Poll: Why, Modern Art? Why?
- Thread starter Johnn Johnston
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I personally don't like the term modern art to describe these paint splatters and brick piles that some random guy with a overly European sounding name and a pencil mustache (Steriotyping, I know) tries to pass off as "conveying emotion".
It seems to suggest that any art made in modern times is nonsense or requires no talent to create (Which really, modern art does not.) I've seen pictures sold for millions of dollars that my dog could have painted, and my dog has three legs. Plus he's been dead for well over two years. And he was the runt of the litter. Anyway, enough of that. My friends and I do have an ongoing joke that if we make a mess, break something or do something else that looks odd/makes no sense and someone asks about it we simply tell them it's modern art. I get a chuckle out of it.
Anyway, if we're in a time when a South American man can tie a dog to a poll, not feed it and call it art...I think we have a bit of a problem. (True story, guy's name is Guillermo Vargas)
It seems to suggest that any art made in modern times is nonsense or requires no talent to create (Which really, modern art does not.) I've seen pictures sold for millions of dollars that my dog could have painted, and my dog has three legs. Plus he's been dead for well over two years. And he was the runt of the litter. Anyway, enough of that. My friends and I do have an ongoing joke that if we make a mess, break something or do something else that looks odd/makes no sense and someone asks about it we simply tell them it's modern art. I get a chuckle out of it.
Anyway, if we're in a time when a South American man can tie a dog to a poll, not feed it and call it art...I think we have a bit of a problem. (True story, guy's name is Guillermo Vargas)
"modern" art as you are calling it may be better defined as art you don't
1. like
or
2. understand
Question, is Picasso's "Guernica" art? It looks like a hot mess drawn by a four year old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_painting
Now, you seem to offer up an understanding of art that makes me wonder why I make this point. But art is about the message it conveys and how it chooses to convey that message. Not necessarily the materials or techniques used in the construction of the piece.
The difference between an artist slapping paint on a canvas and you doing it is that the artists is constructing something that is designed to make social commentary. The artist is using colour balance, white space, specific materials to achieve a specific technique.
I will note tossing out names like Monet and Van Gogh causes you to come off as someone who only looks to the message and talent in non-realism styled forms only if the artist was around in the 1920's or earlier. Which is a kind of snobbery worthy of the rich people who dump several thousands into a piece for little other reason than to say they are therefore connoisseurs of the arts.
For the record, I am a great fan of Cubism and therefore admire Picasso an all his work.
1. like
or
2. understand
Question, is Picasso's "Guernica" art? It looks like a hot mess drawn by a four year old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_painting
Now, you seem to offer up an understanding of art that makes me wonder why I make this point. But art is about the message it conveys and how it chooses to convey that message. Not necessarily the materials or techniques used in the construction of the piece.
The difference between an artist slapping paint on a canvas and you doing it is that the artists is constructing something that is designed to make social commentary. The artist is using colour balance, white space, specific materials to achieve a specific technique.
I will note tossing out names like Monet and Van Gogh causes you to come off as someone who only looks to the message and talent in non-realism styled forms only if the artist was around in the 1920's or earlier. Which is a kind of snobbery worthy of the rich people who dump several thousands into a piece for little other reason than to say they are therefore connoisseurs of the arts.
For the record, I am a great fan of Cubism and therefore admire Picasso an all his work.
Personally, I think people who dis modern art just don't know about art. I know that seems inflammatory but I honestly believe that people grow up with an idea of what 'art' is and this correlates to the impressionist period and The Mona Lisa. When they are confronted with something outside of these parameters, they get confused and are quick to label it 'not art'.
'That which does not apply to my vision simply is not'
The people said the same thing about Pop Art, about pointilist and about expressionism but hose who went in with an open mind saw the redeeming qualities of the pieces and didn't just stop on the surface.
I admit that modern art can be nigh on incomprehensible to those not acquainted with the scene 'it's just a pile of garbage sitting there!', but you have to look deeper. Next time you go to a gallery, really try to think why it's there and don't just say 'it is not art'. It's just lazy, and doesn't confront you with questions about what art really is.
At the end of the day, art is perhaps the most subjective thing we humans have, so to label something as artistically worthless is not looking past your own nose to others who may revel in the message or the aesthetic the artist is trying to employ.
'That which does not apply to my vision simply is not'
The people said the same thing about Pop Art, about pointilist and about expressionism but hose who went in with an open mind saw the redeeming qualities of the pieces and didn't just stop on the surface.
I admit that modern art can be nigh on incomprehensible to those not acquainted with the scene 'it's just a pile of garbage sitting there!', but you have to look deeper. Next time you go to a gallery, really try to think why it's there and don't just say 'it is not art'. It's just lazy, and doesn't confront you with questions about what art really is.
At the end of the day, art is perhaps the most subjective thing we humans have, so to label something as artistically worthless is not looking past your own nose to others who may revel in the message or the aesthetic the artist is trying to employ.
