U - Modern Art

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Searched, only could find an Art as Politics thread, which isn't what I'm looking for, etc., etc., you guys know what to do. If there's a thread already, I'll just repost this there.

********

I came across an article titled Hanging Corpse Admired as Sculpture on Campus (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=1&u=/nm/20031114/od_nm/odd_hungary_sculpture_dc) today, and it made me think. I've long thought that much of modern art is trash, especially the works that literally are trash - a big stinking heap of it. Picasso's quick Quixote sketch for $90 million? Bah. Jackson Pollock? I could do that. (And did, too - freshman art class, baby!) To me, much of modern art is just gibberish. It's all so-called artists, too stuck up to condescend to enlighten the rest of us about what their works mean. If you can't get your point across, you're just babbling to yourself. Some modern artists, like Dali, are really pretty good. Others, like Picasso, have shown skill in their early works, but after that just waste it. And the rest of them - the sculptures of chocolate that don't survive a day in the museum, or the guy who took a picture of a cross soaked in his own urine - deserve to be thrown into the dumpster. Except for the chocolate - that's good to eat.

So, what does everyone think? About the article, and about modern art in general?

[bravo]

Searched, only could find an Art as Politics thread, which isn't what I'm looking for, etc., etc., you guys know what to do. If there's a thread already, I'll just repost this there.

********

I came across an article titled Hanging Corpse Admired as Sculpture on Campus (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=1&u=/nm/20031114/od_nm/odd_hungary_sculpture_dc) today, and it made me think. I've long thought that much of modern art is trash, especially the works that literally are trash - a big stinking heap of it. Picasso's quick Quixote sketch for $90 million? Bah. Jackson Pollock? I could do that. (And did, too - freshman art class, baby!) To me, much of modern art is just gibberish. It's all so-called artists, too stuck up to condescend to enlighten the rest of us about what their works mean. If you can't get your point across, you're just babbling to yourself. Some modern artists, like Dali, are really pretty good. Others, like Picasso, have shown skill in their early works, but after that just waste it. And the rest of them - the sculptures of chocolate that don't survive a day in the museum, or the guy who took a picture of a cross soaked in his own urine - deserve to be thrown into the dumpster. Except for the chocolate - that's good to eat.

So, what does everyone think? About the article, and about modern art in general?

this is my take on abstract art:
i can't stand the idea of people getting a whole lot of money when hardly anybody knows what its supposed to be i mean they might tell you what it is but for all you know they could have just scribbled on a canvas blindfolded and now look they are millionaires.(come to think of it i might try that one day remember the name SHAUN RANDALL ROSE :evil: )

this is my take on almost any other type of art
now my whole attitude changes with any other type of art because i know that these guys are talented (and you can actually tell what they are creating)you should see some of the people in my class:very talented artists. i also care more for these artists because i know i will never be able to do the things they do so i respsect them.

this is my take on landscape art:
i don't quite understand what's so amazing about them either but i give them credit as they are actually creating something.

this is my take on just plain wierd types of art(like hanging corpses):
i think they can't sing so they try this. i believe they are just as wierd as musical groups like slipknot, and the insane clown posse. i believe that they just need a little help and are just trying to exspress themselves that is what the u.s. is about isn't it

[Hagrid442]

Stupid stupid people. How could you mistake some guy hanging himself as a form of art? Yeah, much of abstract "art" is total garbage (wanted to use a harsher word). The trouble is that too many people have too broad a view of what art entails, that they think anything that is unusual enough is art.

[Kaonashi]

Depends. That sculpture of the man hanging himself disturbed you enough to post about it. Therefore, it made you feel something...repulsion, no doubt, but it made you feel. I readily admit that Pollack's work leaves me cold, but I can look at a Basquait and find meaning in it.

To me, art is supposed to make you think, and feel. There has been all sots of arguments about digital art and photography not being true art from the "paintbrush and canvas" crowd. Bollocks for that. Art can be any medium that you choose to express yourself. Also I noticed that reproductions are NOT a good way to judge either. I was lucky enough to go to MoMa and see both "The persistance of Memory" by Dali and Starry Night" by Van Gough. I've alwys been a dali fan and not so much Van Gough, but let me tell you...looking at Starry Night was truly amazing. That sun has to be at least an inch thick. You see the swirl of the paint, the strokes he used....In both paintings, you see detail that doesn't always come up in reproductions. I once saw a huge Basquait called "Three Kings" and was so moved, I cried. Wheras if I saw it reproduced I don't think I would have liked it as much.
With Mapplethorpe, his art was so entwined with his sexuality a lot of people only saw that first, and not the techinique and the beauty...they saw it in his pictures of flowers, didn't see it in his pictures of men.

Laughs* I think the answer to your question is it depends on the person's taste. Someone who is enamoured with the impressionist period will not be thrilled with stuff from the Dada movement. Diane Arbus in my opinion was interesting, but people got too caught up in the subject matter to see that. But watch a NIN video or Marilyn Manson and what do you see? Diane. Cindy Sherman really has taht "Everywoman" thing going on in her photography while others dismiss it as sheer self-promotion. The fact that Dead read this article, saw the picture, said WTF and started this thread and questioned the work shows that the artist has done his job. Whether you said Bravo or Ugh, it struck a chord, an emotion. And to me, that is what art is supposed to do.

[Dedalus]

I used to do Art as a subject, but once we were watching a video about modern art and I was put off it instantly. I decided I hated art, and what it's become to to some people. It was a video of some art award ... I'm stupid, and don't remember the name's of things like that, so forgive me.

One woman's photography was absolutely beautiful - so they said it didn't deserve acclaim. It didn't deserve acclaim because it was beautiful? It had a simple message, but what's wrong with that? Whereas one man's art was a load of coloured squares on the ceiling, and that was favourite to win because it was, supposedly, "clever". No it wasn't! He was making up the meaning as he went along! It looked like the ceiling of a Takeaway, yet somehow was meant to represent infinity or something daft like that? People were only saying it was favourite to win because they didn't understand it and didn't want to be caught out. Luckily, this man didn't win.

I hate the idea that the meaning of a painting has to be complex. I think you can express simple things just as well, or better. I also think it completely defies the point if you have to explain an art piece as you go along. Surely it should explain itself? Surely that's the point, that it's expression in images? I also hate being told that abstract art has the most expression. I think portraits and very obvious drawings have as much expression in them, or more. They both start out as a bank canvas, so there's no reason why a plain portrait isn't expressive.

I like Picasso though. And I even don't mind Miro, whose work is very obscure. I love a lot of modern art. A lot of my favourite artists are modern, in approach. I just don't think that squares or circles or paint splashed on a surface really mean anything, and I think it's funny that a whole art form ("found art") was created by one man (Marcel Duchamp) taking the piss out of it. I mostly just hate art that nobody really understands, so pretend to and say how complicated and good it is, just because they're frightened of saying it's rubbish and getting funny looks.

[rotsiepots]

Jackson Pollock was just unique in terms of his creativity. His paintings probably weren't particularly well "crafted" (so to speak), but he was the first person who equated dribbles of paint with art, so he deserves some recognition for having vision...misguided or unattractive as it is.

I don't particularly like modern art, but you've got to admire people for trying to think of new ways in which to express themselves. I watched an unnamed artist cover himself with tinned spaghetti and roll all over a canvas in the name of art.

It's amusing, at least.

[Dedalus]

It's amusing, at least.
Yeah, a lot of it is just in the name of good fun. Providing, of course, the artist see's that it's funny and doesn't try to insist that a canvas of baked bean and slug juice is actually a deep political message.

Actually, I have slight respect for Pollock because he was the first to experiment properly with the properties of acrylic paint. I use acrylic paint, so I should be glad of that. As a paint, it wasn't taken seriously until he used it! He showed that it was good as a quick drying, waterbased paint, and that you could layer it because it's slightly transparent. He did those paintings outdoors and slopped the paint across the canvas in a way he could never have gotten away with using oil based paints.

[Bhodi]

I came across an article titled Hanging Corpse Admired as Sculpture on Campus (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=1&u=/nm/20031114/od_nm/odd_hungary_sculpture_dc) today, and it made me think. I've long thought that much of modern art is trash, especially the works that literally are trash - a big stinking heap of it. Picasso's quick Quixote sketch for $90 million? Bah. Jackson Pollock? I could do that. (And did, too - freshman art class, baby!) To me, much of modern art is just gibberish. It's all so-called artists, too stuck up to condescend to enlighten the rest of us about what their works mean. If you can't get your point across, you're just babbling to yourself. Some modern artists, like Dali, are really pretty good. Others, like Picasso, have shown skill in their early works, but after that just waste it. And the rest of them - the sculptures of chocolate that don't survive a day in the museum, or the guy who took a picture of a cross soaked in his own urine - deserve to be thrown into the dumpster. Except for the chocolate - that's good to eat.

So, what does everyone think? About the article, and about modern art in general?

