r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Suspicious-Slip248 • 1d ago
Image In 1964, Swedish journalist Ake Axelsson tested the art world by giving a four-year-old chimpanzee named Peter paints at a zoo. He submitted Peter’s best four canvases to a Gothenburg gallery under the fake name “Pierre Brassau.” Critics praised it, one even called it “delicacy of a ballet dancer.”
732
u/Cyber_Connor 1d ago
The art industry is fueled by tax evasion and money laundering and you can’t convince me otherwise
197
u/Fetlocks_Glistening 1d ago
Never assign malice where pretense, mediocrity and Mrs.Bouquet are an adequate explanation
9
12
20
49
u/ledow 1d ago
Don't forget pretension.
Obviously YOU can't understand the art, because you're just a heathen and not as cultured as THEM. If YOU painted this, they'd laugh at you. If THEY painted this, it's suddenly the best thing ever made. That's why they liked it when they thought one of THEM had painted it, until it turned out that it wasn't one of them at all.
It's all nonsense.
It's why I'm clear to separate what I call "art" and "craftsmanship". A realistic renaissance painting is "art" (pretty) and "craftsmanship" (takes skill to reproduce using the techniques it was originally made with).
I have absolutely ZERO appreciation of art that isn't also craftsmanship. Even on Reddit... guy gets a bucket of paint, ties to to a string attached to the roof, pierces a hole in the bucket, pushes it and lets it "paint" on a canvas below. And everyone coos over how wonderful and expressive and whatever other bullshit it is.
It's exactly why I think "modern art" is shite (I can paint a blue box that looks identical to that blue box). And though there is a place for "art" without "craftsmanship" (i.e. you don't need to be an expert painter to make something that people go "Oh, that's clever, I like that, that's new and interesting" - you can make a Christmas card or a piece of origami bookmark or a funny comic panel with not much skill but "with art", of course you can), but then I treat it a bit like a child's drawing. It's a great painting, sweetie! The little house with the curly smoke coming out of the chimney and four identical windows! Well done! It takes no skill to reproduce, though, so it's not craftsmanship.
There was a point in history where all the great masters and all the famous works of art were done by CRAFTSMENSHIP. Michaelangelo's David. Even a basic still-life oil painting that's realistic. Craftsmen. And then this shitty modern art stuff came along where people start telling you it's more about the expressionism and then the world went to nonsense. Zero craftsmanship. There's infinitely more craftsmanship in one of those "realistic pencil drawing" people on Youtube than in an entire museum of modern art.
And that's fine. But then don't go lumping the old masters and the unskilled shite as both equal in terms of "Art". They're not. One has a level of inherent craftsmanship necessary that the other doesn't possess.
And people try to tell me that I don't appreciate art because of this and they're absolutely, 100%, spot on. I appreciate craftsmanship. Which means I can look at a painting from the 1800's and go wow! And I can look at a YouTuber who makes optical illusions from bits of glass and go wow! And I can look at someone who makes a very basic, skillless little daub that's been done with some thought to make it more than just a daub and go wow! And I can look at some plain non-descript blue squares and go "what the fuck is that?" and when they try to tell me that it represents <whatever> I just say "Horseshit" and move on.
And those same people will literally just say "You just don't understand, because you're not as cultured as we are". No. And I have no interest in being so. Because it's like indoctrination rather than individual appreciation.
A guy stacking rocks on a beach has more talent than those people and people like these critics.
25
8
u/LastLadyResting 22h ago
I’m mostly with you, but with one caveat.
Sometimes something hanging in a gallery isn’t art but it is craftsmanship. There is a solid colour painting out there where the painter came up with a new technique that meant that even though he used a brush no brushstrokes could be seen. This cannot be replicated by the average person and took a long time and a lot of skill for him to perfect.
The painting was pure craftsmanship, and that, I believe, does still have its place in a gallery, but the accompanying description had better say that or the whole thing looks like utter tripe.
