Sign in to follow this  
Vox

Opinions on modern art.

Recommended Posts

So what are your thoughts on so called contemporary art? Now keep in mind, when I say "modern" art, I'm not referring to the movement that spawned the works of Vincent Van Gogh and Picasso, rather I'm referring to the pretentious, offensive, and often provocative shock content endorsed by many "trendy" art galleries in large urban areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all modern art I do not understand (in terms of picasso like stuff)....But with what you are asking, "shock value" art that is common today I have a strong distaste for. Similar to music I do not like, I just avoid exposing myself to such art....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Modern art" is sort of vague. When I think of modern art, I think of paintings that are primarily made of color and shape, instead if a more defined subject. I like it well enough. Some of it is well designed, some of it isn't.

 

Used to think it was all pretentious bullshit, but I've gained a taste for it after I took a 2d design class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are your thoughts on so called contemporary art? Now keep in mind, when I say "modern" art, I'm not referring to the movement that spawned the works of Vincent Van Gogh and Picasso, rather I'm referring to the pretentious, offensive, and often provocative shock content endorsed by many "trendy" art galleries in large urban areas.

 

Are you talking about Post-Modern art?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about Post-Modern art?

Probably, you likely know more than i do, I'm also talking about the type of "art" that concerns splattering paint on a canvas and claiming it has some deeper meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are talking about what I think you're talking about, my opinion is that anything can be art as long as there is a human influence. Whether or not I "get it", or even like it for that matter, should not detract from the meaning it may give to others or the meaning it has for the creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with "contemporary" or modern art is that many of these works take little skill, technical ability, or creativity to make, yet are passed off as masterpieces and praised for their deeper meaning and "brilliance". Often these obscure and surreal pieces are created to shock and are often offensive, particularly to religions (such as a crucifix hung upside down in a bottle of urine) these pieces devalue and corrupt art as nothing more than vulgarity.

If you are talking about what I think you're talking about, my opinion is that anything can be art as long as there is a human influence. Whether or not I "get it", or even like it for that matter, should not detract from the meaning it may give to others or the meaning it has for the creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Probably, you likely know more than i do, I'm also talking about the type of "art" that concerns splattering paint on a canvas and claiming it has some deeper meaning.

 

Ok. The kind of art you are describing is part of the modern art movement if you're talking about what Jackson Pollock does.

 

jackson-pollock1.jpg

 

As a bachelor of fine arts, I am more than well prepared to defend this kind of splattering on a canvas.

Edited by Minister KelGrym

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. The kind of art you are describing is part of the modern art movement if you're talking about what Jackson Pollock does.

 

jackson-pollock1.jpg

 

As a bachelor of fine arts, I am more than well prepared to defend this kind of splattering on a canvas.

So what is it that makes it appreciable exactly? I understand that taste in art varies, and I don't ridicule those who enjoy it, but, at least for me, holding it in such high regard is just silly. My uncle actually made a living off of creating works like this, and even HE couldn't understand why people were buying works like this, being an artist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Probably, you likely know more than i do, I'm also talking about the type of "art" that concerns splattering paint on a canvas and claiming it has some deeper meaning.

THIS. I have no problem with the whole art is in the eye of the beholder. I don't even totally mind the nsfw stuff as long as it's only presented in areas where it's already been notified to participants that there is sexual conotations or even heavier stuff.

But when you suddenly put a million dollar price tag on a giant canvas with a single dot of paint, then the world is objectively saying that it's better then other art peices. That's not to say I have an issue with people selling their art, and people will pay sometimes too much or too little, but it's the prestige that bugs me. It's more like the whole buying gucci and prada because of the name (or the artists name) or if something is so absurd that it somehow is either so stupid to be called art in any form (meaning there was little time, thought, energy or creative process that even went into it) so people think "Oh, that's completely ridiculous, either this person suffered a stroke just now, or it's hidden genius! I should pay a billion for it" Just, what?

To clarify, I don't mean abstract art is stupid and people aren't stupid for liking it. I'm talking about something that took no effort at all, like if I added a mustache to my avatar and tried to call it complex art or even sell it. I felt the same when I saw trash bags as high street fashion .... literal trash bags is what they were wearing ... just what? So abstract is fine, but the fact that it often sells higher or carries much more prestige then other great works. When art is so subjective, certain peices shouldn't carry such an absurdly higher want then others. I feel like it's one of those things where one rich person happened to like it offered a lot beause they did, then every rich person wanted one because they did. A trend with not even the best intentions, no purpose, just keeping up with the Jonses. Which is kind of an insult to the artist who actually did pour their heart and soul into splatters or blocks of color or lack thereof.

