# Reverent Entertainment and Quizzes, watch out 'sacred cows' and 'abstract modernists'



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

http://reverent.org/

http://reverent.org/quizzes.html

Have a look at some of those quizzes and see how well you do. How reliably can you distinguish Mozart and Salieri excerpts, Dickens and Bulwer-Lytton prose, Pollock or bird poop, the list goes on.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I got 67% on Faulkner vs. machine translation and 100% on virtuoso vs. MIDI. I really don't know how anyone could get less than 100% on the latter, they didn't even attempt to dress up the MIDI with realistic sampled instruments. Very interesting site nonetheless.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

I got 80% from the Mozart&Salieri quiz. I don't listen to much of Mozarts music.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

67 % on "True art or a fake ?" Man...I can barely call those doodles true art.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I only got 60 on Mozart/Salieri. But I got the instrumental works right; it was the vocal tracks that tripped me up. But I don't like opera much, so after a couple seconds of the vocal tracks, I lost interest and just closed my eyes and pushed a selection.

I did better on the true art/fake at 83. Maybe I'd better quit this place for an art forum.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I've taken various challenges when it came to abstract art vs scribbles and I've always gotten 100 percent on all of them. I guess I'll give it a go on this as well.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Just took it and got a 100 percent.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> I only got 60 on Mozart/Salieri. But I got the instrumental works right; it was the vocal tracks that tripped me up. But I don't like opera much, so after a couple seconds of the vocal tracks, I lost interest and just closed my eyes and pushed a selection.
> 
> I did better on the true art/fake at 83. Maybe I'd better quit this place for an art forum.


The only Salieri's music that i have heard is from the movie Amadeus, i just recognise pretty well the Mozartian spirit/quality/style.
I almost never listen to his operas expect few of his arias.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> Just took it and got a 100 percent.


How can you know if a black circle on a white background, for example, is "real" art or merely a fake ?  I mean just because a famous painter did it doesn't mean that it's a piece of art. Anyone could do it.

I must mention : I am very closed-minded when it comes to these things.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I was just browsing through and I noticed the smart vs. stupid thing, I don't like the implication that grades relate in any way to actual intelligence.


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

I took Criminal or Not? and got 30%...


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> How can you know if a black circle on a white background, for example, is "real" art or merely a fake ?  I mean just because a famous painter did it doesn't mean that it's a piece of art. Anyone could do it.
> 
> I must mention : I am very closed-minded when it comes to these things.


Anyone _could_ do it, but the fact is that no one else did. Should art be defined as those things which are so difficult to create that only a few vaunted egos are capable of it? Seems dubious to me.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Mephistopheles said:


> Anyone _could_ do it, but the fact is that no one else did. Should art be defined as those things which are so difficult to create that only a few vaunted egos are capable of it? Seems dubious to me.


For me, yes. Because I can't consider to be art every junk or banality I see in my ordinary life. What feeling do I get if I see a circle on a paper ? None. What is the point in calling it a piece of art ? Should we consider any doodle a piece of art ? I guess not. I really don't see the point in considering any triviality a "great" art. As long as it does not offer anything to my imaginations or senses, I can't call it art, sorry. I am closed-minded, I know, but I think there is a level which should be preserved. Art is an amazing thing, it should not be trivialized.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Renaissance said:


> How can you know if a black circle on a white background, for example, is "real" art or merely a fake ?  I mean just because a famous painter did it doesn't mean that it's a piece of art. Anyone could do it.
> 
> I must mention : I am very closed-minded when it comes to these things.


"That whosoever could make an egg stand upright on a flat piece of marble should build the cupola, since thus each man's intellect would be discerned. Taking an egg, therefore, all those Masters sought to make it stand upright, but not one could find a way. Whereupon Filippo, being told to make it stand, took it graciously, and, giving one end of it a blow on the flat piece of marble, made it stand upright. The craftsmen protested that they could have done the same; but Filippo answered, laughing, that they could also have raised the cupola, if they had seen the model or the design. And so it was resolved that he should be commissioned to carry out this work."