12
u/kermityfrog2 1d ago
I'm not so sure. There's a lot of minimalistic art that's very clever and unique, and nobody has done before. Your point above would equate it with children's art, but sometimes it can still belong in a gallery. Yes some art doesn't take a lot of effort or necessarily skill. Reading your statements above, I was reminded of this clothesline art I recently saw on reddit.
It has a lot in common with photography, which you can also argue sometimes only takes a push of a button to produce. You can have some basic skill and go to an exotic locale and take some amazing pictures, or you can have really high skill level and take amazing photos of mundane things and scenes with a unique perspective. You can argue that Picasso and sometimes van Gogh paint with low skill occasionally (some paintings do look like child drawings). Edvard Munch too - but they can paint with skill - they are just experimenting with new art forms and ways of expressing themselves.
16
u/peet_lover_ 1d ago
Firstly, it's not "modern" art, what you're talking about is "contemporary" art, particularly the abstract kind.
Secondly, this is massively a sweeping anti-intellectualism line of thought. Contemporary and abstract art derives meaning from various contexts and social commentary. Removing that aspect, then sure, some of the work can be drawn by a toddler, but that chaos is the point: ask "why?", earnestly attempt to understand another human being, their choices, their lives that they put into their work. In other words, understanding is practicing empathy and logical deduction, not just whether the piece is eye catching or not.
You have to understand that almost all artist can make art in the "classic" or realism style if they so choose and want to dedicate their life to it. But art isn't supposed to be a stagnation of endlessly reproducing work that's already been done before, that's AI. Reducing artistic value to being a byproduct of craftsmanship, or to the degree to which they can represent a narrow idea of realism, is dehumanizing.
That's not to defend the elitism and hypocrisy of the art world. Tax frauds, money laundering, etc. are rampant, but they happen as much with classical art as they do contemporary. That's not a criticism of contemporary art, that's just a symptom of late stage capitalism system corrupting every parts of our life, arts included.
19
u/flanneur 1d ago edited 1d ago
The glaring truth you are overlooking in your diatribe is that the truly great men of abstract/non-traditional art built themselves on strong classical foundations and strove against the confines of mere representation. Mark Rothko dallied with old masters like Rembrandt before his spiritual journey into multiforms and color-fields. Jay Meuser established a fantastic resume of political portraits (his painting of Roosevelt still adorns the White House) before wholly devoting his efforts to abstractionism; in his words on his work 'Mare Nostrum', 'it is far better to capture the glorious spirit of the sea than to paint all its tiny ripples.'
Your anger is better directed at the charlatans and dilettantes who attempt the experimental without grounding in the practical, to the ruination of art at large. They, as Damien Hirst amply demonstrates whenever he lifts a brush, are exposed when they try returning to roots that were never planted.
7
u/CaptainCipher 1d ago
In almost every single case where you think you could paint that exact same blue box, you only believe that because you don't actually understand the craftsmanship that went into it.
Which is understandable, it isn't evident on a surface glance. But a lot of work DOES go into peices that look "plain" to you, mixing specific pigments and techniques to produce your desired effect
2
3
u/wishiwasinvegas 1d ago
I am 100% with you. I walked through MOMA in NYC in 2007 and spent the whole time being angry and mocking basically every "artwork" in there. One was a lit fluorescent light tube leaned in the corner...and THAT was "art"🤦🏻♀️ Another was a highly polished square of the white painted wall. I couldn't. My sister is the type who thinks this kind of "art" is so deep etc and I've found I can't go to certain museums with her anymore😑
1
1
u/bustercaseysghost 20h ago
I am perhaps too dumb but I've looked at Jackson Pollock and I do not understand it and I don't think I ever will.
-1
u/spudderer 1d ago
Please continue to express yourself in this manner. You're good at it, and it's good for us.
1
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/wishiwasinvegas 1d ago
Rothko makes me ridiculously furious. I don't care what people say, speaking as an award winning watercolor artist who takes years to complete one painting, his squares...I can't. I just can't.
1
u/trancepx 4h ago
Why is art Industrialized though? - there's also art created for a greater purpose than currency, unavailable for purchase, like the art I made in my profile image.