I'm not intending to come off as elitist or a snob; I was using names that I knew others would recognise rather than gamble on a more obscure artist. Sorry for the misconception.mark_n_b post=18.73703.805232 said:
This is a perfect example of how I feel about "Modern" art.Maet post=18.73703.805052 said:
I once went to a "Modern Art" museum exhibit once with my family.
I saw a circle of wood only part of it was askew, I saw bottles of water with varying hieghts of water in them, and I saw another circle of wood only slightly ovular.
My father's girlfriend was with us and she was describing what she saw, like with one piece of "modern art" that was a bunch of sticks with a mold in the middle of it she said "It kindof looks like Africa and a man in the center of it" or with the water bottles she said "It looks like a wave in the water" which that one sortof did but I could easily do that myself.
I really, REALLY, hate "modern art" however that does not mean that I can't enjoy a piece or two like the giant/miniature sculptures of someone naked in various positions. It was nice, but overall the crap I see like the stack of bricks you mentioned or the urinal I just don't see as "art".
Like Maet said, Art shouldn't require context to be the center of the piece. Most of the old pieces of art I see have context to it, but overall it's a beautiful painting. However, looking into it's meaning, it's purpose, it's design and the painting just becomes more and more beautiful. "Modern art" does not do this at least in my opinion, you see a stack of bricks at first and think nothing of it. Then you have to think a bit harder as to what the hell the maker intended it to mean and then think "ohhh, it shows the structure and support of the American Family. That's great I guess".
/rant
Special as in significant or relevant? By most standards, I think we can all agree that it's a good painting worthy of admiration. My point is that if anyone created the Mona Lisa at any time, the community would probably applaud it. Crap that someone glues together to make a statement about a particular government is generally only effective for a limited time.Alex_P post=18.73703.805203 said:
But how condescending is it for the spectator when the artist (or their fans) talks down on them for being narrow minded? When I walk into a gallery, I want to be immediately drawn to the display. I don't want to have to be shocked into going, and then confused for a couple of minutes until somebody spends a half hour explaining it to me through a rehearsed speech. Snobbery in the art world works both ways.Hey Joe post=18.73703.805260 said:
(the above is not a direct response to Hey Joe's post so much as I'm just using it as a jumping off point)
We don't talk down on you for not understanding (well a few of us do but they're complete tools, ignore them), we look down on you for not trying to engage with the piece, trying to see the whole picture rather than the facade of ridicule most people employ when they don't understand something.Maet post=18.73703.805318 said:
I'm a part-time conceptual artist myself, and it really annoys me when people say stuff like 'it's just a pile of trash, how lazy' because conceptual art is about the concept and what the artist is trying to say rather than meaning coming from the end product.
I agree with NewClassic on this; there are tons of incredibly terrible pieces of modern art out there, but there is still some genius out there.... It's just much more difficult to find, plus you have to wade through the swamp of bad modern art to get there.....NewClassic post=18.73703.804959 said:
What's challenging about Modern Art is that often it takes an enormous amount of education to understand and appreciate in full. Most people don't have this kind of education so their sole basis for judgment is technique. Specifically, they ask themselves if it's photo realistic.
Art, and painting in particular, was forced to move beyond the goal of photo realism with the advent of the photography. To offer a few examples, paintings became a means to examine the primal psyche, how we conceptualize space, and how we see. Modern Art is about broadened horizons and the boredom of understanding visual art in a purely illustrative sense.
So don't worry if you hate modern art, there are more than enough Norman Rockwell illustrations to quench your thirst for kitschy art.
Art, and painting in particular, was forced to move beyond the goal of photo realism with the advent of the photography. To offer a few examples, paintings became a means to examine the primal psyche, how we conceptualize space, and how we see. Modern Art is about broadened horizons and the boredom of understanding visual art in a purely illustrative sense.
So don't worry if you hate modern art, there are more than enough Norman Rockwell illustrations to quench your thirst for kitschy art.
The essential point is this: art should say something, have some central theme it represents, a point intended by the artist and consistently interpretable by those viewing it. A correct interpretation may require some background in art or literature, but it should not make a very specific, obscure reference. The problem with modern art is that many artists could give two shits about their message, and instead just cobble some random crap together and use their established fame to sell it. Naturally, not all artists do this, but a significant quantity seem to. The other fallacy of many modern artists is to cater to a very specific audience; the work of these artists looks like shit to the masses as well. Art is only meaningful when it gives universal themes; when it represents something meaningful to the general masses rather than a specific group. Not all modern artists have lost sight of this, but most certainly have.
But the thing is, why should I have to think deeper as to what the artist means to say in his sculpture or something?Hey Joe post=18.73703.805338 said:
You really have to be prepared when going to a Modern Art exhibit, because if you don't you're just going to end up like me thinking "What the hell is this?" If you go there, realizing that everything is supposed to have some sort of cryptic meaning or something then you can truely appreciate it but even then it's a bit difficult.