In the end, visual art isn't necessarily about the work itself, but about the philosophical underpinning behind it. Visual art isn't there to just appeal to your senses or be a "pretty background". I suppose you could say it is similar to 4'33 in this manner. It is fine if you do not care for that kind of art, as I don't much care for a lot of art in a similar vein either. This doesn't mean I automatically discount this type of art, because I realise that something special can arise from this concept. However, sometimes I feel that after the point has been made, that one needs to move on. Some people in the art world are still trying to play on the same old concept that was driven into the ground long ago.

I think most people familiar with art would be able to get 100% on that quiz. You can definitely tell more amateur work from the better-made works. I suppose most people could create something extremely similar to the black circle on a white background, but being aware of such movements in the art history world, one could safely assume that this was an actual piece if one did not know of it. The works, such as Kandinsky's, are not easily replicated and are well done art, in my opinion.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

You are right, these kinds of things are more about the concepts and the philosophy behind what's visible, of course, but for me philosophy and arts are two different things. Philosophy is for mind, Art is for senses. That's all. I understand Modernism in art as a philosophical problem, but still...I prefer to experience art from a different point of view, the old one.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Because I can't consider to be art every junk or banality I see in my ordinary life.


The whole point is that it is banality removed from its ordinary context, placed in circumstances where you would not expect it, where it jars with your anticipations, and it is that tension, that juxtaposition, which is supposed to arouse _something_ -whether it's the emotional response you crave, or even rage at the thought that such a thing should be considered on par with what we are used to calling "art". I don't think it much matters whether you are closed-minded or whether anyone else thinks you are, what matters is that you are _closing off_ your potential experiences by clinging to these arbitrary boundaries of art/non-art. It reminds me of when some folks ask (or declare), "Is music by the Beatles art?" and my first thought is, "why do you care? What does that even _mean_?" Surely it has nothing to do with the music itself - if we say "yes", does the experience of the music change? No. Then it has something to do with its context. To call their music art is not to say that it is intrinsically good, but that it is _better_ than its competitors; that it is in a different league to today's pop music. But all such a label satisfies is our need to feel as though we are cultured. That is shallow and self-serving.

Instead, if you appreciate something, just appreciate it. Just savour the experience of everything it makes run through your brain and forget about trying to determine whether or not it "deserves" to be called art. If you think it is trivial, call it trivial. If you think it is boring, call it boring. If you are not moved by it, you cannot help that. But why aim for this demarcation between a Pedestal of Greatness upon which we lay hallowed creations that we can all assuredly declare is Art, and the trash-can into which we throw everything else and gleefully look down on. We all know that taste is inexplicable and greatness arbitrary, so what does this pointless exercise achieve except a useless reflection of our own prejudices? After all, some trivial things are amazing too. For some of us, when we hear a mundane sound in a certain context like the noise of distant construction work on a warm day with no other sounds; or when, outside alone at dusk, we see some old, autumnal tree straddling the earth beneath the stars, we most _surely_ have a sensual experience that matches if not exceeds that which we experience with "art" - and yet this is not art. Is it any the worse for it? Of course not. Cherish the experience, forget the labels.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I would like to think that art serves different purposes. Not all art, in my opinion, has to be "great". I think if all "art" aimed for the same purpose, then it would be stagnant and boring. I'm not going to put 4'33 on my playlist, but it definitely has a point in this world. Is it as great as Bach? Frankly, I don't care. I will judge it on its individual merit instead of continuously comparing the two. Is there necessarily a point in comparison if it is no useful for coaxing out something relevant about the two pieces that allow us to increase our knowledge? Sometimes I wonder why we argue about somethings. Surely, people may argue the merits of frozen against canned vegetables, but does one really argue whether kidney beans are truly better tasting than lima beans? Sometimes I wonder if the arguments, such as those concerning Beethoven vs. Mozart, can be lumped into the second category.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Also, I might add that I don't find every things and occurrences to be banal or boring. I find them quite wondrous.


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

Mozart vs. Salieri all sounds like Mozart!  Got 70%.