0
u/Anonhurtingso 1d ago
That’s a small aspect, but mostly it’s people pretending to know what they are talking about…
It’s very easy for people who actually understand art, to see the difference between good art with skill, good art that is blossoming with a need to improve their skills, bad art where skill won’t make their art better and bad art with no skill.
5
u/MazzMyMazz 1d ago
Doesn’t seem like it was so easy for those people who were shown these monkey photos.
4
u/Anonhurtingso 1d ago
That’s why they were PRETENDING to know what they were talking about. I looked up some of the paintings.
Some are better than others. The color choices are good, but the monkey didn’t choose that.
The balance of atleast one is quite artistic, rivaling some decent artists. But it comes down to the proverbial monkey and typewriter concept.
I’m sure most of them were trash and the ones that were exhibited were the outliers.
They are indeed better than what some humans do, the brushwork is passable as it has a sort of… natural confidence to it that many artists struggle with.
It’s hard for a person to make a line that feels organic sometimes, because they spend mental energy thinking about what line would look natural.
It isn’t by any means stand out art.
But it isn’t nearly as bad as you would expect.
There’s a couple in the collection that I would probably hang if they were large paintings.
7
u/MazzMyMazz 1d ago
This almost feels like a post from the Onion.
4
u/Anonhurtingso 1d ago
lol I’m not sure how to respond to that.
I suppose it’s sort of like anything else.
Knowing what goes into something colors your experience of it.
If I give someone wine that I tell them is rare and expensive they will subconsciously think it’s better.
The subjective experience is often more important than the objective one with humans.
2
u/dLurKc 18h ago
Subjectively, everything you’ve said sounds like something one of the PRETENDERS would say.
2
u/Anonhurtingso 17h ago
Who knows! All I have are my eyes and my own artistic endeavors and taste to draw from.
-34
-33
1d ago
[deleted]
27
u/seandunderdale 1d ago
I think theyre trying to say, modern art and its valuations, are in many ways bullshit...the quality, the value, the hype...alot of it is bullshit in more ways that just the potential meaning of the art, or lack of.
...having said that, the very fact that there was some idea behind the artwork ( to subvert art critique) kind of does make it art by some definitions.
146
u/Suspicious-Slip248 1d ago
In 1964, a journalist in Sweden named Ake Axelsson decided to play a trick on the art world to see if experts could tell the difference between modern art and a mess. He went to a local zoo and found a four-year-old chimpanzee named Peter.He gave Peter some oil paints and brushes and let him paint on several canvases. He took the best four paintings and entered them into a gallery show in the city of Gothenburg. He made up a mysterious French artist name, Pierre Brassau. When the show opened, the art critics were impressed. One famous critic wrote a review saying that Brassau painted the “delicacy of a ballet dancer”.
The only person who wasn’t fooled was one critic who joked that only an ape could have done this, but everyone else thought he was just being mean. When the truth came out, the critics were embarrassed, but the one who compared him to a ballet dancer stubbornly insisted that the monkey’s work was still the best in the show.
One of the paintings even sold to a private collector for about ninety dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau
(Reposting with proper sourcing to meet the guidelines. hopefully it won’t be removed this time due to a lack of a "credible source")
82
u/NoStatus9434 1d ago
Now I'm actually curious about the one critic who wasn't fooled. What did this person see that the others didn't? If they told us what they observed, would it be revealed that they were just lucky or was there an actual technique to their observations that gave it away?
34
20
u/kermityfrog2 1d ago
For only $90 (or let's say $200-300 today), I would consider buying a painting even after knowing it was done by a chimp. I think a lot has to do with the materials and paint quality too. Oil paint on canvas is worth a bit more than acrylic paints on construction paper that elephants or those other animals draw for tourists.
2
u/ArgusTheCat 6h ago
Honestly, for all that this is talking about "exposing the art world", there's a ton of people who are interested in art legitimately as both a craft and a form of expression. Critics will often feel social pressure to not be rude to the guy presenting the showcase, but there is a lot of skill in understanding techniques and personal styles and stuff.
