Poll: Why, Modern Art? Why?

[Archon]

If you've never asked yourself the question before, stop and think: "Why does color, shape, and symmetry move me?" "Why does an arrangement of tones have the ability to impact my emotional state?" The more we learn about human beings, the more we learn that our ability to appreciate aesthetics are based in evolution. (Great book: Evolutionary Aesthetics). Our aesthetic sense is natural in the same way our sense of taste is natural. We find that which is beautiful, beautiful, in the same way that we find that which is sweet, sweet. Symmetry and the Golden Mean move us regardless of age, culture, or education.

What we perceive, as aesthetic, can have come about randomly (natural) or it can be shaped (man-made, by technique). An example of a natural aesthetic is a savannah landscape. Human beings of every culture are inclined to find savannahs beautiful. An example of a man-made aesthetic is a park. Not coincidentally, most parks share many features with savannahs - lots of grass, trees widely dispersed but providing shade, etc.

When an aesthetic experience is man-made, we call it art. In this we include the entire range of experiences which impact us aesthetically, such as visual arts, music, drama, and more. We admire art both for the skill of its making, and for the impact of its aesthetic.

Much modern art fails this definition of art on both counts. "Found objects" and random flings of paint on a board lack the requirements of technique which place us in awe of a Michaelangelo. And modern art's talk of "context" and "artist's intent" confuse the power of allegory with the power of aesthetic. Allegory means that the object has meaning greater than itself, it makes a political, personal, or other statement. An allegory can have power, but it is not artistic power.

Tom Endo is correct that photography killed traditional representational art. It made it too easy, thereby robbing it of our appreciation of its technique. The irony, however, is that modern artists have subtituted in new forms of art that also are too easy and require little technique. Impressionism, at least, was *hard*.

If "modern art is about the boredom of understanding visual art in a purely illustrative sense", criticism of modern art is about the boredom of seeing visual art that required no technical skill create, and that offers no aesthetic pleasure to human nature.

Abandoning photorealism was understandable. Abandoning technique and natural aesthetic was not. Modern artists who undertook challenging techniques that yielded results that were pleasing to human sensibilities would be esteemed.

 

[klakkat]

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.

But that's the wrong approach. True art should be understandable enough that the masses can appreciate it. A novel can certainly be insightful and moving without you having to go to college for 10 years just to figure out what the hell it means. While some niche art is fine, most of it really does need to appeal to the uneducated masses, and not just by looking pretty. It may be a problem with today's culture that we don't appreciate art that is insightful, but by refusing to create art that the masses can identify with and appreciate, artists are just perpetuating that. Anymore to find art I actually like as significant in some way instead of just pretty, I have to strap on some waders and dig through shit for hours for the mere hope of seeing one good piece of art. Obviously, the lay man doesn't have the interest to do this (I know I certainly don't care to do it often; I only do it at all out of a misplaced bit of hope nagging in the back of my head that my cynicism hasn't yet killed off).

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

But that's the wrong approach. True art should be understandable enough that the masses can appreciate it.

I believe you're thinking of Nike commercials. Art can choose to be understood by whomever the artist wishes. The notion of art has already exceeded the necessity of technical skill or even the confines of the canvas.

There is an art to being shocking, concise, poingnent, pretty, or anything really. The qualitive value of the art can only really be assessed by the cultural significance of the piece in question. And cultural significance doesn't necessitate the masses since inspiring or effecting an artist who later affects the masses would be a relevant and pivotal cultural effect within itself.

 

[klakkat]

That may make it an important piece, yes, but it still won't appear to be art to the mainstream. Granted, yes, 'art' can take any form nowadays, but the goal is to make those observing it think, and present some sort of abstract theme using the concrete. Art that takes the form of drawings and sculptures nowadays is more likely to fall into the 'pretty but uninsightful' or 'bullshit' categories than it is what I consider art, which is insightful to as large a group as possible provided they look long enough to actually consider what it means. Any level of art will take some background to understand, but in theory this background should be built up enough by our general cultural exposure and not something that requires college-level study.

 

[Archemetis]

Tracy Emmin destroyed my outlook on Modern Art completely, seems to me Modern Art is more or less a way for educated people to make money wihtout being employed.