Paintings, the usual stuff from Van Gogh and Picasso, always had a meaning on the surface but like I said before if you dwell deeper in their meaning they become something more.
For "modern art" however, there's a meaning for it right in its front and you have to figure it out yourself. There's no subtle hint of meaning, it's just displayed right in front of you and you're expected to know what they're trying to communicate through you.
I'm not saying all "modern art" is like that, there are some truely shining examples of "modern art" like my previously mentioned Naked Giagantic/Miniature Sculptures I saw before, but most of it is just like what Maet did (on the surface atleast); Put up some random junk, place something extra in it, and expect people to pay a fortune for your "teenage angst" (not saying all modern art is like that, just an example)
Modern Art is actually an ongoing medium of dialogue between artists. What I mean is that usually artists are referencing a previous artist and responding or expressing their notion further. Without context or education of previous artistic movements don't expect to "get" modern art.
For example, Rothko's work just looks like simplistically colored walls, but when you understand the lineology of his work and how his placement of color fields is a further abstraction of Mondrian's work then you begin to understand his perspective.
And to anyone that thinks I am over reading into modern art and giving the artists too much benefit of the doubt (my father inlaw thought that was the case), go to any modern art museum and look at the order and placement of each subsequent section of work. Typically, each hall will be followed be a corresponding or responding art movement.
It's art, not drawings and if you don't educate yourself about it then expect to always be on the outside of the ever growing dialogue.
For example, Rothko's work just looks like simplistically colored walls, but when you understand the lineology of his work and how his placement of color fields is a further abstraction of Mondrian's work then you begin to understand his perspective.
And to anyone that thinks I am over reading into modern art and giving the artists too much benefit of the doubt (my father inlaw thought that was the case), go to any modern art museum and look at the order and placement of each subsequent section of work. Typically, each hall will be followed be a corresponding or responding art movement.
It's art, not drawings and if you don't educate yourself about it then expect to always be on the outside of the ever growing dialogue.
I understand how it can be frustrating for the artist when people don't 'get' their work. I can appreciate engagement with interactive pieces or being strung along for the sake of changing the spectator's perspective. But whether or not you understand the piece has no effect on the existence of it. A pile of bricks or paint splotches is still just a pile of bricks or paint splotches, whether you care for and understand the underlying message or not.Hey Joe post=18.73703.805338 said:
I tried being an art student for three years, and it didn't work. My teachers laughed at me because I wanted to make pretty things, not waste time looking for meaning. Personally, I won't call the artist lazy if they won't call me ignorant should I walk away from their display looking confused.
It's not up to me or anyone else to decide what goes as art and what does not. It is, however, very much my right to call bullshit on people selling worthless junk supported by a weak idea and trying to redefine my appreciation of art just because they want to make a quick buck.
So, to sum it up: Fuck commercial art. True artists aren't rich, they're too busy making great art to make money.
So, to sum it up: Fuck commercial art. True artists aren't rich, they're too busy making great art to make money.
I don't necessarily claim to understand modern art (though God knows I try), but the Tate Modern has become one of my favourite days out. Partly because it's fun - I thoroughly enjoy the place because a lot of the works are genuinely brilliant for varying reasons while others are at the very least mock-worthy, but largely because it's a nice cheap day out for a skint student like myself if they happen to live nearby.
I probably wouldn't have ever considered it to be the sort of place I'd go, but then I ended up (by random uni accommodation assignment) living with a girl that worked there. She quickly proceeded to fill the flat with poster print that she got gratis from the gallery shop and I was grabbed by "ooh, that's kinda interesting...", it just went from there. I have to admit that I need to be in the mood for it when I go - a couple of times I've wandered round the whole place in the space of an hour and taken none of it in, but sometimes it's just the kind of amusement I'm up for. Aside from all that, the former Bankside Power Station which houses the Tate Modern is an impressive structure in itself, no?
Incidentally, the new Turbine Hall exhibition opens this coming Tuesday... very good chance I'll be there on Wednesday.
I probably wouldn't have ever considered it to be the sort of place I'd go, but then I ended up (by random uni accommodation assignment) living with a girl that worked there. She quickly proceeded to fill the flat with poster print that she got gratis from the gallery shop and I was grabbed by "ooh, that's kinda interesting...", it just went from there. I have to admit that I need to be in the mood for it when I go - a couple of times I've wandered round the whole place in the space of an hour and taken none of it in, but sometimes it's just the kind of amusement I'm up for. Aside from all that, the former Bankside Power Station which houses the Tate Modern is an impressive structure in itself, no?
Incidentally, the new Turbine Hall exhibition opens this coming Tuesday... very good chance I'll be there on Wednesday.
You just won the thread, poleboy (alright, not that I have the authority or experience to say that, but that was a truly awesome post).poleboy post=18.73703.805402 said:
Especially that last sentence..... It encapsulates just about all of my opinions of music and visual arts.