
Some artists are disappearing from society to let their work speak for itself - prismatic
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/13/t-magazine/artist-recluse.html
======
jmkd
Based on the title I cynically prepared to dissect this article for adhering
to one of three common fallacies about interpretation: 1\. All artwork speaks
for itself 2\. A work of art has only one meaning 3\. The artist determines
the meaning of the art.

But it does a reasonable job of avoiding these traps. The quote about artist
David Hammons sums it up nicely "he is simply too private to talk about where
his work comes from, that doing so would feel like a bodily violation.'

Like many artists before and since he is indirectly saying that he doesn't
know why or how his work is created, or what it really means, because if he
did he would be a critic or curator, not an artist. He is putting artwork into
the world, not anything else.

~~~
Melting_Harps
Isn't Banksy the epitome of this type of artist?

His work is highly sought out because he is as elusive as a public artist can
be, giving him an allure and a sense of mystique. Whereas his predecessors
were often starving artists, who often fall victim to alcohol/drug abuse,
whose work is seldom appreciated until they die. Lest they 'made it' and were
ordained by Church or State, that is.

I'd say beyond just artistic freedom, it also seems to give them a monetary
incentive to operate this way.

I don't know enough about the Art World to comment on the works themselves,
but given the amount of talent seen on just deviant art since its inception, I
hope most follow this model and we can see more artists get recognized for
their work.

This does remind me of a series I saw that was quite moving on the BBC that I
wish they'd reboot on modern artists, its called the Power of Art:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QwQ2kUQDnY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QwQ2kUQDnY)

Sidenote: That's my favorite episode (Jacques-Louis David) of the series, and
its worth the entire watch: but @41:14 onward it shows what Art and Artists is
often reduced to when control rests in the hands of the aforementioned
'dignitaries.'

~~~
op03
I have no clue what is interesting about Banksy and know people who buy his
crap who have no idea either. It's become a social status thing.

If disappearing and being elusive is the criterion I pick Bill Waterson.

~~~
coldtea
> _I have no clue what is interesting about Banksy and know people who buy his
> crap who have no idea either._

For one, it's distinctive and iconic.

Second, in 2020, it still has an element of social commentary, whereas most
"modern art" is abstract BS.

Third, it's not academic wordy social commentary (like some other art aspires
to), but something plain folks can appreciate.

So, lots to like.

~~~
itronitron
"every time I think I've painted something slightly original, I find out that
Blek le Rat has done it as well, only twenty years earlier." >>
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blek_le_Rat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blek_le_Rat)

------
helsinkiandrew
If only every artist, actor, musician, tv personality, would/could do this.

~~~
stronglikedan
I'd be happy if they just stuck to their art. So much of it is ruined once
they open their mouths.

------
lftherios
satoshi

~~~
bitxbitxbitcoin
Code can definitely be art - complete with imitations and people taking
advantage of the disappearance to claim authorship.

------
rq1
I don’t and definitely never understand “modern art“.

Am I blind? Is there something wrong with me?

~~~
kristiandupont
I've been in relationships with two artists who were both very opinionated on
this topic and we had long (and pleasant) discussions. I am not sure they
would agree with me but this is the take that I have:

Art "works" for you if it makes you feel something. That's all. It can be joy,
melancholy, curiosity or it might even be repulsive to you.

Do you like The Big Lebowski? I remember seeing this question on Reddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/f5hvt/what_do_so...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/f5hvt/what_do_so_many_people_find_enjoyable_in_the_big/)
\-- the person wants to understand it. But to me like many, I am sure, it's
clear that there is not really something deep to _understand_. Either you
enjoy it as a funny movie, or it does nothing for you.

The type of art that most of us appreciate without trying to "understand" is
music. It can evoke a spectrum of feelings and a lot of it just doesn't. Most
people don't have issues with this the way they do with "modern art". So if
you see an abstract painting and you feel nothing, probably just let it go.
Don't try and decipher it.

~~~
martopix
I think this is precisely the issue. A lot of contemporary art not only
"means" nothing to a lot of people, but also "feels" like nothing to a lot of
people. The problem I have with that kind of art is not it being non-beautiful
or non-interpretable. It's just that it doesn't make me feel anything. Music
does. Photography does. Cinema does. Some art certainly does, but a lot of it
doesn't.

~~~
billfruit
May be the important aspect of modern art, is what a poster above mentioned,
they are intricate puzzles, in a way that music or photography is rarely is.

~~~
martopix
Another poster says that people shouldn't try to find interpretations, but
just feelings, like for music. This is what I was responding to. If they're
puzzles it's a different assumption.