First of all, my favorite example of the "huh?" in modern art is "White on white" at the MOMA... Who'd've thought that slapping a bunch of white paint on a piece of white canvas would fetch so much money? Wish I came up with that one...

As for Picasso... Let's be honest here... His early work demonstrates that he was a very talented artist in the classical sense of the word... But depicting reality in a direct manner through painting clearly bored him (and, given the growth of photography at the time, I'm sure painters felt the need to find some way to make their medium stand out), thus he started the cubist movement... Now, to say that someone who started a completely new trend in art 'wasted' his talent is a bit off the mark, IMHO...

Setting Picasso aside, I do generally empathize with your views... I often find modern art trite, overladen with [attempted] symbolic meaning, melodramatic, pretentious and generally too commercial [ironic, given that the artists I've known outwardly take a fundamental stance against commercialism, yet covertly harbor hopes of becoming big commercial successes]... Of course, those are my views, and art is truly such in the eyes of the beholder... So who am I to stop a poor fool from paying hundreds of thousands for that white paint so strategically spread over a similarly white canvas? If it floats their boat, who am I to argue?

As a humorous aside... Just last night this subject came up in a conversation between me and my 7-year-old... We were watching television, and she saw a Campbell's soup commercial... She said, "Hey, aren't those the soup cans that some artist painted?" I answered, "That's right, sweetie... Andy Warhol created a bunch of works using Campbell's soup cans, and I'll bet that every one is worth a big pile of money nowadays, perhaps even millions of dollars for some." Her response, "Well, that's kind of silly, isn't it? I mean, why not just go out and buy a can of soup?"

Ah, sometimes the young mind can be so incisive and logical that it's simply amazing to behold!

[Cat]

I think modern art is the only form of expression other than modern poetry that renders significance utterly, utterly meaningless.

I suppose 'modern art' has become the genre and a painting or sculpture by somebody who just happens to be a modern-day artist isn't always the same thing. Some recent artists do fantastic things. Some just do a load of coloured blobs and call it insightful afterwards. Smug gits. Scribble for ten seconds and you've got 'art'! Stick a bit of plumbing pipe betwixt a tin of canned peaches and a discarded sock and you've got 'art!'. Vomit on a piece of paper and you've got 'art'!

I agree with Dedalus that beauty and technique should also be taken into account. Something that is beautiful, that might look good in your kitchen, can still convey something personal and evocative. In an attempt to defy the typical notions of art, many artists have just jumped right out of the window and left everything recognisbly artistic in the house.

[Mireille]

To me, art is supposed to make you think, and feel.

That's what art is to me as well. Obviously the piece that you like, or dislike, speaks to you, stirring emotion within you that you may or may not like. Most of the time people are going to hang a piece of art in their house that they get enjoyment out of. I haven't met anyone that has something in their house displayed that they felt nothing toward.

It's sad that no one noticed the hanging body for what it actually was. To me, that would be hard to mix up with art, but some artists are very morbid and that could have been something that someone would have done.

I can't say that all art being produced today is a waste of talent but there are some things that are out there. But there is a little of everything in the world of art, and that means something for everyone.

[vagos]

Jackson Pollock? I could do that. (And did, too - freshman art class, baby!)
You can do it now(when somebody has already done it),but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have thought of it(and if you had you wouldn't have the nerve to put it in a museum) in the '40s...

[Doggy]

Personally, I'd rather have a picture of something that's realistic (like a forest or a lake) hanging in my house, than a lot of splotches on a canvas, some of which (not all, but some) look like something anybody could do, if they felt like it, even three-year-olds, and how many would spend thousands on three year olds' work of art?. However, that is only my opinion, and since I don¨t have any experience, I'm probably not the right person to judge.

[Kaonashi]

Ooh, mah bad! I saw that article in my paper today, Dead. It said that a student at the art school in Budapest had hung himself, and the sudents ignored it because they thought it was an art display. I thought that is was a sculpture of a man who hung himself they had on display at the school! Three's two statues of commuters on the side of a buildng near the EL tracks in my hometown; first time i saw it I was like WTF are they doing??? Trying to get on the train for free? When I realized that they weren't real; I just laughed and laughed.

I can see a morbidly inclined art student making a statue like that, and I can see why people would ignore it...at least until the swelling and the smell.

Speaking of art and emotion, I had the misfortune to see a Bosch retrospective at MoMa. I wanted to pluck my eyes out to erase those images, and I had nightmares for weeks about them. But even though his work is defnitely NOT my cup of tea I can't say that it isn't art.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

You can do it now(when somebody has already done it),but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have thought of it in the '40s...
That's a very good point, and IMO, the only legitimate one in defense of modern art. Many of the modern artists are, you have to admit, very original. But if you take original thought and use it to create a work either with no true significance or a significance that is impossible to find, then isn't it just a waste of creativity?

[Tirwen Lupin]

I'm not an art expert, but I've never liked modern art... I've seen some crazy ones--a black wire strung from one corner of a room to the other, a ten-foot-tall canvas coated in beet juice...
Sure, a lot of modern art is highly original, but that's about it. It's original in a way that doesn't inspire or even much meaning. I do like some of Picasso's pictures, and Escher's (however that's spelled) but a lot of other ones just seem like pointless things that the artists and "conoisseur" fans pretend to have deep meanings.
Just my opinion, and again, I don't know a whole lot about art.

[Kaonashi]

That's a very good point, and IMO, the only legitimate one in defense of modern art. Many of the modern artists are, you have to admit, very original. But if you take original thought and use it to create a work either with no true significance or a significance that is impossible to find, then isn't it just a waste of creativity?

Ahhh, but you're forgetting about the Dada movement, where no significance was significance! Actually I think that whole movement was in rebellion of something that was going on at that time...what exactly I forgot. Let me dig up my Art history book and I'll let you guys know.

[PrtVeela]

after a week I'm back, I know you all were only counting the days until I returned...;)
(ur like.... wow she was gone ;))

anyway, that's funny that this is brought up because I was just talking to my mom about it today.

I dislike modern art so much, It almost makes my head spin to even talk about it. I guess I don't see the mass appeal of a canvas w/ black paint on it and its hanging in an art museum. I mean by gosh if they are going to put that in there I've got some great finger paintings from when I was five.

I mean you just don't see artists like da vinci or monet, I mean clearly they were something seperate and can never be duplicated, but I'm not talking about duplication. I'm talking about the fact that it seems that a lot of the art today as a certain coldness to it. I'm talking about some art, not all. I'd rather have warmth and light I want art to tell me a story, to be a conversation peice and a good one at that. I want to be able to take something away from it, not "I paid money to see this>?"

I want to see people not geometric shapes, forests and lands as far as the eye can see to give a feeling that the painting could go on forever, not a black speck in the middle of a 60 ft. canvas.

[JofpGallagher]

Bah. Jackson Pollock? I could do that. (And did, too - freshman art class, baby!)
Really indeed?

I do like modern art, not all modern arts artists but I like some. I like Jackson Pollock's works. I don't know too much about art, but there are ceratin things, for example, in Joan Miro paintings, that I don't find in another artists. I like the mixture of colors. I can pass minutes admiring a Miro's work. I think he is pretty amazing and original. I think it's not a simple matter of just doing crazy lines with colors. There are something more. It has to be, but I'm not qualified for that. However, I like some modern art.

[MeaMuse]

You know, I never liked Pollock... until I saw one of his paintings in person. :wow: It was AMAZING. I never thought that so much energy and meaning could be conveyed in "a bunch of paint drips and smears", which was what I had thought of it as up to that point. In general, I don't care much for modern art, but the more I expose myself to it, the more I can appreciate it.
There are so many different interpertations of what makes art "good" or "bad." I agree with what a few others have been saying. If a piece of art makes you feel something, or think about something in a new way, then the artist has been sucessful, regardless of how abstract or realistic the art is. Art is meant to make you feel and think. A lot of the art we consider to be "great" art engages the viewer, pulls them into a new world and gives them a new way of seeing the world.
Personally, every time I'm faced with a piece of art that makes me go, "HUH?" I stop and ask myself what the artist might have been trying to say about the world, about people, about society, etc. Because most artists don't try to be wierd for the sake of weird, and there usually is a reason they painted or sculpted what they did (except for Dadaism, where it pretty much was weird for the sake of weird;)).

[Hagrid442]

I recently read a piece on daguerrotypes, and was rather impressed with them. Granted they're definitely not modern art, but they are the pre-cursor to photography. Daguerrotypes were silver plates, treated with mercury to capture a scene. They were exceedingly difficult and expensive to create, however they allowed a picture to be taken that was supremely detailed, even to the microscopic level. And this was in the 1840's.

I don't know what this has to do with the topic, just that I thought they were more artistic than paint splatters.

