibilities are open.
I could let a computer create art for me and it no doubt could, press that button and off we go. The absolute intensity of letting a computer do it for you. But wouldn’t that drive the circles ever deeper! Probably throw the computer at the wall to keep me sane, frame the pieces, and give it the title ‘computer art’ or a hundred other titles. Would it be my screaming at my frustration of life or just a gimic? Definitely no gimic, I would be clinging on by my fingernails, saying this is me, please see me, but art? Maybe, once framed. I frame it, therefore it is art, a plea, a scream. A dropped and broken canvas while working on it is part of the process (all a long way from my work of many years). The process being as important as the result.
Whether my work is good or bad is of little importance, just so long as I do it. Regardless, I daren’t stop.
No doubt I could be derided, and no doubt I will be, that my work is not ‘real art’, or then maybe naiive, cliched, etc. But I do what I do, it gets me through the night, and that’s good enough for me.

My feelings on understanding what the heck is going on with some modern art? I would suggest having it on a wall, sat there, minding its own business. The process, meaning and journey will reveal itself over time.
On the subject of what is art, surely All art must be a reflection on the culture it was created in, whether a religious fresco, computer art, realism, modern, whatever.

By: lisha

lisha — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:32:04 +0000

Art is what you make of it, and take from it. To some those scribbles could envoke a feeling of being lost in a grocery store and hiding in a bathroom stall with scribbles on the walls. You never know. I think this is the true beauty of art is that you can take it or leave it. No one is making you go to a modern art museum and enjoy it. But the least you can do is appreciate that it is a way others express themselves. It all winds down to matter of opinion. I’m sure Bill Bollinger did not mean for that painting to be “attractive” it doesn’t even have a title. It is foggy and evokes a feeling of not knowing. You have to dig deep and look beyond what you see to “get” contemporary art. Look into contemporary dance, you might find it is much like art. There is no story line or image put out infront of you, you have to think. I feel this effect of contemporary art is what makes it worth putting in museums. Just me though.

By: Steven Condra

Steven Condra — Tue, 11 May 2010 01:04:36 +0000

Dear Francis,

I respect your opinion but I also beleive you are a little confused wen it comes to contemporary art. You said:
“A piece of art should not only invoke a reaction from the viewer, it should also tell us something about the artist. This is sort of the “meta data” of art. If the content of the piece is such that it cannot be distinguished from content generated by a machine then what does it say about the culture that created it? Not much”
Well obviously conemporary art hase done its job! You seem somewhat angry and disorianted because of it. And it dose say something about the artist. The artist clearly has a differant viewpoint of life and there is nothing wrong with that. Infact I beleive that most if not all contemporary artists do what they do because they are bourd with the obvious. They strive to make the invisible visible and the result is something most are not able to understand. So not only dose contemporary art say something about the artist but it also says something about the viewer and sociaty in a whole.
I am not saying that All contemporary artist are real though. There are some real discrases out there.
Thank you for bringing up this topic.

Steven

By: Justin Sims

Justin Sims — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:42:35 +0000

Sorry…I was just looking around on the internet and saw this post with the Ed Hardy comment. WAY TOO MANY people are slandering this stuff. Ed Hardy has been one of my heroes for a long time, and his drawing style is decades old. So don’t knock what you know nothing about.

By: Jay Fields

Jay Fields — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:41:04 +0000

“If the content of the piece is such that it cannot be distinguished from content generated by a machine then what does it say about the culture that created it? Not much.”

Oddly enough, perhaps it speaks volumes about our culture. I smell a Ph.D. thesis here.

By: Francis

Francis — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:38:36 +0000

Good point Roger. I actually agree, I think Art generated by computer CAN be art and very good art at that. I guess the point I trying to make would be that we should be exalting artists because they are BETTER than the computer because they are BETTER than you or I (well maybe not you).

I think to be called *something* you have to demonstrate superiority in the field. Example, to be an “artist” you have to actually be better than a non-artist. Otherwise I will start listing “gardener”, “golfer”, “artist”, “chef” and so forth as skills on my resume.

Rather than Ed Hardy, I was thinking Luc Tuymans. I am certain I could paint as well, if not better, than Tuymans. (why don’t I? I’m not sure).

William Anastasi for example is an excellent scribbler. Is he better than my 3 year old son? No. Should he be hanging in the National Gallery?

By: robando

robando — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:24:17 +0000

There is one fatal flaw in your argument. You are assuming that art generated by a machine is not “art” at all. I beg to differ. Let me introduce you to Joshua Davis (http://www.joshuadavis.com/). He’s one of the new breed of folks working in art using generative algorithms.

For the most part I agree with you though that a lot of the stuff out there is just crap with a signature on it. Too many rich people with too much money and too little taste. How else do you explain the whole Ed Hardy crazy. At least it makes the douchebags easy to spot