 

[whitelye]

From what I can gather, modern or "contemporary" art (if you want to be all smug about it) is generally crap. Of course, you can say that about any art, anywhere, at anytime in history. Not everybody can be a William Blake or a Ludwig Van Beethoven or an Allen Moore. Modern art is just a new movement in the history of human culture and, like every movement before it, is just one big pile of hot dog vomit.

Incidentally, I recall one artistic statement by some pompous bastard who had a show somewhere in Russia I think. He tied a dog up in front of the gallery, let it starve to death and called it art. Oh, yes. Killing a dog. Art.

But back to the matter at hand, there are a few nuggets of inspiration that stew just beneath the surface within the realm of modern art. Even if they float buoyantly across the surface, they still usually don't get recognized within the artists lifetime.

The one thing I will say as to why most "popular" modern art is shit ties in with that age old job hunters adage, "It's not what you know. It's who you know," or rather, who you are. If you're a famous artist within the medium, you can shit waffles and people will eat them up without so much as a dab of syrup.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

That may make it an important piece, yes, but it still won't appear to be art to the mainstream. Granted, yes, 'art' can take any form nowadays, but the goal is to make those observing it think, and present some sort of abstract theme using the concrete. Art that takes the form of drawings and sculptures nowadays is more likely to fall into the 'pretty but uninsightful' or 'bullshit' categories than it is what I consider art, which is insightful to as large a group as possible provided they look long enough to actually consider what it means. Any level of art will take some background to understand, but in theory this background should be built up enough by our general cultural exposure and not something that requires college-level study.

Again, I think you are being far too constrictive. I get, that you think that art should work this way but it doesn't. There is elitist artwork designed for those "in the know" that is valued both for cultural significance and aesthetic draw. Requiring that something appeal to the most common demoninator of society is not only arbitrary but creatively stifling.

The goal for art is for the artist to say.

 

[klakkat]

I will admit, not all art need to fit my description, but the artist shouldn't then be surprised when the masses don't think of it as art. Also, I do expect some level of education when I say 'the masses.' No offense to them, but in general the lower class of any society has never had a significant impact on art; in general it has been the upper classes, and more recently, the middle classes have been a significant source of art and art critique. Since the 'states (and most industrialized countries) has such a large middle class, both the education they receive and the 'art' they are exposed to become much more important in guiding the course of art.

 

[Wicky_42]

But the thing is, why should I have to think deeper as to what the artist means to say in his sculpture or something?

No-one's forcing you to go to a modern art exhibition. I've just done an art course, and whilst, like most people, I scoffed at the idea of a urinal as a work of art, there are other cases where knowing the back story and the ideas that the artist worked through to get the end result really help to inform you as a viewer of the work. That kinda makes you start to reconsider stuff you just casually brushed off as crap. If what you're interested in is more pictorial and literal, there's still plenty of artists doing that, it's just that that's been done for centuries; it's old hat, trodden ground. The more fertile land lies in more conceptual works, alternative medium and shocking art.

Whilst it's true that many works are obtuse or shocking and hard to read, for those on the conceptual cutting edge of art, that's where it's at, that's the interesting field for them. So what if you have to be on the same wavelength and have a similar mental catalogue of other works to follow the development of the style to this point. That never stopped any of the old artists that we now regard as 'masters' - Van Gough, for example. They were largely unappreciated by the public in their own time - perhaps as people's general level of understanding of the concepts behind this art increases, so will acceptance and enjoyment of this sort of work.

Then again, I can't stand it either when literally a heap of rubbish gets sold for a ton of cash. That just pisses me off, no matter the conceptual validation, heh.

 

[Jumplion]

But the thing is, why should I have to think deeper as to what the artist means to say in his sculpture or something?

No-one's forcing you to go to a modern art exhibition. I've just done an art course, and whilst, like most people, I scoffed at the idea of a urinal as a work of art, there are other cases where knowing the back story and the ideas that the artist worked through to get the end result really help to inform you as a viewer of the work. That kinda makes you start to reconsider stuff you just casually brushed off as crap. If what you're interested in is more pictorial and literal, there's still plenty of artists doing that, it's just that that's been done for centuries; it's old hat, trodden ground. The more fertile land lies in more conceptual works, alternative medium and shocking art.