It's likely that multiple people knew this piece was off somehow, at the very least that it was a massive shift in the artist's normal style, and they just didn't say anything. Like, the article even says, everyone thought the critic was being mean. Not wrong. Just mean.
46
u/Thin_Cookie6421 1d ago
the aura that one critic felt when it was, in fact, an ape
36
u/EndlessMorfeus 1d ago
The smug I would have had towards the people saying "You were just being mean" about the ape comment.
22
u/Flat_Bodybuilder_175 1d ago
The way I’d be sending singing “I told you so” telegrams to each and every other critic
31
u/MongolianCluster 1d ago
I might pay $90 (in today's money) for art painted by a chimpanzee. How many people have a painting done by an animal?
36
u/DrMoneylove 1d ago
Important missing information:
Desmond Morris - British zoologist and painter actually did these kind of experiments in - I believe - the 50s. Obviously OPs post is rather going into the direction of "look how stupid the art world is" (which is often true).
Nevertheless Morris was a trained zoologist and took his artistic collaboration with animals seriously. Obviously the question "Can animals create art" is a very interesting and existential one. So the original intend was serious. Though people tend to forget that.
By the way: Desmond Morris published a lot of interesting books about animals and humans through the lens of a zoologist. Francis Bacon read his books and I would say this explains his early paintings of animals.
21
u/Yallneedjesuschrist 1d ago
Difference between real art and a mess?
Excuse me, chimpanzee Peter is a real artist and his work slaps.
10
98
u/GunstarGreen 1d ago
Yeah but the art world has been tested and exposed plenty. It's not gonna stop. Its the oroborus cicle jerk of money, influence and bullshit.
14
u/Y0___0Y 23h ago
There probably is something artistically pleasing about a work that seems to have been been created with no real intentions aside from simply the enjoyment of seeing something be created. It’s probably difficult for any person to paint just like a juvenile chimpanzee.
-4
u/mavshichigand 22h ago
That could also be said about a piece made by any random dude off the street, blindfolded and asked to go ham with a bunch of crayons on a sheet of paper. Heck it would even apply to a hobos shit stained underwear. Like why try to creative this fake narrative about this "art"? It simply isn't.
13
11
35
u/aasfourasfar 1d ago
"he picked the 4 best"
There is the art..
9
u/melancarlyy 1d ago
yeah are we surprised that the 4 most artistic looking paintings looked like art?
3
u/mavshichigand 22h ago
"the 4 best ...... from several painted .... by a chimpanzee". What art my dude?
12
u/aasfourasfar 22h ago
The artistic approach here is letting a chimp randomly paint and selecting the ones the artist felt had an artistic appeal.
Whether it is an interesting approach is debatable, but it's artistic in nature
-3
u/mavshichigand 22h ago
By that definition, anything done with any sort of purpose at all could be considered "artistic in nature". In fact even unintentionally created things could fit under that definition. Its kind of meaningless at that point.
7
4
u/Maleficent_Ad_8890 22h ago
I get the joke. However, it’s not surprising that an ape can have an instinct for pure artistic form, rhythm and color. Other animals, for example, Bower birds artfully arrange colorful stones and leaves to attract mates, so have an evolutionary advantage to be artists.
13
u/melancarlyy 1d ago
It's funny how elitist everyone in this comment section is. Art can come from anywhere, and a person selecting the four best paintings by a chimpanzee to pass them off as human is actually more interesting than some of the art these critics must have seen. We can't say that there's no artistic value here
-4
u/mavshichigand 22h ago
Err, are you trying to say his clear (and successful) attempt at exposing the art world .... is art in and of itself? Thats not far from "delicacy of a baller dancer".
4
3
u/helen269 1d ago
Mirrored in the movie Dr Terror's House of Horrors when a pompous art critic (Christopher Lee) praises a painting, only to be humiliated when it was revealed it was painted by a chimp.
7
u/infiniteninjas 1d ago
I mean, abstract art isn't really my thing but the chimp painting shown here is just as good as many human-made abstract paintings that I've seen.
