"Modern art" ??

[Shawn R. L.]

All I'm doing here is expressing the way I see a lot of 'modern'/abstract art. Just trying to see how others feel about the subject. By NO means am I saying I think it's all junk. I've seen some very moving works of abstract art. I have also seen a tendency in the visual arts to put up with a lot more hooey and actually give it high accolades than what is tolerated in other art forms. The story of http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1620.htmlThe Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.
There is some stuff that I think has evidence of talent and knowledge to be able to convey some very sublime emotions.
I think there is a big amount of it that's poorly done stunts - Piss Christ, Jackson Polluck's dribbles, 8 burned logs lined up the floor (was in a gallery where the curator gushed over this and other 'pieces'), a guy who throws paint into the blast coming from a commercial jet and it flies back onto a canvas.
Makes me imagine of a guy who come's onto stage in a tuxedo, approaches a beautiful grand piano, whips out a sledge hammer and pounds the piano to a pulp. While you have someone expressing their emotions and it's a musical instrument he's 'interacting' with doesn't make him a musician or what he's produced music...........................this is just the way I see it.

Again, just trying to see how others feel about the subject..............fighting will soon commence?:curl-lip:

 

[Talion]

I'm quite happy to say I think the majority of modern art is JUNK!

And is an insult to REAL artists.

 

[evil tendencies]

I completely agree. I think there is a difference between emoting in public and creating something of value. The first might be called artistic expression - an action motivated by creative thinking - but I am firmly of the opinion that unless you actually create something of value using talent and skill, you haven't actually created art.

 

[cassar]

art is in the eye of the beholder, there's a lot of classical art that does nothing for me the same with most of the modern stuff. as i said if something catches your eye and you like the shape, form or colours then more power to your elbow. personal taste counts on this one i think.
dont know about the" value" part there evil, i've seen sculpts of driftwood that i find asthetically pleasing yet they arent made of precious metals and have no value.

 

[IdofEntity]

All of this is my opinion,

Art is purely subjective because it's based on whatever emotions each individual viewer (or listener, taster, etc) experiences when exposed to the medium. Just like some people can't stand the taste of Asparagus, so they'll dislike most dishes that use it, many people can't stand certain techniques or media.

That being said, much like pizza, most people can recognize a few pieces of art as enjoyable. You might say that a piece of art can gauge it's success based off of how popular it is.

On the other side of the coin, art sometimes has nothing to do with the viewer and only with the expression of the artist. Those that slave at their art to express what their mind has tried to piece together aren't concerned with how many people enjoy it. The measure of success in this instance might be said to be the artist's pleasure with the work.

What seems to be happening with modern art is artists are trying to express some singular emotion or concept through their medium, and forcing the receiver to puzzle it out. It's an interesting tactic, but this can be even more subjective and confusing than more classical means. Subjective + confusing often equals irritating. I'll be the first to admit that most modern art holds no appeal to me. I enjoy complexity with focus. Modern art seems to involve varying degrees of complexity with obfuscation.

And also (this is not a well composed response) it's good to point out that a piece can be measured in it's success by creating as much turmoil as possible. Quite a few artists feel that you're not really an artist until you've offended someone. It's often considered edgy. If someone creates a piece that stirs emotion, even annoyance or hatred, it might be successful in the artist's eyes.

The rare few who do enjoy it gain the benefit of "elite" status because they can express their superiority. Other people will mimick that stance. Since art is subjective and based on perception, the worth of a critic is also based on perception. Alas, the perception of a perception often influences the success of a piece.

 

[Einion]

Have to agree with Talion's assessment, most modern art that I've seen is rubbish far as I'm concerned.

My main peeve with much modern painting (Abstract Expressionist in particular) is that it didn't/doesn't require much or any skill to produce, or at least appears to, and I just can't get past that most of the time. Now something requiring a lot of work or effort to produce is not a requirement for it to be classed as art, but it tends to produce stuff that I would have to say yes, it's art, but not great art and sometimes very bad art indeed. That doesn't stop me from liking some of it - you either like something or you don't sometimes - but in a decorative way, which most painters take as a gross insult.

Shawn, I think it's clear from what I've read that Jackson Pollock's iconic dribble paintings weren't just a stunt, or a means to produce paintings by the square yard with little effort, anything like that. But it is hard to know for sure. I really do think that Rothko's work is hooey and find it hard to believe that it's taken seriously; I'm sure a child could be taught to replicate them, maybe in as little as one day, and they're just sooo repetitive on top of that. Much the same thing can be said about Barnett Newman's stuff (big deal!) but even more so about Yves Klein and his monochromatic paintings (literally these are canvases of one colour, including a succession done just in a special version of French Ultramarine - yawn).

