I thought it was on its side

Wouldn't specifying the orientation undermine the whole impressionist concept?

>"The thickening of the grid should be at the top, like a dark sky,” said Meyer-Büser. “Once I pointed it out to the other curators, we realised it was very obvious. I am 100% certain the picture is the wrong way around.”

Huh. I thought it was a top-down view of city blocks with the Hudson in blue.

Like it matters

How many times does this have to happen?

My favorite part of that(four-month old) story is that they are going to continue hanging it upside down because if they hang it right side up, the aging that has already affected the painted surface will become more accelerated

Oh wow that really changes my perspective on this beautiful piece of art

The best part is that they can't turn it back upside right because the tape would fall off.

I know a fair bit about art and I do not know what you mean by this. As in I’m not sure what you mean by impressionist here.

It's not impressionism though

it’s not impressionist though, it’s abstract.

Abstract? I don't pay enough attention to the labels, but basically unless this guy was just trying to show us their public school gym floor this was more of a feeling the artist is conveying right? So the artist visually describes an abstract concept or feeling, and people can look at that painting and have an entirely different feeling about it.

So my point is this, if the painting was oriented wrong than the artist is expecting their work to be understood as they created it, undermining the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder.

Ugly and stupid art.

Okay gotcha, that makes sense. I think most art isn’t in the eye of the beholder as far as the artist is concerned at least, which is why most artwork comes with an artist statement. There are some artists however who do make abstract work that specifically to be highly open to interpretation to the point they tell galleries to just hang it any orientation that feels right and they don’t elaborate further, but even that is still it’s own specific kind of thing.

Abstract work also isn’t always an abstract idea or feeling, sometimes it refers just to visual abstraction. Like technically every painting is abstract no matter how representational or realistic it is, abstraction is more like a sliding scale and most abstract artists started with representational imagery and just slid further and further down the abstraction scale. Anyways that’s more random info than you probably care about.

So interesting how it being upside down puts the yellow tape into focus and the right way up, the red tape.

The low-key looks better the right way up.

Where's Binky Barnes when you need him?

Abstract art is just proof that the art industry is just a scam to launder money.

On par with the sistine chapel

To be fair everything is backwards now.

No no I appreciate the explaination thank you :)

The most eloquent take down of abstract art that anyone could have made.

N A I R D N O M yonna dluow taht

Bonus points, because that was also a Mondrian, as I recall.

Np! Also fun fact, the artist Mondrian’s work originally was traditional landscapes and he basically went on a project to increasingly abstract it as narrowly as possible over the years till what he ended up with was essentially lines of basic primary colors. But once he reached that point he sorta painted himself into a corner (heh) and was kinda stuck there making these boring things for the rest of his life.

[removed]

"Nincompoopers, it's upside down!"

Eh… I liked it the other way.

a lot of people who hate abstract art think art should just be about the skill to replicate reality instead of conveying feeling or a vibe, and that seems kind of empty to me

[deleted]

See, you get it. Why narrow your definition of art and close your heart off to all the wonderful forms of expression out there?

Not painted??

Hey man I don't like rich people making a mockery out of the fine arts with extensive money laundering schemes either, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of us actually like abstract art.

That’s called a new piece for $100M.

Let’s guess which side is the “right way”

If people who know art can't figure out which way to hang your painting, then you've failed at creating art.

I'm pretty sure my mom had this pattern on a table cloth in the 80s when I was a kid.

from the article, it seems to be some sort of adhesive tape over a painted surface.

> Part of the problem is that unlike most of Mondrian’s earlier works, New York City I does not bear the artist’s signature, possibly because he hadn’t deemed it finished.

> In spite of all the evidence pointing to the work being currently displayed upside down, the work will be shown the way it has hung for 75 years in the new Mondrian. Evolution show that opens in Düsseldorf on Saturday.

> “The adhesive tapes are already extremely loose and hanging by a thread,” Meyer-Büser said. “If you were to turn it upside down now, gravity would pull it into another direction. And it’s now part of the work’s story

I don't think they have a definition of art like that; rather they are frustrated that abstract art (or classical music, or opera) is given a place of honor in place of art they themselves enjoy.

Why is fine art given public monies, and sound systems are not? More people get enjoyment from sound systems than will ever even know that piece of art exists. And their enjoyment of sound systems is exactly about conveying a feeling or a vibe.

NB: I hate sound system music; but I am well aware that it is way more popular than any so-called fine art.

> I think most art isn’t in the eye of the beholder as far as the artist is concerned at least, which is why most artwork comes with an artist statement.

I'd say most non-representational art is modern, pointing strongly at post-modern. I cannot really imagine a nonrepresentational artist who would not at least entertain the idea of death of the author being a valid talking point.

