Here's a quiz to see if you can tell the difference between something painted by a famous artist that would be considered "great" and something painted by an ape. I got a 67%.The site is called "reverent" and pokes fun at the reverence that people in society have for what is accepted to be great art, literature and music. In this particular case with non-objective art, I think the joke is on you. The emperor has no clothes and deep down you know that you've been hoaxed, but won't admit it for fear of not being hip.
The Arts are absolutely essential to our well-being as creatures (I am not excluding apes and other critters here), but beyond whether the art is a sincere expression of its creator, how can you qualify it as "good" or "bad"?
EDIT: I did blog another of these quizzes back in December 2005.
- Art - Apes -
2 comments:
I'm at work (and monitored! lol) but want to take this quiz when I get home.
I've always just gone with my gut on abstract art. I love Jackson Pollack, but can only intelligently say a couple of the reasons for that. Symmetry, color-scheme, that kind of thing. If it means anything has always been totally subjective, IMO.
I think if it speaks to you then it's "good", even if you get something unintended out of it. I've got a bachelor's in Art, but have forgotten most of what was supposed to be important so I do poorly on these tests. Just lacking in culture... lots of taste though, unfortunately most of it's bad.
Post a Comment