 

On a personal note though too, I'm not for abstract or modern, don't even like picasso or van gogh much either for that matter. But I'd be fine with it's existence as personal expression but when the stupid status that it gets as a "look at me I'm rich and fancy!" comes in, I just find it another reason to think our cultures have some extremely stupid parts to them, specially with status in general.

Have you ever heard of that movie called "My kid is an artistic genuius" or something to that effect? It covers the whole idea if slathering or splattering paint is truly genius or not, because a 4 year old just having fun could do it. By all accounts of what genuis is, being a genius in art doesn't even make sense, because it's too subjective. Being a genuis in engineering or math is, because there are wrong ways to do it or wrong answers.

Edited by Sinvanor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is it that makes it appreciable exactly? I understand that taste in art varies, and I don't ridicule those who enjoy it, but, at least for me, holding it in such high regard is just silly. My uncle actually made a living off of creating works like this, and even HE couldn't understand why people were buying works like this, being an artist.

 

You have to understand something very core about modern art.

 

If I could sum it up as simple as possible, it's a quest for what's really real.

 

For the longest time, western art was seen through the lens of perspective. Art always had a subject.

 

But these are illusions.

 

margritti-this-is-not-a-pipe.jpeg

 

"The Treachery of Illusions" by Rene Magritte. The French beneath the picture translates to, "This is not a pipe"

 

The picture above is truly not a pipe. It was a splattering of paint made to resemble a pipe. But it's not a pipe. It's not real.

 

Jackson Pollock and other artists like him wanted to break down that illusion and make art "honest" you could say.

 

There is an aesthetic beauty in the arrangements of colors all by themselves without having to form a subject. This appeals to some people, and others it does not, but there is indeed an objective aesthetic value in the painting.

 

Aesthetics, being the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty and art, which can be broken down into either subjective aesthetics or objective aesthetics.

 

If it does not please you subjectively, then you wont intuitively appreciate such art, but you can learn more about objective aesthetics so you can see what other people see in it.

 

And if anything...it makes for a cool desktop background. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to understand something very core about modern art.

 

If I could sum it up as simple as possible, it's a quest for what's really real.

 

For the longest time, western art was seen through the lens of perspective. Art always had a subject.

 

But these are illusions.

 

margritti-this-is-not-a-pipe.jpeg

 

"The Treachery of Illusions" by Rene Magritte. The French beneath the picture translates to, "This is not a pipe"

 

The picture above is truly not a pipe. It was a splattering of paint made to resemble a pipe. But it's not a pipe. It's not real.

 

Jackson Pollock and other artists like him wanted to break down that illusion and make art "honest" you could say.

 

There is an aesthetic beauty in the arrangements of colors all by themselves without having to form a subject. This appeals to some people, and others it does not, but there is indeed an objective aesthetic value in the painting.

 

Aesthetics, being the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty and art, which can be broken down into either subjective aesthetics or objective aesthetics.

 

If it does not please you subjectively, then you wont intuitively appreciate such art, but you can learn more about objective aesthetics so you can see what other people see in it.

 

And if anything...it makes for a cool desktop background. :lol:

I like the idea of breaking it down as a illusion, because that is true and always like the "This is not a pipe" piece. However, color itself is also an illusion, so if you really wanna break it down, make a picture that is just dark and light, not color. In fact a brillian piece from this perspective would be nothing on the canvase, but situating the light in the room to case shadows on it, because that's really what we actually see and what actually exists. Just don't put a million dollar price tag. Expressions are fine being loved by the public, but the whole trend of it being the best art ever is offensive to people who do other types of art that is both incredible to look at and very difficult to do. Giving a type of art the higher form prestige ruins what art is supposed to be. Expression, even if expression is illusion. It all is so why abstract gets favored is still beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of breaking it down as a illusion, because that is true and always like the "This is not a pipe" piece. However, color itself is also an illusion, so if you really wanna break it down, make a picture that is just dark and light, not color. In fact a brillian piece from this perspective would be nothing on the canvase, but situating the light in the room to case shadows on it, because that's really what we actually see and what actually exists. Just don't put a million dollar price tag. Expressions are fine being loved by the public, but the whole trend of it being the best art ever is offensive to people who do other types of art that is both incredible to look at and very difficult to do. Giving a type of art the higher form prestige ruins what art is supposed to be. Expression, even if expression is illusion. It all is so why abstract gets favored is still beyond me.