[Bhodi]

I recently read a piece on daguerrotypes, and was rather impressed with them. Granted they're definitely not modern art, but they are the pre-cursor to photography. Daguerrotypes were silver plates, treated with mercury to capture a scene. They were exceedingly difficult and expensive to create, however they allowed a picture to be taken that was supremely detailed, even to the microscopic level. And this was in the 1840's.

I don't know what this has to do with the topic, just that I thought they were more artistic than paint splatters.

They're very relevant to the topic at hand, because the emergence of the daguerrotype and, later, photography certainly influenced the art world in a tremendous way, pushing many artists away from classical realism and towards more 'modern' forms of expression. Certainly, there were other factors involved in the emergence of individual art movements, but I think this technological innovation was perhaps the biggest catalyst for the birth of what we call "modern art" today. After all, why bother trying to create a painting that mimics reality exactly when a photograph is able to capture a scene more accurately than your painting ever could in only a fraction of a second?

Of course, the advancing scientific knowledge of light and optics that made photography possible also surely influenced how artists like the impressionists and post-impressionists (Manet, Monet, Van Gogh, etc.) viewed and attempted to recreate the world in their paintings... The artists in these movements and the works they produced are among my favorites... These guys were innovative, curious and experimental, but without being trite and taking themselves too serious...

I think my dislike of much 20th/21st century art stems from the fact that most artists these days seem to [try to] take themselves a little too serious, and the result is often, to me, a laughable piece of work that is almost a parody of itself...

I love old daguerrotypes, though... They have a visual feel that film just can't recreate... Of course, we're now in the midst of another major transition in photography, as film has a visual feel that digital photography also can't recreate (not yet, at least)...

[Kaonashi]

Really indeed?

I think it's not a simple matter of just doing crazy lines with colors. There are something more. It has to be, but I'm not qualified for that. However, I like some modern art.

Composition has a lot to do with it. Anyone can throw paint on canvas, but to do it in such a way that it's pleasing to the eye in a combination of colors that go right with each other....that's not so easy to do. That's why one of the first things they teach in art school is Color Theory.

Hagrid, Daguerrotypes are the most amazing things to see....especially when you see them IRL and not reproduced. The detail on them are truly amazing.

*goes back to looking up the Dada stuff*

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Is this (http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2003/pencil.html) deserving to be in one of the most prestigious museums of art in the world?

[Kaonashi]

LOLOL!

Ah, but you're forgetting. According to the blurb: "Drawings by Paul Cézanne, Henri Matisse, Kazimir Malevich, Pablo Picasso, Alberto Giacometti, Max Ernst, Cy Twombly, Claes Oldenburg, Ellsworth Kelly, and Jasper Johns are included, along with works by emerging artists. A full range of styles—figuration and abstraction, portraiture and landscape, naturalism and cartoonlike renderings—is represented."

And as we all know, someone as famous as these people could pretty much draw stick figures when they were just starting out and they are now worth 250,000 up. People can exclaim: "Oh, but this is when he was just beginning!" I once saw a small sketchbook of Matisse at an art exhibition go for over 250k, and it was literally scribble-scrabble.

You know what this means, Dead....when we are famous artists, we can prety much wipe ourselves, put the tissue in an installation call it "The Art of Creation" and get paid for our endeavors!

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Ah, but you're forgetting. According to the blurb: "Drawings by Paul Cézanne, Henri Matisse, Kazimir Malevich, Pablo Picasso, Alberto Giacometti, Max Ernst, Cy Twombly, Claes Oldenburg, Ellsworth Kelly, and Jasper Johns are included, along with works by emerging artists. A full range of styles—figuration and abstraction, portraiture and landscape, naturalism and cartoonlike renderings—is represented."
I realize that, but still - a few hearts drawn in pencil? Umm . . .

And as we all know, someone as famous as these people could pretty much draw stick figures when they were just starting out and they are now worth 250,000 up. People can exclaim: "Oh, but this is when he was just beginning!" I once saw a small sketchbook of Matisse at an art exhibition go for over 250k, and it was literally scribble-scrabble.
And that's one of my pet peeves. Picasso scribbles something about Don Quixote and sells it for $90 million. In art, and especially modern art because in modern art you can call anything art, too often how good a work is depends not on the work itself but rather the artist who created it. If I made a scribble about Don Quixote, it's worthless. If Picasso does it, it's worth millions. Isn't something wrong with that?

You know what this means, Dead....when we are famous artists, we can prety much wipe ourselves, put the tissue in an installation call it "The Art of Creation" and get paid for our endeavors!
Ahhh! - the American dream.

[Chrysalis]

I like some modern art, stuff like die Brucke or der Blaue Reiter and maybe even a bit of Picasso. The modern art I really hate is that stuff which wins the Turner prize, like that guy who had lights flickering on and off. Or Damien Hirst's animals suspended in formaldehyde. That has nothing to do with composition or color, it's just simply tasteless.

[Masterfroggy]

I like some modern art, stuff like die Brucke or der Blaue Reiter and maybe even a bit of Picasso. The modern art I really hate is that stuff which wins the Turner prize, like that guy who had lights flickering on and off. Or Damien Hirst's animals suspended in formaldehyde. That has nothing to do with composition or color, it's just simply tasteless.


Modern art should be seen in the context of time, it is like music, in a hundred years very few people will listen to the trash that is in the charts at the moment, a few records will still be played and they will be the classics, art is the same.

In a few hundred years all the waste that is called art today will be consigned to the rubbish tip, but a few of what we call Modern art will survive and they to will be called Classic. In 2103 new arts will rebel against classical art and invent unthought-of art forms and mediums that will cause just as much controversy as a crumpled sheet or half a dead sheep,

Several hundred years ago when the only form of paint was naturally found pigments of the earth artists were limited to using the natural tones they could find, and art was part chemistry and part inspiration, people followed rules, and all art was just conformity. A painter would paint what ever he was commissioned to paint.

From what I have seen of that type of art, it was just as bad as the modern rubbish everyone is talking about now, but the medium changed and so did art, and in a few hundred years people will say, (just as some are saying today), modern art is bad and old classical art is good, I like all the art that I like and that’s good enough for me, all old art is not good (take a look a Hieronimus Bosch if you don’t believe me) and all modern art is not bad (Take a look at Olafur Eliasson if you don’t believe me)

[hesdead-dealwithit]

There's a difference between the music that people listen to and modern art: the former is not considered by anyone to be art of the elite - you could call it art for the masses, you could call it entertainment. Modern art, on the other hand, is art for the elite, and when the masses reject it, the explanation is that we're all stupid and unsophisticated and Philistines. Few people consider Nelly to be the pinnacle of high art.

[Masterfroggy]

There's a difference between the music that people listen to and modern art: the former is not considered by anyone to be art of the elite - you could call it art for the masses, you could call it entertainment. Modern art, on the other hand, is art for the elite, and when the masses reject it, the explanation is that we're all stupid and unsophisticated and Philistines. Few people consider Nelly to be the pinnacle of high art.


The point I was trying to make was like the classical music versa Pop music, classical art versa modern art is all to do with time, the Classical art that people rave about now was radical and modern at the time of its creation, only a few hundred years has allowed it to become classical, but not all of old art is good art,

Mozart was a bawdy upstart and every classical music fan of his generation hated his music, but now he is considered by some to be the supreme expoionent of a classical music he was the pop star of his time as (though I doubt it) the Beetles may be in a few hundred years. Dance hall music of a hundred years ago is now called modern classical, dances of the same period are taught to modern students of dance, but then it was just popular music (pop)

Constables Haywain (1820) was pop art of its time and was not considered real art by the critics, who called it kitsch. Renoir, Monet, Sisley, and Bazille and other Impressionist were laughed at, in the popular salons of the then elite, because their painting were unclear and not sharp, it is common for new things that are not understood to be ridiculed.

You might see a pile of bricks as some deep and meaningful statement or just a pile of bricks, I prefer to study the people looking at the pile of bricks and wonder at their reaction and ponder at their story and what they see and why.

Classical or Modern it is for the people who want to see or hear some meaning in what they are looking at or listening to, only time will tell as to if it is any good,

Art to me is a personal thing, as is music and writing

[hesdead-dealwithit]

I understand that, but I think today's modern art has gone beyond the pale. Because of it's disregard for significance, it has gone beyond just seeking new mediums and art forms and ideas to actually not having ideas at all.