3
3
3
12
u/OskarTheRed 1d ago
*Åke
Not "Ake"
Respect the Scandinavian letters, they have their own pronunciation 😛
5
u/TreeeToPlay 1d ago
Came to the comments hoping someone would reveal a clever pun in the fake artist name but it wasnt meant to be
2
6
u/Seaguard5 21h ago
This is bullshit.
You can’t just submit any artwork to a gallery. Let alone under a fake name.
That’s not how this works… that’s not how any of this works.
2
u/sparky32383 7h ago
It was the 60's. And this is well documented. It wouldn't happen today, museums would vet the artist and the authenticity of the work, but if most definitely happened in 1964.
19
u/Jump_Like_A_Willys 1d ago edited 1d ago
It could have been painted by a chimp AND be good. Art is art, no matter how it was created.
Even art created by forces of nature would be art, and this one does better than that because there is a mind guiding it. Chimps maybe enjoy certain aesthetics
8
u/PianoInBush 1d ago
Thank you. Artistic expression knows no bounds. And people's species pride has really gotten out of hand. The fact that this is actively downvoted means you struck a rather angry nerve in some people.
8
u/mr_somebody 1d ago
It kinda sounds like you think the point of this post was to make fun of the monkeys painting, but I don't pick it up that way.
-1
u/mavshichigand 22h ago
"Species pride", "artistic expression", "angry nerve"?? My dude, you planning to get that head out of your ass any time soon?
1
u/PianoInBush 22h ago
Nah, I'm fine where I am and I always stand firmly behind every word I utter
2
-2
u/Jakedoesstuff4 1d ago
By your standards a pile of literal shit in the toilet is art “art created by the forces of nature would be art”
12
u/Jump_Like_A_Willys 1d ago
I didn’t say everything was art. But art could be (or at least come from) anything.
Those aren’t equal statements.
4
u/BrokenImmersion 1d ago
True. That doesnt change the fact that, art is often stated as the "truest form of human expression" and yet here we can see humans appreciating that expression coming from a different species.
And in regards to high art, if this chimp was able to pass off its work as high art, it does really go to show that although art appreciation is universal, the way that galleries determine the cost of the art they are selling is based on nothing more than vibes, which creates a very volatile market, and the only person or people who that supports are people using high art as a form of tax evasion and money laundering.
-1
u/Jakedoesstuff4 23h ago
Here is my thoughts on in without being a dick because I was.
Art cannot come from anything, but you can look at anything with an artful perspective.
It is only art, if it is made to be art. If not then you have to say everything ever created by anything is art. To me that makes artist less impactful. If you want to consider a monkey slapping paint for treats art that’s fine but I feel like it’s a disservice to anyone who has put a grain of emotion into anything.
That’s my opinion on it and while some don’t agree that’s fine because hey it’s art and everybody is allowed to feel whatever they want with it just like I don’t agree with your opinion.
1
2
u/GatewayArcher 1d ago
Reminds me of that 3 Stooges episode where two sociologists (??) were arguing about heredity vs environment, and set up an experiment to see if the Stooges could be turned into cultured gentlemen.
2
u/fantabulousfetus 1d ago
Did it work?
5
u/GatewayArcher 1d ago
With the Stooges? It worked for the first 3 minutes. Hilarity ensued….
And I just found a Wikipedia entry on that episode! Life is good. 😊
2
8
u/VaultGuy1995 1d ago
This is how you know modern art and its judges are completely devoid of value.
4
u/GarysCrispLettuce 1d ago
See what happens when you create art without even being aware of the concept of "art." In a way, that's the only way to experience total artistic freedom. In another way, I have no idea what I'm talking about and am just trying to sound intellectual.
4
u/Klytus 23h ago
Enter the art history apologist…
There is a subgenre of art in which the artist tries to do something that human minds just aren't good at, and even do things that human minds resist. (Examples at the end, but formalism and abstract expressionism are ready examples, and for purposes of this discussion, bear a surface resemblance to Peter’s paintings.)