They certainly accept that there is a level of expertise in criticism, so they would not likely say that any and every person's opinion is of equal value, but I really have trouble imagining a non-representational author denying a suitably prepared viewer to take whatever reaction that viewer has to a piece.

Or in other words I have trouble making sense of a non-representation artist not allowing the beholder to exactly assign beauty, independent of the author/artist's intent.

Musicians get public money all the time though.

Someone's mad others think differently.

Only certain kinds.

because some douche will end up hanging it upside down anyways

“Once I pointed it out to the other curators, it was very obvious” lmao, the fuck is obvious about this artwork? Isn’t subtlety the whole fucking point of abstract art?

Totally reminds me of an episode of 'Arthur' ... I think

So I don’t really think it’s an “either or” kind of thing. Death of the author has its value and in many ways it’s just an inevitability because when you put your artwork out there you have very limited control over how that is seen. But understanding that fact doesn’t change the reality that the artist more likely than not created that work with a specific vision, generally speaking an artist doesn’t make work with a “oh well it means whatever you think it means” as that would be considered an especially lazy approach and would likely be cause for their work to be dismissed.

If you treat death of the author as a sort of inevitable aspect of art it’s a good useful thing to be aware of, but if you treat it as an approach to intentionally advocate for you can start to run into some problems. For example, death of the author came out at around the same time that the wider art world started becoming much more accepting of artists who weren’t strictly white straight males. You had artists from diverse walks of life who hadn’t previously had representation now making art and telling their stories… and being told that “oh well your identity doesn’t matter art should be more just good art” and it was kinda bs.

So you might be thinking “well sure, what about all the artists who make very general abstract work?” And id say it’s no different, you might be surprised to learn that even most abstract artists approach their work with very specific political and social and ideological angles to their work even if it doesn’t seem like it. There are of course exceptions, but it’s still more likely that those abstract artists have a very specific perspective they’re coming from and trying to convey.

That's what happens when you make pictures that aren't anything.

I paint abstract art and I've sold a few paintings. I literally tell my buyers: "It's abstract. There's no top or bottom. Hang it whichever direction you like best." I sign them on the back for that reason.

As long as I've painted something that I like, I'm happy. If other people like it too, that's just a bonus. My abstract art is about evoking a mood or vibe. Or at the very least, something that makes you think "That's kinda cool" even if you don't have the vocabulary to express why you like it.

You're refuting a strawman. No educated person dislikes abstract art for that reason, or at the very least not just that reason. Abstract is also too broad of a term. What most people object to is meaningless art, and it's adherents who are too obsessed with viewing themselves as smart to admit they don't see a non-existent meaning. Quality traditional art is subtle, but the meaning and significance of the is still able to come through without knowing the title (indeed most historical paintings weren't titled). Much of modern art is either completely devoid of meaning (not that there's anything wrong with a quality, beautiful craft, but it doesn't need to be lionized in a museum) or the piece practically hits you over the head with it's (often highly political) meaning. I dislike modern art largely because I want a return to subtlety embedded in quality craftsmanship with intricate details such that the painting gets better the more, and closer, you look at it. 17th century Dutch and 19th century American landscapes are a fantastic example of this!

>No educated person dislikes abstract art for that reason, or at the very least not just that reason

I didn't specify educated

> I dislike modern art largely because I want a return to subtlety embedded in quality craftsmanship with intricate details

insert Jim looking at the camera face

>What most people object to is meaningless art, and it's adherents who are too obsessed with viewing themselves as smart to admit they don't see a non-existent meaning.

In all seriousness this is much more of a strawman than anything I said. I think you would be hard-pressed to find truly meaningless art, and intentionally creating meaningless art would be expression of its own sort.

edit: I also reject the idea that art must be understood without the title, expression can be the whole package.

People forget that if you're in a room full of artists who've all been to art school, being able to paint landscapes and fruit baskets is not impressive in the slightest.

An artist is going to care far more about what their peers consider impressive than the opinion of some pundit who wants to go back to the "classics" (aka shit that has already been done before).

You're replying on a thread about a piece of art with so little meaning that no one realized it was upside down for decades...

I once bent down in a (modern) art museum to look at an dehumidifier, the security guard felt compelled to tell me that "wasn't art", "a lot of people think it is, but it's not."

Here's an "invisible statue" https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/artist-sells-invisible-sculpture-for-over-18k/

I can't count the number of paintings that are two or three solid rectangles of color. Arranged verically or horizontally, I'd love to hear how those tell a story. If you think that has meaning, I'd suggest you aren't giving enough importance to the term. It may convey a 'vibe' or 'feeling' but it doesn't have meaning. Hence it is meaningless. No strawman, I'll defend that point as long as I'm alive.