[Masterfroggy]

I agree that a lot modern art is rubbish, but so is a lot modern music, but some art is good art, and some music is good music, It does not matter what the style is, just that it is either good or bad, classical in style or modern in style good is good bad is bad.
Pointless and directionless classical art is as bad as pointless and directionless modern art

[Chrysalis]

I agree that a lot modern art is rubbish, but so is a lot modern music, but some art is good art, and some music is good music, It does not matter what the style is, just that it is either good or bad, classical in style or modern in style good is good bad is bad.
Pointless and directionless classical art is as bad as pointless and directionless modern art

There is a difference. The rubbish modern music you're talking about is popular music(I assume). But the rubbish modern art is very elitist. I agree that not all 'classic' art is good(for instance, I don't like Dali and his colleagues). The same thing applies to classical music. Frankly IMHO atonal or twelvetonal music is really trash. But you have to admit, most modern art of nowadays is just meaningless. Like Tracy Emin's unmade bed or the flickering lights. When the 'artist' of the latter was interviewed he himself was quite unsure of what it meant.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

When the 'artist' of the latter was interviewed he himself was quite unsure of what it meant.
And that's the key. When the creator of a work - any sort of work: literature, painting, etc., - does not have the intent to evoke a certain emotion or express a certain idea, the "art" is meaningless.

[Dedalus]

What do people who say they don't like modern art consider to be modern art? Do you mean everything in the last 100 years or the last 10? Which modern artists and movements do you consider to be okay, or is it all bad or meaningless?

For me, I like most art, modern and classical and everything in between. I think "modern" is too broad a genre, so that's why I'm asking for specifics. I don't like Dadaism and found art and I don't like ... well, I don't know what it's called, but shapes on a canvas like Mondrian. They might have meaning, but mostly I think a lot of the meanings are just made up as they go along. That's how they appear to me. They're the only movements I don't like, or more likely that I don't understand. And I don't understand a lot of sculpture that's just blobs or wiggly lines.

[Masterfroggy]

There is a difference. The rubbish modern music you're talking about is popular music(I assume). But the rubbish modern art is very elitist. I agree that not all 'classic' art is good(for instance, I don't like Dali and his colleagues). The same thing applies to classical music. Frankly IMHO atonal or twelvetonal music is really trash. But you have to admit, most modern art of nowadays is just meaningless. Like Tracy Emin's unmade bed or the flickering lights. When the 'artist' of the latter was interviewed he himself was quite unsure of what it meant.

My point is that some modern music is rubbish, be it the opera Trouble in Tahiti By Leonard Bernstein (1950) or the Vancouver East Cultural Centre Modern Baroque Opera underwater (Feb 2003) (is that elitist enough,) for you to include in the list, both were poorly executed, poorly written and in the underwater opera (a two part opera one from the 1600 and one about the death of Lady Diana,). It is totally incomprehensible just how it was ever made or funded. But some modern Music opera is good.

Having just checked my source material I have hit on a question, are we talking at angry dolphin (cross porpoises) :D and mixing up modern art, (which I like) with contemporary art, installations and piles of rubbish, the unmade bed and the like from people like David Smith, (bits of steel welded together) Theodore Roszack, Seymour Lipton, (twisted wire and steel sheets stuck together) and Herbert Ferber (bit bits of steel soldered together and rusty).

To my amazement, I have nothing to say if we are, because I cannot find one good thing to say about any contemporary art that I have seen (not much as it bores me)

[hesdead-dealwithit]

*bump*

Some of the best commentary about modern art comes from Bill Watterson . .



Sorry but your attachment was way to large...we limit 450x450 pixels...

[mina]

First let me say that I believe art is all in the eye of the viewer. Like so many other things it is your opinion that counts, BUT there may be more than your eye can see. I am not a "fan" of modern art, but I understand where these artists are coming from, therefore I do have respect. Many of you have said that you could do the same things, but were you the one to do it? Did you have the creativity to do it first? They dared to do something new and different in times where what they were doing was rejected by many. "Modern artists" have always had to endure harsh criticism for their artwork. It is fine to have the opinions that so many of you do, but I ask that you actually go and study the art you are trashing BEFORE you trash it.

[Jill]

Modern art can come in many disguises. The incomplete artwork done by me is a mixture of modern and contemporary artwork. It is modern in the design as I took a photograph of stones on a path walk and then used photo shop to spiral the image to give it a whirlpool look. I then by free hand drawn the figures then scanned some of those figures and finally used the photo shop to spiral on or two of them in the same way as I did with the stones. This gave me the groundings to work from. Images in which I could visualize and play around with.

From this point I devised a color scheme as the image was only grayed instead. I then re-drew the spirally effects and the figures by hand. After drawing the image I was then able to start to watercolor the artwork. This is the stage I am up to know and the figures still need a lot of work done to them before the final piece is ready.

To me this is modern art meets contemporary artwork as modern technology and old where both used to create the painting.

Oh and masterfroggy you say all modern art is rubbish, yet you said part of this art work in the quidditch pitch was amazing... :rolleyes:

[Perdita]

Maybe, instead of just bashing modern art, why don't we discuss what exactly each of us think is "modern" art and how it came about? Discuss the ideas behind it. Discuss the development of it out of such a long history of so many periods of artistic style? Who's up for it? Are there any movements in modern art that you do like a lot? Which one(s) and why?

I've long thought that much of modern art is trash, especially the works that literally are trash - a big stinking heap of it. Picasso's quick Quixote sketch for $90 million? Bah. Jackson Pollock? I could do that. (And did, too - freshman art class, baby!) To me, much of modern art is just gibberish. It's all so-called artists, too stuck up to condescend to enlighten the rest of us about what their works mean. If you can't get your point across, you're just babbling to yourself. Some modern artists, like Dali, are really pretty good. Others, like Picasso, have shown skill in their early works, but after that just waste it. And the rest of them - the sculptures of chocolate that don't survive a day in the museum,…

I’m wondering, have you studied Picasso’s artwork throughout his career, how his style evolved and what influenced him? Have you studied art history from the prehistoric period to the Renaissance, to the modern period (and everything in between)? Have you studied the philosophy that is the basis of Cubism, Dadaism and all the rest?

Reading your statements, I find it hard to believe that you ever studied art seriously. Some people love the Renaissance artwork, but can still appreciate the creativity of modern art (which includes Impressionism). You really sound like your trashing something that you don’t have a good understanding of. Maybe you were really outraged when you typed out that post, but that’s how it comes across.

Stupid stupid people. How could you mistake some guy hanging himself as a form of art? Yeah, much of abstract "art" is total garbage (wanted to use a harsher word). The trouble is that too many people have too broad a view of what art entails, that they think anything that is unusual enough is art.

What, may I ask, is your view of what art entails? What is "too broad?"

Yeah, a lot of it is just in the name of good fun. Providing, of course, the artist see's that it's funny and doesn't try to insist that a canvas of baked bean and slug juice is actually a deep political message.

Actually, I have slight respect for Pollock because he was the first to experiment properly with the properties of acrylic paint. I use acrylic paint, so I should be glad of that. As a paint, it wasn't taken seriously until he used it! He showed that it was good as a quick drying, waterbased paint, and that you could layer it because it's slightly transparent. He did those paintings outdoors and slopped the paint across the canvas in a way he could never have gotten away with using oil based paints.

Thank you, Dedalus and rotsiepots.

You can do it now(when somebody has already done it),but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have thought of it(and if you had you wouldn't have the nerve to put it in a museum) in the '40s...

Exactly, vagos.

I have heard so many friends say, I could have done that! Well, guess what? YOU DIDN’T. You didn’t think of this as a different way of using paint. You didn’t think of this as a different way of composing a design on the canvas (does it have to have a design? What is a design?)

Many of the modern artists are, you have to admit, very original. But if you take original thought and use it to create a work either with no true significance or a significance that is impossible to find, then isn't it just a waste of creativity?

This statement is so pompous I don’t know whether I should laugh at it or be angered by it. In fact, much of the criticism of modern art made in this thread sounds so ungrounded, as if the people criticizing it don’t really know what it is, I am appalled.

It’s comparable to someone who knows nothing about micro-bio science to criticize that DNA science is rubbish and should have no place in the courts of law today.

[Masterfroggy]

Modern art can come in many disguises. The incomplete artwork done by me is a mixture of modern and contemporary artwork. It is modern in the design as I took a photograph of stones on a path walk and then used photo shop to spiral the image to give it a whirlpool look. I then by free hand drawn the figures then scanned some of those figures and finally used the photo shop to spiral on or two of them in the same way as I did with the stones. This gave me the groundings to work from. Images in which I could visualize and play around with.

From this point I devised a color scheme as the image was only grayed instead. I then re-drew the spirally effects and the figures by hand. After drawing the image I was then able to start to watercolor the artwork. This is the stage I am up to know and the figures still need a lot of work done to them before the final piece is ready.

To me this is modern art meets contemporary artwork as modern technology and old where both used to create the painting.

Oh and masterfroggy you say all modern art is rubbish, yet you said part of this art work in the quidditch pitch was amazing... :rolleyes:


Having read my post I think I said "A lot of modern art is rubbish" Don't get me wrong I like both classical and modern art, but not all of it, I like classical and modern music, but not all,

True art takes skill to achieve, and Jill your painting is done with obvious skill and the natural eye of a great artist, :tu: but it takes no skill to unmake a bed, just sleep in it for a night, were it to be a bed that had just been made I would say that takes more skill, but the artist just got out of a bed that she had slept in and entered that as art. Daemon Hurst the man with the pickled sheep, etc, had he actually made the tanks and butchered the sheep, and arranged them that would go some way towards the classification of art, but he conceived the idea and paid some one else to deal with the practical sides of the installation Art .