Whilst it's true that many works are obtuse or shocking and hard to read, for those on the conceptual cutting edge of art, that's where it's at, that's the interesting field for them. So what if you have to be on the same wavelength and have a similar mental catalogue of other works to follow the development of the style to this point. That never stopped any of the old artists that we now regard as 'masters' - Van Gough, for example. They were largely unappreciated by the public in their own time - perhaps as people's general level of understanding of the concepts behind this art increases, so will acceptance and enjoyment of this sort of work.

Then again, I can't stand it either when literally a heap of rubbish gets sold for a ton of cash. That just pisses me off, no matter the conceptual validation, heh.

I'm not saying that "modern art" isn't "art". It is in ways and isn't in others and It has its problems, like having to think past everything and needing to know the background of the person's intentions, but I'm not saying that it isn't art.

Personally, I hate it, it's baffling to me that a pile of bricks is being hailed as "art", but I'm not saying it's not "art" in some way shape or form. Just that, I don't think it's art.

It's in the "eye of the beholder" really, or however the saying goes.

 

[Alex_P]

The final travesty is that some of the Turner Prize finalists/winners have included an unmade bed and an amphibious shed.

You're being overly reductive here. "A picture of a smiling girl" or "a statue of a guy with a leaf on his junk" don't really sound like great art, do they?

Take the "unmade bed," for example -- Emin's My Bed. "The artist's bed and its immediate surroundings as they appeared after she spent several days in bed dealing with suicidal depression" is a much more informative description. There was a lot of controversy specifically because My Bed does show some unseemly stuff -- blood and condoms and menstrual pads. For what it's worth, I think it's pretty honest and revealing. It's intimate, and not in a way that's all dressed up and fake-y.

Now, I'm still very much not a fan of conceptual art. I think most of the stuff that's all the rage (Hirst in particular) is just way too shallow. Likewise, it frustrates me that a lot of artists (again, Hirst in particular) seem to repeat themselves endlessly but still get high praise.

-- Alex

 

[Rockerallan]

To echo a statement that has been made several times in this thread already, I want to be able to understand art at face value I don't want to come away from the gallery and have to research it on google to know whats going on. I had to do this with the crack in the floor of the Tate Modern turbine hall.

When I went to the Tate Modern with my college we spent about an hour in the gallery, found nothing of interest and decided that getting McDonalds would be far more rewarding. Now you may say that I didn't spend long enough in the gallery but an hour is an awful long time to walk around a gallery and not find a single piece of art that appeals.

 

[Labyrinth]

I would classify modernism as a social movement more than an art genre, but okay, let's run with that.

The overriding question, is it art. Well, yes. It is. To the objective eye, a child scribbling with crayon on a wall is art, albeit not fantastic compared to most, though one could undoubtedly say that child is expressing its deep need for rebellion against the social order installed around it. Depending on the colours, you could also say it was a Pollock adaptation. It is still art, for all it may not be aesthetically appealing to others. Still art? Yes.

Using very few elements or principles of design tends towards the idea of visual and emotional experimenting, seeing how the audience reacts to the features accentuated. Colour is one good example here, because there are proven psychological underpinnings to different colour combinations. Still art? Yes.

Minimalism is another thing to arise, with the focus here being on form following function. As opposed to say, art Deco, Minimalists shunned decoration and the subjective nature of art up until that point for the sake of functionality which lead to many works appearing bland to the first glance. Is it still art? Yes.

Of course, it's true to say that some modernist paintings may not require the years of dedicated practice and learning that it took for the Old Masters to be called such, but one could argue the same thing about modern music's general lack of ability. Is it still art? Yes, as much as I am loath to label someone like Soulja Boi a musician, for example.

So in short, if I want to crucify a child to a wall and call it art, I like a movement which will accept that as a statement. As it also encompasses things such as Serrano's Piss Christ and other similar works, so be it. They're art, from my view. Just as ancient scrawlings on the interior walls of caves are called art, really.

 

[Break]

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.