Anyways, sorry for the extent I mischaricterized your views, I've heard similar things from others before and grouped your statement in with their opinions. But as a final statement, I'll say that art that only conveys a 'vibe' or 'feeling,' as opposed to having real meaning feels "kind of empty to me."

>You're replying on a thread about a piece of art with so little meaning that no one realized it was upside down for decades...

I don't think you can say something lacks meaning because it is not understood. I wouldn't say a German book lacks meaning just because I can't read German.

Youre just a boomer

That's a fair point. I would say that if I don't understand the meaning of something there are two options. 1) There is a meaning that I am not seeing, or 2) there is no meaning.

To continue with your analogy, I could also hit random keys on a keyboard for hundreds of pages. If I use the spacebar liberally and make vowells a bit more frequent, it could appear like a foreign language, but it would, in fact, be meaningless. How would I determine if it's a language or nonsense? Well first I might ask if anybody can read it. If I'm sceptical of people claiming to read it, I might ask if two people can arrive at the same meaning independently. If no one can read I might look for patterns that that are suggestive of language and see if it can be deciphered.

Clearly some things are meaningless (rock, chewed up gum, etc), but I'd love to be wrong about any art that I consider meaningless. I'd love for someone to be able to show me clear, non-BS meaning to a piece I thought was meaningless. That's an opportunity for me to grow and widen my perspective, but someone has to actually show me the meaning first. Until then I will argue passionately that it has none.

> even most abstract artists approach their work with very specific political and social and ideological angles to their work even if it doesn’t seem like it.

Death of the author does not even slightly imply that the author has no agency or purpose. It just means that the author's agency or purpose is not primary or important to anyone but they themselves.

Correct, but the part you quoted doesn’t have anything to do with death of the author, it’s just a more general statement about abstract art.

Oh yes the message is completely different now /s

I'm 25.

To me there are three perspectives that exist when viewing art, the artists intent, the viewer’s interpretation, and the “objective” analysis of the piece. I must object to the idea that the painting lacks meaning because it was displayed upside down and no one noticed, you may look at the piece and find that it doesn’t invoke anything inside you but the people who view it and see something valuable in its expression are not in any way pretending. The artist had an intent and I guarantee you felt that it was a meaningful artistic expression, and yes the “objective” reality is that it is a bunch of parallel lines on a plain background and your feeling that it is “empty” is 100% valid and you are free to voice your opinion. Art is in everything and meaning is everywhere, you listed a rock or chewed up gum as being meaningless but there is infinite meaning that can be drawn from those things if you are willing to open your mind and be a little creative, rocks can be incredibly beautiful, even the ones you see in the cracks on the street, they can tell a story of time if you contemplate where they come from or what they’ve been through, this context doesn’t need to objectively exist to provide a valuable experience to the observer in the same way that a bunch of parallel lines on a canvas needs no objective features to tell a story. You don’t need permission to see meaning in things. Moreover art galleries are places designed to put you into the receptive mode of appreciation, many things that would not be considered art in another context can suddenly seem worthy of attention and deeper thought, hence you mistakenly looking at the dehumidifier, if you were to have some sort of satisfying experience or novel thought while looking at the dehumidifier that is in a way “art”. The metaphor of a language is poor because it implies there is an objective “meaning” to the piece. When it comes to abstract art an artist can tell you what they were thinking about when they created it, what emotions they wished to invoke, or what they see in it but once they release the image from their mind and set it free in the world it is no longer in their hands and you’re free to see it how you wish, this includes upside down.

As for your last statement about being open to being shown a non-bs meaning to an abstract piece, I’d like to know what kind of answer you’re expecting because I feel like you would be unsatisfied by any explanation due to the subjective nature of abstract art. Do you find yourself lacking meaning in other areas of life? Why do we exist, what is the meaning of life, is there a purpose to anything, these are questions that only you can answer and anyone who claims to have the answers are giving you “bs” because it couldn’t possibly apply to your unique life, same goes with meaning in art, only you can assess meaning for yourself, and if we look to objectivity we find that the answer is no, no there is no meaning to life, no there is no meaning in art. though there are many things that you can learn to better help yourself find meaning in art and life in general, and I’d love to discuss techniques for mindfulness if you’re interested.

Closing off id just like to say that it’s ok to not like a piece of art, hell there are tons of art that I find pretty empty myself, but to look at others and judge them for finding value in what you see as valueless is a sad way to engage with a medium designed to be open to interpretation. Art is about creativity, so let’s leave objectivity at the door and make up stories about colors and shapes without worrying about the “truth”