Contemporary art is like the Emperors New Clothes everyone is afraid to tell the truth, :td:

[hesdead-dealwithit]

I’m wondering, have you studied Picasso’s artwork throughout his career, how his style evolved and what influenced him? Have you studied art history from the prehistoric period to the Renaissance, to the modern period (and everything in between)? Have you studied the philosophy that is the basis of Cubism, Dadaism and all the rest?
Have a studied art seriously? Probably not. But I have looked at a lot of Picasso's work throughout his life. It seems that he had talent - although not talent comparable to a Van Gogh or an El Greco or a Velasquez, for example - but his cubist paintings don't show it. Just because a style is new, just because a style is original - actually, cubism wasn't that original, he stole it from African art - doesn't mean it's any good.

I have heard so many friends say, I could have done that! Well, guess what? YOU DIDN’T.
Okay, here's something I did. I ripped a piece of paper out of a phone book and blacked out all the names that had the letter o in it. Is that quality art?

This statement is so pompous I don’t know whether I should laugh at it or be angered by it. In fact, much of the criticism of modern art made in this thread sounds so ungrounded, as if the people criticizing it don’t really know what it is, I am appalled.
I'm sorry, but I find your post the pompous one. Why didn't you answer my question? I'll ask it again. If originality is used without significance, isn't that just a waste of creativity?

It’s comparable to someone who knows nothing about micro-bio science to criticize that DNA science is rubbish and should have no place in the courts of law today.
Actually, the two are not at all comparable. DNA science has significance. Much of modern art does not.

[Jill]

Having read my post I think I said "A lot of modern art is rubbish" Don't get me wrong I like both classical and modern art, but not all of it, I like classical and modern music, but not all,

True art takes skill to achieve, and Jill your painting is done with obvious skill and the natural eye of a great artist, :tu: but it takes no skill to unmake a bed, just sleep in it for a night, were it to be a bed that had just been made I would say that takes more skill, but the artist just got out of a bed that she had slept in and entered that as art. Daemon Hurst the man with the pickled sheep, etc, had he actually made the tanks and butchered the sheep, and arranged them that would go some way towards the classification of art, but he conceived the idea and paid some one else to deal with the practical sides of the installation Art .

Contemporary art is like the Emperors New Clothes everyone is afraid to tell the truth, :td:

Yes I do have to agree with you, that some modern art is not exactly what I would call art. It should come from the heart and soul and represent feelings and emotions that extend through out the image you are portraying. For example that work was during one of the worst times in my life hence the struggle to no avail.

Daemon Hurst modern art too me is well not modern at all. In the 19th century they went through a similar phase with animals and even humans. Many classified the surgeon’s work as modern art. So his works is not even original and I don't understand why everyone thinks it is. At least the art back in the 19th century had a medical purpose too, even though it is from a darker period of artistic flare.

Modern art should be original and at least something not done by the average person. It should say something about you as a person and I agree; someone submitting an unmade bed is something anyone can do and therefore last mastery or any attempt to create an image of originality and lasting impression.

Now if the bed had been mirror imaged, so that they’re where two beds and the second bed had every crease running in the opposite direction as a mirror of the first bed. The covers placed exactly opposite to those in the first bed. Then yes I would say that was worthy of an art piece because the person has been precise and spent time creating the mirror image unmade bed write down to the last crease...That would be modern art to me. A mirrored world, a mirrored set of draws with a vase of the same flowers but mirrored so that their image is a reversal of the first. That would be modern art, as it would take time and effort to create.

The DNA structure is pure natural art, infact natures artistic flare is very difficult to recreate as it is that beautiful, well some of it is...

[Emma]

I like all Art.

From the first artists in caves to the modern day artists.

I have studied many artists in the past and I find them all very interesting. From the Alaskan Artists that carved into wale bone, to Andy Warhol.

As for the modern art. It all depends on how you look at it. Some yes I would have in my home, others I wouldn't. It all depends on what you like.

[Nick]

I like art. And I like the extreme modern stuff people come up with these days. It's fun walking about in the city and coming across, say, a gigantic fiberglass matchstick, or some highly abstract metal sculpture of something that may have once been a person. Pleasing, highly pleasing, diversions from the ordinary scenes one sees in the city.

Same goes for the stuff in art galleries. I went to a few art galleries in my time, and I seen some most excellent things. One guy wrote a message on a mirror. Another suspended rocks on the ceiling with fishing line. Brilliant.

Same goes for music. Don't know whether it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but modern music rules as much as the art does. Philip Glass rocks. It's so weird it's funny.

Funniest of all, however, is watching the pseudo-intellectuals poncing around like gits pretending to have some deep understanding of the art/piece. Go around telling their friends how existential Picasso makes them feel, or something. They're really funny because they can't even define the words they use.

I fail to see the problem with modern art. From the little I've read of this thread, it seems to me that most people either don't understand it, aren't willing to understand it, are convinced that it must be understood to be art, or are jealous of the artists. Or perhaps are baffled by the pseudo-intellectuals who buy the stuff. Or perhaps are harbouring an inferiority complex. So many possibilities ..

hesdead, I am compelled to ask ..

If originality is used without significance, isn't that just a waste of creativity?

What on earth does this question mean?

[hesdead-dealwithit]

What on earth does this question mean?
Yeah, that question doesn't really mean anything does it? It meant something in context, and was drawn out of context, so it seems kinda strange.;)

So I'll ask it again.

Originality is fun and great and brilliant - if it is brilliantly original, of course, not just mildly so - but too much of modern art (and modern poetry, even more so) throws away significance, throws away meaning, just for the sake of being original. If your work of art is original, crazily and brilliantly original, but has no meaning behind it, isn't it just decoration, isn't it a waste of creativity?

Attatched is a cartoon that I think nearly sums up my ideas about modern art.

[Nick]

Originality is fun .. isn't it just decoration, isn't it a waste of creativity?

Depends on your definition of "waste". If the "purpose" of art is to possess significance and meaningless, then making a completely meaningless but totally original art work would indeed be a waste of creativity. If, however, meaning (whatever that means) is not a consideration, then it's not wasted. It all depends on what you consider to be a waste. Obviously.

I get the strangest feeling I've managed to both say a lot and nothing at all.


Incidentally, I only look at art (or listen to music) because it looks/sounds decent. Not interested am I in deep significant meanings.

EDIT: The smaller picture is kind of hard to read, what?

[hesdead-dealwithit]

EDIT: The smaller picture is kind of hard to read, what?
It's the same thing, I'm still trying to figure out how the attatchment rules work. It's possible that the first picture is too big, and the second is the largest in terms of width it can be. Not sure. But yeah, the two pictures are the same exactly.

If, however, meaning (whatever that means) is not a consideration, then it's not wasted. . . . Incidentally, I only look at art (or listen to music) because it looks/sounds decent. Not interested am I in deep significant meanings.
Very true. If your only looking for decoration/decoration for the ears (I don't know what the word would be:p), then I have no problem at all with modern art, though a pile of you know what isn't very appealing to my senses. But if you are trying to make a point with your artwork, then encoding the message so deep that no one can reasonably find it, so deep that it is not actually there, the art is wasted. If originality for originality's sake is what you want, then fine. But don't call it a brilliant message when it's not.

[Nick]

decoration for the ears (I don't know what the word would be:p)

Harmony. ;)
Not always, though. Dissonance rules when used well.

But if you are trying to make a point with your artwork, then encoding the message so deep that no one can reasonably find it, so deep that it is not actually there, the art is wasted.

Yes. With this I agree. There's a certain amount of pseudo-intellectuallism surrounding the meaning of modern stuff, and most of it is all hot air.

[3 Magic Beans]

Originally Posted by Masterfroggy
it takes no skill to unmake a bed, just sleep in it for a night, were it to be a bed that had just been made I would say that takes more skill, but the artist just got out of a bed that she had slept in and entered that as art.

I think that in these situations, the message is more important than the medium. Maybe where the skill lies is in seeing the art in an everyday object/situation. Perhaps the artist wasn't the best painter or drawer and didn't think that they could properly express themselves if they had tried to paint it. I don't think it's fair to say that one medium is better than another and it seems as though no one would have had a problem with this artist's work had it been drawn or portrayed through a more conventional medium.

I know that I've had more than 17 years of unmade beds and the thought of that as art never crossed my mind, but when I think about it...a perpetually unmade bed? It makes me wonder what happened to the owner which leads me to many other questions and what if scenarios.