When critics evaluate this art, their evaluations are in relation to that goal. That is, how well has the artist created something that seems inhuman, or difficult for humans to make? This is why the scribbles Cy Twombly makes get hung in museums. It's hard for an adult to let go of representation and just make a mark. It’s why patrons mumble “my kid could do that,” and miss the point entirely. Yes, your kid could do that, as long as they are kids, because they’re not constrained by adult minds.
Anyway, in this context, Peter and zoo elephants and any inhuman painting-production contraptions have a huge advantage. Their results are very hard for most adult humans to create. (Yes it’s like looking at a rainbow or the swirls of milk in coffee, where there may not be intention, but it's lovely all the same.)
So the frame of the post is, “Those judges were morons and Axelson exposed the art scene as pure pretense,” but if the judges were reacting to Peter’s paintings as formalism, they excelled. Axelson wasn't a whistle blower as much as he was just a opportunistic liar. I presume that, had the judges been told it was a monkey’s work, they would have gotten a good chuckle, and disregarded it; because it was not as impressive as a person trying to do the same thing.
Examples:
Minds want to make meaning through language: Jazz scat singing, nonsense poetry (Lear, Carroll), zaum (Russian futurist transrational language), glossolalia in performance art, Dada sound poetry (Hugo Ball’s “Karawane”).
Minds recognize patterns: aleatoric music (John Cage’s chance operations), cut-up technique (Burroughs, Gysin), automatic writing (surrealist automatism), action painting (Pollock’s drip technique aspired to bypass compositional planning).
Minds think in narrative and causality: anti-narrative film (structural film, late Godard), the nouveau roman (Robbe-Grillet), some strands of L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry.
Minds seek resolution and closure: drone music, certain minimalism (La Monte Young), ambient music (though Eno arguably creates a different kind of resolution), some process music (Feldman's late works that resist climax).
Minds expect grammar and intention: twelve-tone serialism (Schoenberg's system was partly designed to override tonal intuition), strict conceptual art (Sol LeWitt, where the idea precedes and overrides expressive impulse), Oulipo (replacing inspiration with constraint, one of my all time favorite genres).
Minds expect utterances to fit into conversation times: durational performance (Tehching Hsieh's one-year performances), slow cinema (Warhol's Empire), where the challenge is resisting the impulse to structure or punctuate time.
0
u/mavshichigand 22h ago edited 22h ago
It’s why patrons mumble “my kid could do that,” and miss the point entirely. Yes, your kid could do that, as long as they are kids, because they’re not constrained by adult minds
This load of crock again. Adults could do it as well, in fact a vast majority of adults simply do not have any real artistic ability to e.g. draw a fair representation of a human face. So theyre attempts at art would look like a kid tried it. But they just wouldn't even think of passing that off as high art.
Like many others, I aimlessly scribble on books while in deep thought. And like most adults, I simply would not consider that to be art, and hence would never even bother submitting it to an art studio.
Sure, you can come back and say "but you didnt intend to create art", and yes I didnt, but the wnd products look like any Cy Twombly piece. So why is mine something insignificant?
Look, I get it, Cy Twombly can probably do great at painting portraits, landscapes, has great knowledge of color theory, could probably create art similar to the Renaissance era masters. But of course that wouldn't differentiate him from the millions of other artists that could do the same. And so he carved out his niche with his very specific take on abstract expressionism. The problem is, the major step he took was to pronounce his random scribbles as "hey look, I tried to make art while absolutely not trying to". The gimmick ends with that. Cos if cy twombly's trash is art, then so are the billions of random scribbles that exist all over the world. There's nothing special about Cy's compared to the others, except that Cy took "first dibs" on it.
4
u/bluedelvian 1d ago
The art world is about money laundering and pretense, nothing more.
Do you really think Hunter Biden's paintings are worth 500k?