 

The quest for what's real has kinda been like approaching the speed of light...you can only approach it so much with visual medium.

 

It all started when an artist got sick of painting angels and greek gods and started painting realistic subjects in realistic circumstances. From there it just escalated.

 

It's been a long while since I've been in my modern art class and I'm drawing upon mostly fuzzy memory, however you may find these links useful.

 

http://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/themes/what-is-modern-art

 

http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/timelines/modern_art_timeline.htm

 

Now I will say this, most modern art is...old. Old and of some historical value, so if it has a high price tag then that's often a given.

 

You know how collectors are.

 

We are not really in the modern art era, but rather the post-modern. You'll notice that in modern days, we don't really have these great titans of art popping up any more...there's a reason for that.

 

The progression of art styles that you read about in textbooks came...kinda full circle.

 

At the end of the road for the quest for what's real, for the quest for truth, the whole meta-narrative broke down and you could say that it was found out in the end that there is no capital T truth so you are free to pick whatever truth you like.

 

 

Modernism was all about the meta-narrative. Postmodernism is about the destruction of the meta-narrative.

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/ask-an-expert-what-is-the-difference-between-modern-and-postmodern-art-87883230/?no-ist

 

Again, I'm just paraphrasing what I was taught by my professor, so I provide the above link for a more concise explanation for the difference between modern and postmodern art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern art is what i make once a day (usually in the morning,), and sometimes it happens twice!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern art is what i make once a day (usually in the morning,), and sometimes it happens twice!!!

 

i-see-what-you-did-there-meme.jpg

 

You're probably making a reference to this guy.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/may/14/lood-semen-tears-artists-bodily-fluids-rose-lynn-fisher

 

To clarify for everyone, Modern art is not necessarily about shock effect, its just that some of it sorta is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of what is considered art is nothing but a sad joke. If a non-artist can EXACTLY duplicate a work of "art" in ten minutes after spending ten dollars at Home Depot, it IS NOT art. Not long ago, it made news when a cleaning person destroyed a work of art, when she picked up what she thought was trash and threw it away. Yes, the "art" consisted of waste, including crumpled newspapers and cookie crumbs! In another case, someone cleaned a stain off of a plastic pan in an art gallery. Guess what? The stained pan was "ART"! Check the links. I managed to find the stories about both cases!

 

http://gawker.com/cleaning-lady-throws-away-expensive-modern-art-she-mist-1527595660

 

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/nov/03/overzealous-cleaner-ruins-artwork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The quest for what's real has kinda been like approaching the speed of light...you can only approach it so much with visual medium.

 

It all started when an artist got sick of painting angels and greek gods and started painting realistic subjects in realistic circumstances. From there it just escalated.

 

It's been a long while since I've been in my modern art class and I'm drawing upon mostly fuzzy memory, however you may find these links useful.

 

http://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/themes/what-is-modern-art

 

http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/timelines/modern_art_timeline.htm

 

Now I will say this, most modern art is...old. Old and of some historical value, so if it has a high price tag then that's often a given.

 

You know how collectors are.

 

We are not really in the modern art era, but rather the post-modern. You'll notice that in modern days, we don't really have these great titans of art popping up any more...there's a reason for that.

 

The progression of art styles that you read about in textbooks came...kinda full circle.

 

At the end of the road for the quest for what's real, for the quest for truth, the whole meta-narrative broke down and you could say that it was found out in the end that there is no capital T truth so you are free to pick whatever truth you like.

 

 

Modernism was all about the meta-narrative. Postmodernism is about the destruction of the meta-narrative.

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/ask-an-expert-what-is-the-difference-between-modern-and-postmodern-art-87883230/?no-ist

 

Again, I'm just paraphrasing what I was taught by my professor, so I provide the above link for a more concise explanation for the difference between modern and postmodern art.

This is true about collectors, I swear some just want to find the most bizzare thing they can and pay waaaay too much for it. Either way, I just wish that was more of a private circle thing instead of a humongus band wagon. I suppose if the artist is laughing all the way to the bank though, because now everyone wants it, then they don't care.