Even if something has no meaning to one person that doesn't mean that it is not significant to anyone. It is probably significant to the artist at the very least. Personally, I don't know why art has to have some deep, insightful meaning. I've drawn lots of pictures, painted lots of things etc. and I have no idea what they mean. Most of the time I just liked the way a certain shadow was cast or the curve of a person's neck or more importantly, the emotions it evoked in me while and after I was making it.

[Emma]

I think that in these situations, the message is more important than the medium. Maybe where the skill lies is in seeing the art in an everyday object/situation. Perhaps the artist wasn't the best painter or drawer and didn't think that they could properly express themselves if they had tried to paint it. I don't think it's fair to say that one medium is better than another and it seems as though no one would have had a problem with this artist's work had it been drawn or portrayed through a more conventional medium.


Even if something has no meaning to one person that doesn't mean that it is not significant to anyone. It is probably significant to the artist at the very least. Personally, I don't know why art has to have some deep, insightful meaning. I've drawn lots of pictures, painted lots of things etc. and I have no idea what they mean. Most of the time I just liked the way a certain shadow was cast or the curve of a person's neck or more importantly, the emotions it evoked in me while and after I was making it.

This is very well stated. Thank you 3 Magic Beans! :)

[Jill]

I agree with the above statement as well. Art comes from the heart and raw emotions of a person’s inner self. I actually find it difficult to do anything artistic unless my emotions are on over load; creativity is a funny thing really isn't it. I have even cried at someone else’s modern art because it just happened to bring back lost memories and hit the write nerve. Art is expressional and therefore a personal insight into the artists mind when they drew such a creation. The work I have placed here does not represent my emotions know and it might explain why I have not been able to finish it as such. It’s over a year old and I find it difficult to complete, to look back on such harsh times as those...

Know I feel happier within myself and therefore color plays a much brighter and vibrant medium for me and in my life. The photograph in my signature and the humour in the words gives an insight to the state of my mind know. Where as before I saw no hope, chaos, anarchy, entrapment and turmoil, I now see a world so bright, beautiful, hopeful and tranquil; I am able to see beyond the grey and darkness, into a world that can offer plentiful opportunity and a new beginning. Now I just need to catch this new emotion on canvas but as it is something that has been lost to me, I find it much more difficult to master through expression. I see the colors in my mind though but they need structure or do they as something structureless can be also calm and soothing...

The fact is that art is all about emotions you experience in life and not just what you see or hear to me it has become a way of release a form of escapism and a glimpse of another world I had forgotten about....

I wondered whether or not I should personalise such a post here but then art is personal to those who accept it, so I think it would be wrong to express my opinions about modern art in any other way or form.

[Perdita]

Have a studied art seriously? Probably not. But I have looked at a lot of Picasso's work throughout his life. It seems that he had talent - although not talent comparable to a Van Gogh or an El Greco or a Velasquez, for example - but his cubist paintings don't show it. Just because a style is new, just because a style is original - actually, cubism wasn't that original, he stole it from African art - doesn't mean it's any good.

1. Stealing is not an appropriate way to characterize how one quality of an art movement influenced another. If you want to call it stealing, you might as well say that Van Gogh stole from Monet, but that is not the case.

2. The quality of portraying an object in fragmented shapes is not the only aspect of Cubism that makes it ground-breaking. There was also a social motivation behind it. This social motivation changed over time, but the motivation, the meaning and the significance is there.

Okay, here's something I did. I ripped a piece of paper out of a phone book and blacked out all the names that had the letter o in it. Is that quality art?

No, it isn’t. The reason is because what motivated you to black out the names is different from what motivated Pollock to drip paint on a canvas, or what motivated Dadaist to pick up pieces of discarded junk to create “art.”

… If originality is used without significance, isn't that just a waste of creativity?

Originality is fun and great and brilliant - if it is brilliantly original, of course, not just mildly so - but too much of modern art (and modern poetry, even more so) throws away significance, throws away meaning, just for the sake of being original. If your work of art is original, crazily and brilliantly original, but has no meaning behind it, isn't it just decoration, isn't it a waste of creativity?
How do you qualify whether or not a piece of artwork has significance? Do you look at artistic historical movements of the past and make educated and critical analyses?

How can you generalize and make such a statement as “too much of modern art (and modern poetry, even more so) throws away significance, throws away meaning, just for the sake of being original.” ? How do you know that meaning is being thrown out the window? To another viewer or reader who does see meaning in the artwork or the poem, what do you say to them? That the meaning is a fabrication of their own imagination; therefore, whatever meaning they glean from it is insignificant?

[hesdead-dealwithit]

No, it isn’t. The reason is because what motivated you to black out the names is different from what motivated Pollock to drip paint on a canvas, or what motivated Dadaist to pick up pieces of discarded junk to create “art.”
But how do you know what my motivation was?

You don't - that's my point.

How do you qualify whether or not a piece of artwork has significance? Do you look at artistic historical movements of the past and make educated and critical analyses?
I don't mean significance in terms of how important in art history it is, I mean the significance of each work - the meaning of each work.

How do you know that meaning is being thrown out the window?
Because the whole point of it is that there is no meaning. They say so. World War I supposedly "ripped meaning from their lives," creating the "modern era," etc., etc. The world was meaningless to these artists, so they expressed that in their works. Read The Sun Also Rises to get an idea. (Actually, don't read it, it's mind-bogglingly boring. But that's Hemingway for you.) That's what the modernist movement is, in general terms. It's not only that the meaning is "above" me - don't get me started on the elitism of some folks - but that it often, unabashedly, isn't there. That's the whole point, and I totally disagree with it.

[Tane]

The modern art using computer technology can be very beautiful and intricate in design. Far more depth and detail can be captured in the work done and in a way a computer can achieve more in terms of distorting images to make them resemble colorful callarges for example far exceeds what the artists own hand can achieve.

[Liselle]

I remember reading that article when it first came out and I was appalled.....what have we come to that someone would think that
1: A corpse was a piece of art
2: who would be foolish enough to admire it as such?

.....I bet that there was someone with more money than sense ready to buy it! I have to say I'm not a fan of modern art, as Dead said Dali is good and early Picasso's were good but for the most part they're I'm sorry to say mindless. How are 100 lightbulbs on a canvas art? or random splatters of paint art that sells for millions when we were ALL doing the same thing circa five years of age?

I like colour as much as the next person (probably more so but thats another story) but if I want "art" for my house/room/apt thats blobs of paint then I'll do it myself thanks very much. Give me classical/renaissance/impressionist styles anyday. At least they look like they took some time, effort and talent.

Call me a philistine but thats how I see modern art~ rubbish

[Kaonashi]

did anyone see in the papers that Italian Exhibit where there were child dummies hanging from trees? I'll try to find a pic of it for your viewing satisfaction.

Apparently it's creating a big stink because it was child dummies (as if they were adut dummies hanging from trees, it would be okay).

[Tane]

At first I thought you meant the dummies babies have to suckle upon for comfort. I got this real strange image of dummies with the teats hanging down by different colored glossy ribbons of yellow, blue, pink and red from a willow or yew tree to symbolize life from death or sorrow.

Umm. I not sure the real image portrayed from that artist would make me say, hey I love your work and when in comes down to modern art of the sort Liselle or Kaonashi state then no, that's something I to do not like about the art of today. I don't see people portraying violence as art to marvel at but then not all modern art is represented by all those type of images.

[Liselle]

You're right Tane, violence of any kind is not art. Modern art has its beauties and advocates I know, after all beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think that moderation is called for in modern art.

[Kaonashi]

There are artists who showed violence in their art. Goya and Bosch, for example.

Still looking for the dummy children pic...

[Hagrid442]

I saw that pic in the Sun Times and cringed. How the hell is that art?

Found a link to the pics. I doubt the moderators will allow it to be up for too long. It's sickening.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1131305/posts?page=1


Yes, yes... Freeperville. But this is one time that I agree with conservatives.

[Arminius]

after a week I'm back, I know you all were only counting the days until I returned...;)
(ur like.... wow she was gone ;))

anyway, that's funny that this is brought up because I was just talking to my mom about it today.

I dislike modern art so much, It almost makes my head spin to even talk about it. I guess I don't see the mass appeal of a canvas w/ black paint on it and its hanging in an art museum. I mean by gosh if they are going to put that in there I've got some great finger paintings from when I was five.

I mean you just don't see artists like da vinci or monet, I mean clearly they were something seperate and can never be duplicated, but I'm not talking about duplication. I'm talking about the fact that it seems that a lot of the art today as a certain coldness to it. I'm talking about some art, not all. I'd rather have warmth and light I want art to tell me a story, to be a conversation peice and a good one at that. I want to be able to take something away from it, not "I paid money to see this>?"

I want to see people not geometric shapes, forests and lands as far as the eye can see to give a feeling that the painting could go on forever, not a black speck in the middle of a 60 ft. canvas.

I have to agree with PrtVeela here, If I'm going to pay for something, it better be good. Anyways, I get in the say in choosing paintings and stuff, right PrtVeela when we get a place right? ;)

[Wab]

Most people seem to confuse art with decoration.