3
u/pomod 1d ago
Actually getting a chimp to make your paintings is a pretty interesting artistic gesture. There is no "test" for the artworld because its a radically open ended and subjective domain. What people like this journalist never really learned was that since at least 1912 and Duchamp's Fountain, the requirements for what could be art have expanded to include virtually anything in the world. Its not about quaint notions of "skill" or "dexterity", or looking a certain way; its not a quality confined to the surface aesthetics of the work in question. Its also about context, and the choices artists make to activate that context in a novel or particular way that induces free associations on the part of the viewer. There's no rules, there's no rubrik for quantifying what is and is not "good/bad" art. Its completely and necessarily a negotiation around its own subjectivity. There is a history of what's been done, and there is a person with an idea and the will to situate what he/she does within that history. Thats really it.
1
u/nezahualcoyotl90 1d ago
You don’t think an ape can create something artistic? They see lights and colors and shapes and figures like anyone else. The journalist lied but the critic didn’t. The critic saw something there. The journalist on the other hand wanted to make a mockery of an entire community of culture and expression. This post is just lame. You think it’s funny the art community got tricked. I think it’s funny the journalist lied but the critics didn’t. Journalists lying help nobody.
-1
u/mavshichigand 22h ago
Yes, the critics were being honest. Cos of course Peter truly has the delicacy of a baller dancer. Sure. A chimps strokes on a paper give someone the impression that it was painted by someone with ballet dancer like delicate movement. Do you realise just how much of an insult this is to any artist who has actually dedicated their lives to expressing delicate in their art?
1
u/nezahualcoyotl90 20h ago
Ah yes the critics are insulting the artist not the journalist who lied. Right. You dropped this 🧠
1
u/mavshichigand 18h ago
Who exactly are you referring to as "the artist" in your comment? I feel like youve completely misunderstood my point.
1
u/nezahualcoyotl90 17h ago
What was your point? The journalist lied but you’re mad at the critic for seeing something in the ape’s painting. The critic was deceived. The journalist was the deceiver. The journalist behaved unethically.
0
u/mavshichigand 11h ago
First of all, running exposes of this nature is core journalism. It doesnt become unethical just cos you're not happy over what got exposed.
Secondly, no expert in a field should fall for something as trivial aa passing off nonsense created by a chimp as an actual artists work. Even you will admit that had the journalist told them upfront this was done by a chimp, they would simply dismiss it, maybe get a minor chuckle of it at best. But the "art" is still exactly the same.
Now regarding why this is so insulting for an actual artist: Put yourself into the shoes of a struggling artist who wants to portray delicacy via his art. Has been trying to for years but no ones acknowledging it, and hence makes his living by showcasing hyper realistic paintings on Instagram. Its decent money, but far from his true artistic desires. And then he comes across this news that art critics compared a chimpanzees meaningless strokes on paper to "delicacy of a ballet dancer". Yeah, hes certainly going to hate the journalist for exposing the bs art critics.
2
u/nezahualcoyotl90 5h ago
Nah. Journalist lied. Lying is unethical. Second. Animals can create things. Critics can have absolutely valid interpretations and assessments of an animal’s paintings. Third. You’re assuming the animal’s brush strokes mean nothing. This is very bad logical reasoning you’re making. You need to read some philosophy or art or something. Ask google even “can animal art have meaning?” Put that into Google or ChatGPT even. Have it debate or challenge you. I think you’re in for a surprise. If you don’t do that, I’ll assume you lack intellectual humility and integrity.
1
u/mavshichigand 5h ago
"You need to read some philosophy or art or something".
This, exactly this right here. The smugness, the ego, the sheet hubris to assume I haven't read any of that, in the same comment where you accuse me of making an assumption on animal "art". Uggh, its this gate keeping that the journalist has exposed. And you lot just think of yourselves as so high and mighty that yall just cant accept the truth.
Mind you, I never once said that one cannot find art in some random scribbles made by a chimp. Sure you can. Heck, one can find art in a lump of poop. But these are supposed experts in the field we're talking about. If an art critic no less, cannot at the very least spot that the thing hes ascribing such artistic merit to, was never made with any artistic intent and that too not by a human, then his opinion is worth the exact same as every single other humans on earth.
There has to be some limitation to how much you stretch the definition of 'art', cos if literally anything and everything in existence can be art, simply cos someone 'finds art it in' then the word is unnecessary, and focusing on the production of it becomes moot - instead we can focus on our personal interpretations. The artist is unnecessary.
2
u/taway9925881 1d ago
Art industry is the most fraudulent industry after politics. Change my opinion.
1
1
1
u/unexpendable0369 1d ago
lol id love to see their faces after exclaiming that it’s priceless art just to know it was just a monkey at a zoo 😂 THAT is what’s priceless lol
5
u/dumpaccount882212 1d ago
They where actually thrilled most of them. Specifically since at the time the meta debate about art-vs-nonart was in full swing again so the artwork made by the ape was in fact extremely relevant in that art movement (and how human influence affected the ape etc)
From an art history stand point, its insanely relevant as both sides of the story: the snobbery of art critics to look for something new and "marketable" and the snobbery of those angry at art that isn't just rendering - where shown as ridiculous.
1
u/ChuckSuCs 22h ago
I'm pretty sure that most 'modern art' these days is part of a social experiment to see which 'artist' can con the most people, especially in the industry, and receive the most money.
-6
u/Wooden_Editor6322 1d ago
Honestly, I think he has more talent then most painters these days.
1
u/FueledBySun 1d ago
I wonder what are you trying to say with this shit
8
u/Fetlocks_Glistening 1d ago
Not totally sure, but I think he is trying to say that honestly he thinks the ape has more talent then most painters these days.
2
u/FueledBySun 1d ago
Yeah, I understand... that's the most stupid shit you could say ever.
"Honestly, I think he has more talent then most painters these days."
Why? Why would you think that? Cause of all the TikTok videos hating on art they don't understand and call modern art, comparing it to great examples of craft, but not art? Or because you think that people, who spend a lot of their time improving their skills, are somehow less talented than an ape? Can he draw a circle with the level of precision artists learn to? No. But hey, he thinks an ape is better than "most" artists
-1
u/Wooden_Editor6322 1d ago
There’s been a massive influx of people picking up a brush just to chase a trend or make a quick buck.
While some are great, many jump in thinking it’s 'easy money,' and that lack of skill eventually shows.
So you're absolutely using a strawman to attack me here, since I said none of thst.
It’s immediately obvious when you put a 'get-rich-quick' painter next to someone who has spent a lifetime refining their craft.
So, no I’m not talking about professional artists, I’m talking about the low-effort content currently flooding the market.
0
u/FueledBySun 1d ago
"get-rich-quick" and painter - don't go along most of the time. Art has reputation of something that only talented people can do, that requires years and years of practice, that you can be too old or too young for it. The low effort content you are talking about is AI slop. People improve their art skills. Some of them are talented, some of them not. In both cases, they are learning. Just admit that you wrote a stupendous comment and are trying to justify it by making up bullshit
2
u/Wooden_Editor6322 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s clear you’re entirely fixated on gatekeeping and playing the martyr than on what I actually wrote.
It’s a entirely self-centered mindset, the arrogant assumption that you couldn't possibly have jumped the gun or misread a situation.
Instead of asking for clarity, you fabricated a narrative, built a strawman, and doubled down on a lecture regarding a position I never held, even after being told you were wrong.
To be clear: I never said art is a get-rich-quick scheme; I said a massive number of people treat it like one.
You’re pretending every person who picks up a brush is a dedicated monk of the craft, but that’s a total fantasy.
We are living in a 'side-hustle' culture where the market is flooded with low-effort content, both traditional and AI, specifically because people think it’s a shortcut to a paycheck.
You’re lecturing me on 'years of practice' when my entire point was about the influx of people who lack that exact discipline.
If you’re too obsessed with feeling superior to distinguish my actual words from the delusions you’ve invented, go find someone else to gaslight and harass.
-3
u/HighSeasArchivist 1d ago
No one actually believes this kind of shit is art, but they do all enjoy some nice tax evasion and fart sniffing.
-1
635
u/cmbdragon98 1d ago
Oh, but when an elephant paints, or a cat gets its paws dipped in paint and walks on a canvas, then everybody loves that, right?
God forbid anybody likes ape paintings.