iPods to blame for total eclipse of the art, says Hockney

[sabbath999]

It is, according to David Hockney, a well known British artist who is IMHO a bit of a blowhard.

iPod, music endangring contemporary art (clicky)

The reason, IMHO, is that contemporary art doesn't make as much of an impact as art did in the days of yore is that, by and large, it pales in comparison to that of past ages.

Try this:

Google Hockney, look at his paintings. See the quality of his work.

Then Google any of the old masters... say Frans Hals for example, but you could Google Rembrandt, Johannes Vermeer, Judith Leyster, Willem van de Velde (the older or younger, your choice)... and I am just picking 1600's dutch artists, you could also do the french, italians, etc... and compare the quality of their work to the stuff that 21st century painters are putting out... THEN you will see why there is a lack of interest in contemporary art. Or compare the quality of modern paintings to the impressionists of the turn of the last century. Again, this is simply my opinion, but it is pretty obvious to me where the problem is.

Although mentioning Judith Leyster makes me kind of sad... she was a BRILLIANT painter, who gave up her career entirely to raise a family. Such a waste, such a great loss that she didn't continue to paint later in life.

 

[Stretch Armstrong]

Perhaps, just perhaps, if I were more stimulus deprived, I might would find his work "The Lawn Sprinklers" more stimulating. But, I think this has less to do with my iPod and more to do with the style of his work.

Thinking back to my acid days, I am not even sure drugs would help his work.:mrgreen:

 

[Don Simon]

"We are not in a very visual age," Hockney said.

Er... I guess he hasn't noticed that most mobile phones now include cameras as standard, and digital cameras are flying off the shelves. Admittedly that may be more a reflection on consumerism, cameras as gadgets etc, but still a lot of photographs are being taken, printed, posted and viewed online. You won't get very far in most towns or cities without seeing posters everywhere; why do the advertisers bother if we're all too busy listening to iPods to use our eyes? Oh and so far I've only covered still images... how about TV? YouTube? Why high-definition? Why do iPods and other music players now have the ability to display images or movies? Not a visual culture?

And the comments about people being badly dressed... very strange.

 

[Garbz]

Maybe it's just people have changed tastes. Turn of the century art was at a time where music was... well turn of the century music. Classical Baroque very light jazz? Not quite sure on the history there. Nowadays music covers everything from Classical, to jazz, to rock, metal, each with about 30 sub categories, which really supplies another art form to suit everyone's tastes.

No idea this is my guess really. There's enough art in current music to provide stimulus to nearly everyone. There wasn't way back when.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

If you actually read what he is saying he has a valid point.
I see lots of people every day plugged into their i-Pods and they seem largely oblivious to their surroundings. The same goes for mobile 'phones. People can now not live without them - but if you listen (hard not to when they appear oblivious to everyone else and talk loudly) to their conversations they are mostly peurile.
I'm not sure if people dress any worse than they ever did - or have less understanding of 'art' (it's always been pretty low) - but people certainly appear more wrapped up in themselves and don't notice so much.
I have an i-Pod but I only use it in the car. I hate headphones.

 

[Don Simon]

I see lots of people every day plugged into their i-Pods and they seem largely oblivious to their surroundings. The same goes for mobile 'phones. People can now not live without them - but if you listen (hard not to when they appear oblivious to everyone else and talk loudly) to their conversations they are mostly peurile.

I don't disagree with that at all. But at the same time I still see lots of people reading newspapers and books on the train. Granted some people while talking to you will suddenly start talking on the phone or put a headphone in, and I can't imagine anyone producing a paperback in the middle of a conversation, but still I think to say it's a "less visual culture" is going too far. And of course people will also spend a lot of time sending and receiving pointless texts; it's not a purely aural thing. As for people being oblivious to their surroundings, we could equally blame television, computers and games consoles, and as for people being wrapped up in themselves... blogs?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

You are probably right. I think what is happening that the difference between the 'cultured' and 'uncultured' is just becoming more marked.
There's a wonderful book by John Seabrook called 'Nobrow' which deals with this.
"What happens when the old elite distinctions - of caste as much as of taste - between highbrow and lowbrow no longer apply? When artists show at K-Mart, museums are filled with TV screens, and the brand on your clothes is worth more than their cut? Welcome to the world of Nobrow: the ground zero where marketing and culture converge."
There's another book called 'Amusing Ourselves To Death' (can't remember the author). Along similar lines.
I blame advertising and the media...

 

[morydd]

I have to say that I feel that many (if not most) people who complain about the lack of "culture" or dearth of "art" these days are people who have overly narrow definitions of art. They're usually the same people who claim that Rap isn't music. What they usually mean is that there is a lack of culture or art that they understand and are familiar with. Granted, most of the population goes through life without really thinking about art, or making artistic judgments beyond popularity ("My friends all say this is good, so it must be.") But is this really all that different from the past. I think the difference is that art as a whole is much more accessible now, so the fact that few people take advantage of the accessibility is more obvious.
I personally don't think that general personalities have changed significantly, only that it's a bit easier to be who you are. Bluetooth headsets make it easier for self-centered jerks to be self-centered jerks, but they also make it easier for regular people (the kind who take off the headset when having a conversation) to keep in touch with others. Digital cameras make it easier for annoying tourists to be annoying. But they also make it easier for budding photographers to get their work out, get feedback, and make improvements.