Decoration aims to be asthetically pleasing (which is entirely subjective) art aspires to provoke an emotional impact.

No one would claim that Midnight Express is a "pretty" film but it packs a hell of a wallop.

Likewise the imagery in Guernica is distorted and disturbing but the messge is all the greater for it.

The Mona Lisa...blah. A painting of a chick. Plenty of those and plenty that are more pleasing.

[ginnybatbogeysyou]

The Mona Lisa...blah. A painting of a chick. Plenty of those and plenty that are more pleasing.
Yeah, but there aren't many paintings of chicks that look at you, no matter how you look at it.

[Arminius]

Anyone ever been to the Getty Art Musuem over here? Some amazing paintings there. True artists can make the world in a painting seem real, to bring you into it. (I think ill take you there PrtVeela ;))

Modern art is just like shock rock. There are soom good shock rockers (Alice Cooper) and there are some crappy ones (Marilyn Manson at times; however Marilyn Manson is actually a pretty smart guy). The same goes for some Modern Art, some are intriguing, but most are terrible and a waste of time and money.

[Wab]

I mean you just don't see artists like da vinci or monet

In their day Monet and the other impressionists faced much the same attitudes afflicting modern artists. Van Gogh was so dismissed that he sold only a few paintings while he was alive.

[Arminius]

I highly doubt modern art will survive. Hell, if you found modern art in your garage you would assume it was one of your kids drawings, or the kids of the prior owner of the house.

[Chrysalis]

When I say that I don't like modern art I mean stuff like Damien Hirst, you know those preserved animals, Tracy Emin's bed, the guy with the lights flashing on and off and the guy who made a sculpture with his own blood. The only purpose this so-called 'art' serves is to shock people. I mean, if I want to see a shark in formaldehyde I will go to a natural history museum.

[Arminius]

That kind of "art" is to art as what shock rock is to rock and roll savoy. I think that art is just some twisted peoples fantasies coming to life, and they luck out and get money. I doubt any of that will survive. If I find any of that in my garage I will be deeply worried, lol.

[Kaonashi]

I'm bringing back this thread due to something that was posted on an art community on Livejournal that I am a part of.

There is an artist in Sweden by the name of Nathalia Edenmont, who kills cats, mice, doves, rabbits, and other animals, mutilates their bodies, and then takes their photographs. She's on exhibit at the Wetterling Gallery in Sweden, and has admitted to killing these animals "for the sake of art."

Samples of her work can be found here:
http://www.wetterlinggallery.com/archive/nathalia/nathalia_main.htm

This is the gallery's statement about the artist in defense of her work:


Most people who see Nathalia's pictures for the first time are impressed by how beautiful they are. It takes a few seconds before you start to wonder how they have been made. A photo-montage? Some kind of digital manipulation? When you look closer, there is something slightly distorted in the rabbit's expression. Something slightly abnormal about the face of the cat. Slowly you realise that the animal is dead, that the animal has died for the sake of the picture. Is this acceptable?

One can, of course, choose to think that it is always wrong to kill animals in the name of art. That nothing can defend Nathalia Edenmont. But if you feel more doubtful, we would very much like to explain Nathalia's reasoning, and how we at Wetterling Gallery argue when we exhibit her art.

Art arouses thoughts and poses questions that are necessary. Nathalia's beautiful pictures are frightening in the same way that many other beautiful things hide some sort of suffering. One can enjoy beautiful exteriors, or one can go beneath the surface and find things that perhaps you do not want to know about. If Nathalia's pictures had been repugnant, it would have been easy to reject them. But now they are so beautiful - and the insight into the reality behind them gives rise to thoughts about people's shallowness and double standards. Many of us eat meat, wear leather or use make-up that has been tested on animals, without this arousing especially strong reactions. But when a picture shows a dead rabbit, all hell breaks loose.

Nathalia grew up in the former Soviet Union, and she has a razor sharp eye for paradoxes and gaps in our western morals. She is not the first to use dead animals in her works of art - that has been done at least since the 1700s, but she is a contemporary debater who provokes questions which nowadays everyone should ask themselves. Her pictures tell lies in front of our faces, but they are not alone in this - the lies exist all around us every day, without us questioning them.

There is nothing illegal in Nathalia's art. She has killed the animals in as humane a way as possible. Has she been guilty of a moral crime? We do not think so. We think that art is of vital importance. What do you think?

I'm of two minds about this. What do you guys think?

[Chrysalis]

That is definitely crossing the line. Art is about creation, not about destruction.

Remember the artist who had blenders with goldfish swimming inside, and the public could press a button so that the blender would be turned on and the fish would die?

Some people will consider anything art.

[Kimmetje]

Now some might find this really bad of me saying so, but I went to the Van Gogh museum in the break last week and it bored my pants off. That museum was just so boring. There were a lot of paintings though I ended up liking a painting of a other lady most with flowers. The sun flowers weren't special either. Now I like the modern art which is squarish and has lot's of funky colors. We have this painting which is really blue with ladies drinking tea and they are really fat. That painting I like as it is not depresssing, but makes the place fresh.

[Credo Buffa]

Decoration aims to be asthetically pleasing (which is entirely subjective) art aspires to provoke an emotional impact.

I agree, especially by the modern definition of art. Artists want to make you question the world, society, culture, etc. This very thread is an example of that. . . You see, they've succeeded!

While I agree that a lot of modern art gets pretty near to crossing the boundaries of taste, and I may not be comfortable with that, I realize that the artist has a goal with doing this, and I can appreciate that. So many people claim that "I could do that," but I don't see any of these people actually trying it. It is because it takes the original conception of an artist to even consider that this could be art in the first place. Maybe if you had thought of this, then you could be an artist. But you didn't. . . So much of the whole concept of art is in the conception, not just the final product.

Of course, I'm not meaning anyone in particular here with this "you" comment. I am referring to this general sect of society that makes these statements about modern art.

[Sunfish McCaul]

Murder is never a good idea, especially killing animals, and especially for the sake of art. I can see someone arguing for the use of animals who died of natural causes, but killing them? No, that's just not on.
Wait, am I missing something here? She did kill them? Herself? She caused them to stop breathing and all of that?
I'd love to see a legal defense of her actions... what's keeping her out of jail, exactly?
Modern art is my favourite kind of art. I love surrealism, I love dadaism, I love abstract and minimalist art. I love art that redefines the term "art" and above all else, I love art that messes with my head, and art that makes people happy.
I was in Toronto for my birthday last June, and I walked around a corner near the lake and there was the biggest ferris wheel I've ever seen, right across the street.
Only instead of ordinary carriages, it had about six platforms with cars balanced on them. The ferris wheel was carrying these full-sized, fully operational cars around, and there were actually people inside of them.
It was an amusement park ride, but among the most innovational and original I'd ever seen. It was pretty ridiculous, and just looking at it made me laugh.
And here's the thing- it was a piece of art. The artist had planned out the construction of this ferris wheel and built it himself. His original idea was to have people drive their own cars onto the ferris wheel, but for insurance purposes that didn't fly.
But he'd actually planned out this whole thing all by himself. That one piece of art gave more people more joy than any painting or sculpture I've ever seen.

[nerdypants]

I don't like modern art much. I don't get it. But I do agree that Dali was good. Picasso, while not my favorite artist, was an interesting man. I watched a video on him in Spanish class.

[grrliz]

Are there no art students in this forum? I'm very surprised at the exceptionally negative view people take to modern art. I don't mean the few instances people have mentioned regarding animals that have been purposely killed for the sake of art; that's sort of beyond the realm of leigitimacy in my opnion. But since this thread is called "Modern Art" and not "Acceptable use of Corpses in Modern Art", I'll focus on something else. I'm referring more to the prevalent attitude "I could do that" when faced with a canvas that is covered only in white paint.

While I agree that a lot of modern art gets pretty near to crossing the boundaries of taste, and I may not be comfortable with that, I realize that the artist has a goal with doing this, and I can appreciate that. So many people claim that "I could do that," but I don't see any of these people actually trying it. It is because it takes the original conception of an artist to even consider that this could be art in the first place. Maybe if you had thought of this, then you could be an artist. But you didn't. . . So much of the whole concept of art is in the conception, not just the final product.That's exactly what I say when I hear people say things like that "I could do this" "Um, so why didn't you?"

If art is so easy, why doesn't everyone do it?
If art is so profitable for so little work, why doesn't everyone do it?

I've always been of the mindset that modern art is actually more liberating for people than not. Look at it this way:

In the Renaissance, children who were shown to have an aptitude for art were taken at a young age to become apprentices in the studios of great masters and trained in various media. There was an overwhelming emphasis on technical skill, which is not to say there was no creativity involved because there definitely was. But only physically talented students were able to be successful artists; if you couldn't draw, there was no hope for you. It's all in the hand.