If you ignore the implications and context of art, then anything can be reduced to base components. A portrait in oil paints is some pigments arranged on a canvas. A sculpture is a pile of shaped rock. Just because something is easier for you to recognise, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily more artistic. It's simply more obvious. Modern art is about implication and metaphor. Personally, I would find a broken candle in a glass jar titled "Self Portrait" more interesting than a charcoal sketch by the same name.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

The OP (and most everyone else) does not seem to be ranting about Modern Art so much as he seems to be ranting about Conceptual Art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art]. That's a specific subset of Modern Art, which I personally find fascinating on the rare occasions it works and gimmicky, facile, and self-important when it doesn't. Modern Art is a very broad category, like Classical Music, which ranges from Bach to Brahms to Bernstein. When people talk about Modern Art, what are they talking about? Expressionism? Abstract Expressionism? Cubism? Conceptual Art? Matisse is modern (his later stuff anyway), Mondrian is too, so is Salvador Dali, and none of them look anything alike. And that's just talking about painting. There's a big difference between what is currently on display at a Museum of Madern Art and Modern Art itself. The problem with this poll and this thread is Conceptual Art=/= Modern Art.

 

[Jumplion]

Ironically, this thread is making me appreciate Modern/conceptual art a bit more.

Still hate it though...

 

[Ophiuchus]

To echo a statement that has been made several times in this thread already, I want to be able to understand art at face value I don't want to come away from the gallery and have to research it on google to know whats going on. I had to do this with the crack in the floor of the Tate Modern turbine hall.

This goes to show just how subjective the whole thing is, really. The crack in the floor exhibition (henceforth known as Shibboleth) is one of the very few things in that place for which I've immediately identified what it's trying to say, and certainly the piece I found the most moving.

...and we'll ignore the fact that it was a lot of fun watching people trip over it.

 

[tendo82]

If "modern art is about the boredom of understanding visual art in a purely illustrative sense", criticism of modern art is about the boredom of seeing visual art that required no technical skill create, and that offers no aesthetic pleasure to human nature.

I can agree that visual art without technical skill is problematic, however I do think its important to have art that purposefully undermines our natural inclination towards the beautiful. This conscious formal decision plays a key role in modern art. Much of Picasso's most famous work is really ugly. Even so, I would be hard pressed to say that any of his work is forgettable. Surely, in the moment, it demands the viewer's examination. For instance, Guernica is ugly by my aesthetic measure but I think it's an incredibly powerful painting. The painting uses all types of abstraction and basic geometries clashing with swooping lines to create an incredible sense of tragedy and terror. These elements along with the size of the painting make it an unforgettable and moving experience.

This is the sort of painting that takes enormous amounts of technique to create. To have a single line carry so much visual weight is not an easy thing to do and in this we see part of Picasso's genius: his ability to capture the essential nature of something in but a few lines. The other amazing aspect is Picasso's arrangement of the painting's elements. To be able to consciously create visual discord that disrupts our evolutionary desire for a particular aesthetic is a powerful accomplishment.

It is the banal and forgettable which I abhor, and "artists" both classical and modern are guilty of such creations.

 

[Jamash]

I may not know much about art, but I know when someone is taking the piss.

Like that piece of 'art' which was just a bag of rubbish & mistakenly got binned by the cleaners, so the 'artist' just got another bag of rubbish & put it in it's place. WTF?

Call me old fashioned, naive or uneducated, but for me art is paintings, sculptures, exhibitions & installations etc. which as well as being nice to look at or striking, also should be beyond my range of crap artistic skills. I mean I can fit a urinal to a wall & call it art, I could even go one better & plumb it in too and call it functional art, but that doesn't make me an artist.

If I was to get pissed and vomit in the streets I'd be labelled a drunkard, if I was to do it on a wall in the Tate Modern I'd be called a genius.

"Look how the patterns contrast with the stark cleanliness of it's surroundings. He's clearly making a statement about societal juxtaposition waffle waffle waffle bollocks".

I'm glad I don't understand how wrong my view may be.

 

[Hey Joe]

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.

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 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.

No, we get annoyed when people don't try to understand the piece. We put a lot of ourselves into our work and for someone just to reject it on face value is insulting. If you try to engage with the piece and it's not your bag, fair enough. If you don't try though, you're basically a rube who doesn't try to expand their horizons.