A Peek at the Edwardian Ball

This rules xD

Big whoop. Any parent with a kid, a box of crayons and a refrigerator knows how to fake appreciation of art. Plus the kid's art is usually better then the crap you find in modern galleries.

Ha, looks beautiful

With modern art if asked for any comment, I usually stick to-

"...Fascinating....! ...Ahmmmmmmmm....,very interesting to observe that this piece truly makes the mind go into overdrive...."

From that point on I can go in several directions, most of them just as vague as the opening line. And as far as most modern art goes that is how I prefer to keep it for those who do not know me...

...But I quite like the true sophisticated subtility of that headbutt... :-D

lol, that was funny!

Yay!!!

Another "lie to get laid" tutorial!

Best advice is to ask the person at the door to point out the artist. Walk up to him/her and make conversation. You will then have all the ammo you need to bowl over everyone else in the room.

Oh yeah, the "eventual" challenge of getting caught hardly never happens since everyone in the room is also bluffing.

For heavens sake, it's Jackson Pollock, not Jackson Pollack!

There's no need to fake an appreciation for art. If you think it's complete crap just say so. Your opinion is no less valid than some snobbish artsy fart. They're mostly full of crap anyway.

Personal experience - I've had people tell me that I "dont get it" referring to a work in a show that, unbeknownst to them, I created :D Another person told me to stick with cartoons and let the people who know what theyre talking about enjoy the show. I didnt say anything because I was quietly enjoying the whole situation but a friend of mine couldnt resist and filled them in. I just smiled from across the room

I prefer Drippy McGee.

You just need a couple key phrases like "brush work" and "negative space." Makes it sound like you know the subtleties other people are missing.

Then redirect the conversation to drinks and get the heck out of there.

Hmm, slow Monday for Neatorama? :)

It's too bad anybody has to "fake an interest" in art in the first place.

It's worse that people "fake art" to get attention.

I tend to have better results by outright saying what I think of any specific piece. Rather than faking an appreciation, pandering to someone who doesn't share your feelings about something... Well, it's a waste of time.

Case in point. MCA in Chicago. The current exhibition on the main floor has one room where a fan is tethered by a cable to the ceiling. Like an upright caged standing fan, except it has no base and hangs from a cord. It is powered on and swoops and flutters about while anchored to the ceiling.

I took a long look at it, people walking around me. Some others curiously standing in the room and pondering.

I just blurted out. "This is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever seen called art."

Two people looked upset at me, everyone else clapped.

Unfortunately... there were worse examples in the other rooms. So that ceiling fan is no longer _the_ stupidest, but among the most stupid things I've ever seen installed and called art.

james - did you like anything by him (Eliasson)?

"matt
June 9th, 2009 at 8:22 am

james - did you like anything by him (Eliasson)?"

While I found some of the setups to be incredibly elementary, the tunnel of polarized shards of glass (One Way Colour Tunnel) was nice. Two other pieces that you'll find on the MCA Chicago website look better photographed than they did in person. (Beauty (a fine mist sprinkler hanging from the ceiling with a light aimed at it) and Color Space Embracer (more polarized glass with a light aimed at it))...

If the photgraphs were printed and hung, I probably would have been more impressed with what I saw. The shots were very well composed and framed. It was funny in that way. So I tend to stand by the statement that Art is the Experience on top of what is done. But seeing the caged fan dangling from the ceiling was just so dumb that I couldn't justify it at all.

One of the other bits in the exhibit was called Mirror Doors. 4 spot lamps aimed at the floor or wall with a mirror completing the shape if you looked at it from a certain angle. One was just simply aimed at the floor.

Considering I've worked in the arts, both theater and institutions... I found a lot of the installations to be so pedestrian and insulting. Aiming a light at the floor? Come on.

Eliasson certainly, for myself, carries the distinction to have among the most "extreme" works in a single installation that I have seen: Some -really- nice setups (The Photographic series, very nice) and the most DUMB things I've ever seen (mentioned above)... So yeah. Certainly hit both ends of the scale for me.

Mind you, I'm a fan of Duchamp and his readymade works. I thought tipping a urinal over and calling it Fountain is hysterical... (Especially when you notice it's also sacrilegious, the vague shape of the Virgin Mary), but there's so much more to say about things like that and a bicycle wheel mounted to a stool than there could have been said about...

A caged fan hung from the ceiling or a spotlight aimed at the floor.

So, was the misspelling of Pollock just to check if anyone was paying attention? (Sorry, I'm a nerd).

JamesM,

When I first read your description of the fan tethered to the ceiling and flailing about, I was thinking of an actual fan of the arts, as in fan-club aficionado. Now that would have been art. Or at least funny.