Fast forward five hundred or so years. We're at a place where art has relocated from the hand to the mind. You don't need to be a technicallyl proficient artist in the classical sense in order to be a successful artist, you only need to have good ideas and be able to articulate them in some way (thus the onslaught of video art, installations, found objects, etc.). The idea is the driving force behind much modern art. You don't have to be Michelangelo to be successful, you can be Ellsworth Kelley and paint canvases a solid colour as long as you have a solid idea behind it.

So what's stopping people? Art is about ideas, about being thought-provoking, about opening up possibilities, about getting people to get over their preconcieved notions about these things. This is something anyone is capable of, not just people who can draw or paint really well. Art as a vehicle for creativity has never been more accessible to people and yet at the same time people have never been less open to what is and what is not art.

I advise everyone who is offended by modern art to do a little research on it. Delve into the history, find out why the artists were doing what they were doing and how it was they came to that position in art in the first place. Look at the different movements, see how they grow from one another. Find out. Become informed. It's hard to take the argument "I don't like it becuase I could do that" seriously.

First of all, my favorite example of the "huh?" in modern art is "White on white" at the MOMA... Who'd've thought that slapping a bunch of white paint on a piece of white canvas would fetch so much money? Wish I came up with that one...Funnily enough, that is my favourite painting ever. Kasimir Malevich's "White Square on White" and I nearly had an aneurysm when I saw it in real life, it was so good.

[MoodyHarry]

It depends on what Modern Art is. For example, 15 years (approx.) ago, the Ontario government paid a few million dollars for a painting that was - literally - a stripe of red on a white canvas. To me, that is waste of my tax money. I could paint a red stripe on a canvass and sell it for millions.

However, I do like some of the older artists and their works and desperately wish I had some artistic ability. But the million dollar red stripe....I don't know.... :sad:

[grrliz]

It depends on what Modern Art is. For example, 15 years (approx.) ago, the Ontario government paid a few million dollars for a painting that was - literally - a stripe of red on a white canvas. To me, that is waste of my tax money. I could paint a red stripe on a canvass and sell it for millions."Voice of Fire" by Barnett Newman, an excellent painting. Part of the controversy with this painting is that Newman was/is (I can't remember if he's dead or not) an American painter and the Canadian government spent a pretty penny on it for the National Gallery.

But what is the larger importance of it? Barnett Newman is very important to Canadian art. He often led workshops at the Emma Lake workshops in Sasketchewan, a hot bed for burgeoning modern art in Canada in the 1950s and early 1960s, a time when modern art could only be found in Toronto and Montreal in large quantities. "Voice of Fire" was painted specifically in honour of Expo 67 in Montreal: a celebration of Canada's centenniel. These are only two of the important thigns about it.

I found an interesting article (http://www3.telus.net/wetcoast/pages/gallery.html) that addresses a lot of the issues discussed here that I thought i'd share.

Briefly about why Newman is important to Canadian art:Newman's work has great historic and artistic significance in the evolution of our visual culture. His work, along with others in the New York School, marked the first departure of the North American arts community from the European tradition, which dominated the western world.

Countless Canadian artists, including Guido Molinari and the Painters Eleven, were heavily influenced by the work of Newman and his contemporaries. Addressing the argument "I could do that":For Felix Holtman (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture) to suggest that the work could have been done by anyone with two cans of paint and a roller, is to belittle an entire century of artistic exploration.

When Picasso was approached at an exhibit and told that his work looked as if a child painted it, he beamed with joy. "It has taken me an entire lifetime to learn to draw like a child," he is is reported to have said.

Clearly, if you take any work of art out of the cultural context in which it was created, the piece will seem alien and unimportant. The mandate of the National Gallery is precisely to place these pieces in an historical setting, so that we may trace our cultural evolution and make up our own minds on the merit of individual works. Addressing funding of the arts in Canada:If you think it criminal that a national institution would spend over half its acquisition budget on a single painting, you must also question the priorities of a government which spends so little to support its own culture.

Approximately two per cent of federal spending goes toward "culture" in Canada - a loosely defined term which includes national parks, sports, multiculturalism, bilingualism and the arts - an expenditure that is roughly equivalent to the annual budget of the Foreign Affairs ministry.

In considering the question of funding, ask yourself why the majority of Canadians know little or nothing of their own visual artistic history, outside the Group of Seven and Robert Bateman.

Also, ask why the average professional visual artist in Canada makes only about $5000 per year from their work. Addressing antiquated notions about art:The time has come to address the issue of cultural literacy in our society, and seriously question why we persistently cling to 19th century values of artistic merit, 200 years after the fact.

We must learn to expand our appreciation of visual art beyond the narrow confines of 19th century Victorian realism, if we are ever to mature as a people.

[Credo Buffa]

It depends on what Modern Art is. For example, 15 years (approx.) ago, the Ontario government paid a few million dollars for a painting that was - literally - a stripe of red on a white canvas. To me, that is waste of my tax money. I could paint a red stripe on a canvass and sell it for millions.
I think the question we need to ask is why the artist chose to paint a red stripe on a canvas in the first place. What about that idea made the artist think that it was worth that millions of dollars (because I sincerely doubt that he said to himself, "Hey, won't this be funny if they offer me all this money and I give them this!")? Something about that red line spoke to the artist, so we should stop looking at it so objectively for what it literally is and try and look at it through the artist's eyes. What does it mean?

It's a really great challenge to find the art in our daily lives. It's easy to see a great Reniassance painting or a pretty photograph and say that it is art. It is much more to look at a random scattering of blades of grass on a sidewalk after someone has mowed and see that as art. It's a challenge of finding the little things that speak to you personally and not just the big things that speak to everyone equally. I think that's one of the great things about modern art: there doesn't seem to be this need to produce something that everyone will agree with equally or feel the same about. We should be glad to be living in a time where we're not such zombies, fixed to a single aesthetic.

[grrliz]

I think the question we need to ask is why the artist chose to paint a red stripe on a canvas in the first place. What about that idea made the artist think that it was worth that millions of dollars (because I sincerely doubt that he said to himself, "Hey, won't this be funny if they offer me all this money and I give them this!")?The other thing to remember is that artists rarely set prices themselves and that more often than not they also do not benefit from the resale of their works. For instance, there are a couple of commercial galleries here in Toronto that deal predominantly with late-career artists, i.e. artists who are already well established in Canada, have acheived great critical as well as commercial success, and often have works in a lot of our museums. But from the exhibits I've seen of these artists, most of the pieces rarely sell for above $50,000-$60,000. That sounds like a lot for one painting, and it is, but it's nowhere near the millions of dollars that people are under the impression artists make off of their work.

More often than not, what happens is that an artist will create a piece and sell it during an exhibition for a nominal fee. The people who really make the money are the owners of the works when they sell them at auction years later once the artist is established and there is a strong demand for his or her work. So, for example, in the "Voice of Fire" example, Newman didn't sell that piece for $1 million the minute he painted it, he probably sold it a for significantly less. But as the painting exchanged hands in the fifteen or so years between when it was created and when the National Gallery of Canada finally purchased it, it's value went up. But Newman wouldn't see any of the profits from the sale of "Voice of Fire", it would all go to the person who had previously owned it. The artist doesn't benefit from any of the reselling of his or her work. (Unless they've set up a stipulation in the buyer's contract that says they get a certain percentage of any reselling profits, etc.)

Something about that red line spoke to the artist, so we should stop looking at it so objectively for what it literally is and try and look at it through the artist's eyes. What does it mean?Exactly, that's exactly what we should all be trying to find out. :)

[Kaonashi]

I personally prefer modern art myself. Something about the whole Impressionist period just leaves me cold. Except for Van Gogh's "Starry Night." I was lucky enough to see that at MoMA, and words can't describe just how fantastic it is! That moon has got to be an inch thick, and it's full of details and textures that you just can't see from a photograph or print.

"The Persistance of Memory" is there as well, and it is truly fantastic!

I guess a point I"m trying to make is that certain work loses a lot in translation when you just see a picture of it in an art book or print when you put it side by side with the real thing. I saw a Basquait at an art show once that literally made me cry, but if I had saw a print of it first I might not have been so impressed.

If I were pick a favorite period or school of art, it would probably be the Dada and Surrealist styles...both make you think more about what the artist meant when he created that paticular piece.

[Ava]

Art is my passion. Although I totally do not agree that modern art should be sold for 90 million or something, Art appreciation has always been subjective. It is a self-expression and like many things, should be respected. If I don't like it, then I leave it at that. :agree:

[grrliz]

Although I totally do not agree that modern art should be sold for 90 million or somethingJust a devil's advocate question, but is it okay if other works sell for $90 million (i.e. the Mona Lisa or Starry Night) just not modern works?

Art appreciation has always been subjective. It is a self-expression and like many things, should be respected. If I don't like it, then I leave it at that. :agree:That's an excellent approach. :agree: