Poll: Why, Modern Art? Why?

[Johnn Johnston]

...

Spoiler: Giant Enemy Crab!

It's not trying to say anything like
"What is the crab? Is it the representation of our sorrow? our anger? Our wasteful ways?"
Instead it's just
"Croaw! I'm a giant crab and I'm gonna eat'cher!"

Actually, it could represent all of those things, and I'm sure if you showed it to an artist or someone with an degree in art, they would find some sort of interpretation for you.

It's the same as a piece of poetry. If you read a poem, you might get one view of what it means that entirely differs from that of the poet, and sometimes you put meaning into places where it was never intended to be.

 

[Godysseus]

Art can only be art if it has an expression of meaning to it, which is almost ambiguous with beauty, in some form

Recently, humans have learned that there can be a lot of expression in the menial, ordinary, or chaotic.

Where art meets commercialism is where this problem emerges, because people are putting outrageous prices on things which require little effort to make or even envision.

If modern art, say, sold for a few dollars, I doubt this would be a problem or even a moral question to anybody.

Me? I blame the art subculture. People who spend an hour every morning aligning the angle between the spikes in their hair to the golden ratio (exaggeration) know that art and expression is important, but for me, their subject matter is usually a bit too thoughtless to qualify for my time, and the time of a lot of other people, let alone their money.

Banksy, on the other hand, rocks socks

 

[Uncompetative]

As a general rule I have no patience for modern art.
If it's not a picture of something I can recognise, like say... A cow. Then I have no interest in it.

Here is some Modern Art you may like by Jean Debuffet:

That is terrible. A truly ugly sight.
I don't like it when art has to be like that. Reminds me of Art in college (High School for all you Americans) when I tried drawing light and colourful pictures, then my coffee fueled art teacher would come in, suggest I cover the entire thing in brown or yellowish brown (or if I was really lucky, reddish brown) so that all of the classes artwork looked exactly the same.
Just a wall of brown that we all got the same marks for.

I much prefer stuff like this.
[img]http://www.dailypainters.com/i...porary_impressionist_cow_painting.jpg[/img]

It's pretty simple, but at least they look like proper cows, I wouldn't be ashamed to hang it on a wall somewhere.

Actually, both your alternatives are Impressionist paintings as described by the artists responsible for them (who you didn't credit).

Impressionism is Modern Art, although to be doing it now is not exactly avante-garde and is usually described as 'Stuckist'.

I like one by Jan Blencowe best (who is a member of the American Impressionists Society), who did the two cows under a tree.

The third one is by Simon Birtall (see: http://www.birtall.co.uk/freelance-illustrator-artist.htm for how he classifies himself).

The essential point I was trying to make is that there is still representational contempory modern art being made, although it may well not be to your taste as concept is often more important than aesthetics.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

Ok, here's another point:

If the artists making the 'Modern Art' (e.g. Tracey Emin, who left an unmade bed with some used tampons and was shortlisted for the Turner Prize) are capable of making points using the medium of art, then why do they not just paint a painting or write a poem? Surely that would gain them more respect and a wider audience, allowing them to promote that point with more strength and allowing them to let more people know of the issue they are raising. If the art did not make a point, but still had meaning, there would surely be a more conventional way of actualising that meaning. It would also mean less menstrual blood being left in art galleries.

 

[Shirahime]

I'm not a big lover of modern art.

Infact thinking about it, the Art Nouveau movement is about as modern as I get. I'm a big fan of Steinlen and Mucha.

If anyone says Modern Art to me, I instantly think of chrome and sharp edges.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

The question you have to ask yourself is "is it pleasing to look at?" If the answer is yes, then it was probably more worthwhile than another portrait.

That is most certainly correct. However, the number of pieces of modern art that actually look anywhere near pleasing to look at are in the minority.

 

[Jamanticus]

The question you have to ask yourself is "is it pleasing to look at?" If the answer is yes, then it was probably more worthwhile than another portrait.

That is most certainly correct. However, the number of pieces of modern art that actually look anywhere near pleasing to look at are in the minority.

Agreed fully. Some of them are just plain revolting (which may be the modern artist's goal), and some of them look like blobs of molten metal....Alright, some of them *are* blobs of molten metal......