Einion

 

[uberdark]

"Thinking is form." ---Joseph Bueys

that sums up my belief. all one needs is thought to achieve art. That is the final stage of aesthetic thought on the subject of art.

 

[skeeve]

Well, art is rather difficult to define and the idea what art is changes with time. In many cases when we look back at for example the antiquity many items that we consider "art" in modern days would not be considered as such back then.

You also have to include a question of "intent". Is the item you see have any "practical" value beyond pure aesthetic pleasure? Numerous Rubens portraits come to mind: we consider them art; Rubens himself believed that he is an artist, yet he didn't consider these portraits to be works of art, but rather well crafted mass produced pieces.

Art always involves experimentation and almost always sensitive to historic context. Impressionism would be impossible in Medieval Europe - for once oil painting did not exist, in addition if you try to paint madonna like this
http://eldarissa.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/munch_madonna.jpg you would end up on a stake after long Exorcism procedure.
When you experiment you bound to make something first, something that nobody made before and that will be repeated after you in many different contexts. I once tried to explain to my son why Malevich Black square (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malevich.black-square.jpg) is a piece of art. It boils down to two things: 1) he was the first who thought about painting something like and 2) considering that it was painted in 1915 it reflects the time and historic context like nothing else.Context always plays a part. There is no such thing as non-contextual work of art. In some cases context is less important but it is always in the background. Without understanding why and when a particular piece was created your perception will always be limited. In that respect many pieces of modern art look quite good when they are in a proper context. I combination of highly textured brightly colored blobs looks out of place in a museum but fit just fine as a part of coffee shop interior. Many modern sculptures that look strange standalone are absolutely amazing in public parks.

Now the question, or rather you opinion is mostly about whether this experimentation has (or should have) boundaries and how far an artist can go without his art stopping being... well, art. As you immediately see we run into a conundrum here : as long as there is a single person on this planet that consider something to be art - it is art. You cannot define boundaries - there are no objective way of doing it. You always, always compare what you see with certain internal or external standards. This is why, personally I avoid calling something art. I can only say whether what I see interesting or not. I can give you an example, opposite to yours, actually. You find many examples of abstract art to be "un-arty", well personally I find many works of photo-realists and hyper-realists uninteresting. They are technically flawless, obviously a lot of work went into them, but if I need perfect representation of reality I can use high resolution digital camera, nes't pas? Much faster this way too. In both cases the individuality of an artist disappears.

 

[skeeve]

t Yves Klein and his monochromatic paintings (literally these are canvases of one colour, including a succession done just in a special version of French Ultramarine - yawn).

Einion

Hehe, can't help it but comment on this. This is a good example why Black Square made sense and French Ultramarine doesn't , because the idea of using single color to represent something was used and developed long before and because French Ultramarine has no apparent context...

"Thinking is form." ---Joseph Bueys

that sums up my belief. all one needs is thought to achieve art. That is the final stage of aesthetic thought on the subject of art.

There is no such thing as "the final stage of aesthetic thought on the subject of art". There are a number of different, competing and irreconcilable aesthetic thoughts on this subject.

 

[NGArtStudios]

I don't consider myself an artist by any means nor do I have a "trained eye" when critiquing visual art, but with that said, I think most modern art is indeed junk.

I think it's rather silly that the trend now a days is to express ones "emotions" through your artwork. Today, a scribbled piece of paper or a single black dot on a plain sheet of paper will pass for great art as long as there is some deep emotion attached to it that the artist was supposedly feeling when creating the piece.

What ever happened to the days where to be a great artist, one needed skill and understanding of the subject he/she was trying to portray?

 

[Niall]

I think from being miniature painters we will all look at a painting which involves three colours spashed together with no blending and say "a monkey could do that".
It seems nowadays to be a modern artist you have to either be a magnitude of unattractive that children cry when they see you or, be a stuck up self important know it all. Of course being both is prefferable when your art form consists of a dirty bed or a urinal.

Bring back portraits and landscapes!

 

[Evil Dave]

I believe this is art. If I won the lottery I'd buy every piece I could.
I believe this is art.
Even this, I consider to be art.
This, however, I do not.

For me there must be some work involved, some design in mind, not random splatterings.

 

[Avelorn]

I hardly doubt the splatterings are random in that sense.

hm. I don't know, this is difficult. I just know that there are modern art that moves me and some that doesn't just as with everything else. These discussions generally end up polarized and some say "you don't get it" and others are like "emperors new cloth". I feel inclined to agree with skeeve on his points.