MIDI is too easy : 100%. And I got 100% for the unknown vs. famous. (HINT recording quality and look for mistakes)
Criminal or not : 70%

This is fun! :tiphat:


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

I got 90% on the Mozart/Salieri quiz.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

jani said:


> I got 80% from the Mozart&Salieri quiz. I don't listen to much of Mozarts music.


That was exactly my score. I was quite surprised because the only excerpts I'd heard of Salieri on youtube were really clunky sounding. Curiously, the ones I got right without fail were instrumental works, but the opera works were trickier somehow, though the first one I decided was very Salieri. One must also keep in mind that these are excerpts and not entire pieces, but still, the Salieri fragments were not bad. The maker of the test did a good job, since the Salieri I ran into youtube was much crappier, I swear.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Real or fake art: 92%
Artist or ape:100%
Pollack vs. Birds: 100%
Bremen Artists: 50%

Only the last one is hard.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

100% on the Pollock or bird
only 75% on the Virtuoso or MIDI  (I can't believe that the first was someone real! It sounded horrible)


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> I was just browsing through and I noticed the smart vs. stupid thing, I don't like the implication that grades relate in any way to actual intelligence.


I agree with you wholeheartedly(I haven't been a good student since homework became a big part of the grade back in 5th grade). Nonetheless, I wouldn't take it too seriously.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Klavierspieler said:


> Pollack vs. Birds: 100%


I got 0% on that. I'd never seen any of his stuff before but after I failed so miserably, I looked at it again and I could tell more easily. Bird poop is nasty, I wanted to get that test over with faster.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Lunasong said:


> I took Criminal or Not? and got 30%...


I got about a 50% on this one, so my score is basically a 'random one.' It almost seemed to me after the fact that I could tell, but I doubt it.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> How can you know if a black circle on a white background, for example, is "real" art or merely a fake ?  I mean just because a famous painter did it doesn't mean that it's a piece of art. Anyone could do it.
> 
> I must mention : I am very closed-minded when it comes to these things.


That's the thing you see, the black circle on white background is true representation of modern art, the other scribbles look far too interesting to be by a famous person. 

Edit: I got 67% on that one by the by.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Mephistopheles said:


> For some of us, when we hear a mundane sound in a certain context like the noise of distant construction work on a warm day with no other sounds; or when, outside alone at dusk, we see some old, autumnal tree straddling the earth beneath the stars, we most _surely_ have a sensual experience that matches if not exceeds that which we experience with "art" - and yet this is not art. Is it any the worse for it? Of course not. Cherish the experience, forget the labels.


You are correct, this is how I appreciate things either. I don't care what people call art, for me art is only what I enjoy. Of course anyone is free to consider whatever he likes as art. My experience is certainly not influenced by labels.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

apparently Adolf Hitler wasn't a bad painter!

Took the quiz ape vs artist, 83%. The first one seems the best. 
Bird vs Pollock is an interesting one. Got 100%, but a while ago I had the idea of making art out of bird crap.
You could hang some cages above the floor in a certain pattern (let's say a bird) and then put the birds into the cage. Feed them and and wait for results. It should look quite interesting, as bird poop has many different hues of grey.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I haven't got over 67% in any of them yet - and that includes the Hitler vs Einstein. I got 38% on the machine translation vs Faulkner. I haven't tried any of the music ones yet though...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I agree with you wholeheartedly(I haven't been a good student since homework became a big part of the grade back in 5th grade). Nonetheless, I wouldn't take it too seriously.


I know, I know, that stuff just gets my back up.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

Ahem... artists _are_ apes (therefore I got 100% no matter what the stupid test said).


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Mephistopheles said:


> Ahem... artists _are_ apes (therefore I got 100% no matter what the stupid test said).


True story.


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

Lunasong said:


> I took Criminal or Not? and got 30%...





clavichorder said:


> I got about a 50% on this one, so my score is basically a 'random one.' It almost seemed to me after the fact that I could tell, but I doubt it.


_The photos are selected dynamically each time the page is downloaded. If you reload the page you will see a different random set of photos._
I just took it again and AGAIN got 30%...that's not even better than guessing.


----------