Well regardless, I just know that we all should blame the art critics.

 

[NGArtStudios]

Well regardless, I just know that we all should blame the art critics.

Amen to that.

 

[cassar]

i agree with avelorn and NG, bunch o tossers

 

[Tercha]

Great topic, very contentious, had to put my thoughts down.
to me having had no formal arts training at all (whether this makes it better of worse for me to comment is up to you) art to the artist is creative expression, and of course there are many ways of expressing yourself, "throwing paint at a canvas" would be a good expression of anger for example. The issue is more the people who pay vast sums of money for what others appear worthless, a bundle of twigs put together by a tribesman to have a fire would be worthless to anyone else as they could just gather their own, but if a known "artist" were to do it it would have value to so called "connoisseurs".
I know what I like and what I would pay money for others may consider junk so it is a very personal thing. there are what I would consider Bizarre work made to make money from the artists name, such as the one coloured canvases mentioned, but they are worthless unless someone is willing to buy them.
other things such as tribal masks were never intended to have a value other than to scare spirits away, but now can have extraordinary values, personally I like technical drawings, almost worthless once the thing they represent was completed, but I would be willing to part with my money for them. As with old maps, replaced as more was known of the world the Mappa mundi <sic> is now priceless though of course useless.
buy what you like (or need) and the cream should rise to the surface charlatans have a habit of being exposed and ridiculed.
as to the ART I have, well my miniatures, my photographs and other old photographs, a Sara Moon print that i loved and have had for 30 years, a photo on block board of a forest $2 at a 2nd hand shop, but I love it, lots of miniature houses (Lilliput lane) none of it worth much as far as I know but things I like to be around and have around me, that someone has used there ability to create. ( probably the only things of value to anyone else would be my medals (they will never be sold) and some sovereigns - I suppose they could be classified as art.....

 

[Necroghast]

@ Evildave

Those first ones are actually really cool.

 

[Godlikebuthumble]

What ever happened to the days where to be a great artist, one needed skill and understanding of the subject he/she was trying to portray?

Died when people started being told they were special snowflakes and anyone gave two $#!*s about what they were feeling like when painting/sculpting/whatever.
Buried when the guys too lazy to do even that called themselves "critics" and started validating it.

Funny, if you think for how long painters/sculptors were considered "craftsmen" instead of "artists".

Now I have no problem with most "modern art" (I really don't like the terminology here), but telling me soething is art "because I say so" won't really fly with me.
I refer you guys to http://www.cracked.com/article_16107_6-best-shenanigans-passed-off-as-art.html

 

[dauber22]

I agree pretty much with Skeeve and would like to add a few other points.
1) Just to be pedantic,there is a difference between Abstract art and Non-Representational or Non-Objective art. Technically, to be Abstract art it has to be abstracted from something. Much of what has been sited is actually Non-Representational art or Non-Objective art in that it did not start from attempting to portray an object.
2) Why limit your critiques to Abstract art? There is plenty of representational, traditional bad art out there. I would point to anything for sale at a "Starving Artists" sale for examples.
3) When discussing "Modern" art,we have to remember one thing: the perspective of time. With "Classical" art we've had the filter of hundreds , if not thousands, of years. I'm sure a bunch of crap was produced back then as well, some of it may well have been considered "Good art" but hasn't stood up to the test of time. With Modern art, we haven't had the benefit of that filter yet.
4) Much of what we see as modern art - especially the scheister, bad prank type stuff - is what you get from a mixture of government funding and media attention. Government funding - in almost all fields - tends to go to those who are best at selling themselves which, while it is a talent, has very little to do with art.And media attention tends to go to things that will attract peoples' attention. For instance: outrageous art. Very few people would pay too much attention to an article or piece on the news about a talented painter. People will say: "That's not news!" or nod and say "very nice" and move on. However, show them something outrageous or offensive and people get up in arms. That's precisely what the media is looking for, so they give a lot more coverage to it, which in turn, stimulates more people to produce crap so they can get attention.

Well, I've rambled on quite long enough. However, in the spirit of honesty, I must admit to having created a number of abstract and non-representational pieces in my time. I hesitate to call them art or myself an artist. It seems so egotistical. But I felt I should expose my biases.

 

[Dragonsreach]

Such a subject.
"Modern Art" is as described by so many of you is being overtaken by self publicising/publicity and as stated the loud voices are getting the attention.
So here's to the adage: "The empty pot makes the loudest noise".

I try to think of it this way, if a picture is worth a thousand words, it shouldn't take a thousand words to explain a picture.