 

Asthetically though, I still don't find most post-modern art that pleasing, or really the typical modern art either. But that's purely personal preference. I like being able to look at a drawing, able to tell kinda what it is, or at least understand that it's something new (like a new species, or a new design to draw an existing speices or a object) or that it exists in it's own world outright.

 

As far as paintings go that are I guess kinda like breaking down the illusion. I love the one where the closer you get to the painting, the more abstract it becomes. Gives me chills everytime and really sells the idea that it's all an illusion to me in a very direct way. It's called Georges Seurat's A Sunday Afternoon which is Post-Impressionist. I suppose post-modern takes the impressionistic style a step further.

1937x1280_france-pointillism-oil-canvas-

Edited by Sinvanor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's an absolute pile of shit and has no place in any museums, anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of what is considered art is nothing but a sad joke. If a non-artist can EXACTLY duplicate a work of "art" in ten minutes after spending ten dollars at Home Depot, it IS NOT art. Not long ago, it made news when a cleaning person destroyed a work of art, when she picked up what she thought was trash and threw it away. Yes, the "art" consisted of waste, including crumpled newspapers and cookie crumbs! In another case, someone cleaned a stain off of a plastic pan in an art gallery. Guess what? The stained pan was "ART"! Check the links. I managed to find the stories about both cases!

 

http://gawker.com/cleaning-lady-throws-away-expensive-modern-art-she-mist-1527595660

 

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/nov/03/overzealous-cleaner-ruins-artwork

 

recycled-art-trash-people.jpg

 

Trash can be art

 

What makes this particular sculpture set so interesting is the statement it makes about us, the modern day consumer and how much we throw away. There was clearly a lot of effort put into the creation of this, and while not necessarily the most pretty thing to look at, who says that art has to be pretty?

 

What matters is the social statement that it makes.

 

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/amazing-recycled-art-pieces/2

 

It is post-modern.

 

This is true about collectors, I swear some just want to find the most bizzare thing they can and pay waaaay too much for it. Either way, I just wish that was more of a private circle thing instead of a humongus band wagon. I suppose if the artist is laughing all the way to the bank though, because now everyone wants it, then they don't care.

 

Asthetically though, I still don't find most post-modern art that pleasing, or really the typical modern art either. But that's purely personal preference. I like being able to look at a drawing, able to tell kinda what it is, or at least understand that it's something new (like a new species, or a new design to draw an existing speices or a object) or that it exists in it's own world outright.

 

As far as paintings go that are I guess kinda like breaking down the illusion. I love the one where the closer you get to the painting, the more abstract it becomes. Gives me chills everytime and really sells the idea that it's all an illusion to me in a very direct way. It's called Georges Seurat's A Sunday Afternoon which is Post-Impressionist. I suppose post-modern takes the impressionistic style a step further.

img-3223134-1-1937x1280_france-pointilli

 

It is a wonderful piece and I surely wouldn't have had the patience to make something like it.

 

The technique employed is called pointillism, something we actually see a lot of in...

 

phantomlady17.jpg

 

Old comic book art!

 

Well yes, not everything in comic book art is made by fine points, but you get the idea.

 

However I did get the impression from your post that you were thinking that 'post-impressionism' was in fact a product of 'post-modernism' which is actually isn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, its just the way you worded it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is post-modern.

No. I honestly think in the cases I listed, it's the "artist" laughing his way to the bank after he conned gullible fools out of their money. Did you even look at the links I provided? One "artwork" literally consisted of a stained drip pan under a slapped together wooden structure. The other, literally was garbage. It actually was just discarded crumbled newspaper and cookie crumbs in a bag. Actually, what you posted was little better. Someone shoved trash into molds and made mannequins. The social message is "Look what I got idiots to pay me thousands of dollars for!" People will literally buy anything if someone manages to convince them it's "ART".

 

This is a true story that took place about five years ago. For whatever reason, I used to save the dryer lint in a big red plastic coffee can. (I stopped doing that because my husband thought it was weird.) Anyway, on a site that seems to have died recently, there was a discussion thread about art. The comments on "art" such as I linked to in my original post were very amusing to me. On a whim, I dumped the compressed lump of lint out onto a black tee shirt so there was nothing at all in the background. I took a picture of it and posted it on the site. I said it was a piece I created to protest against the use of animal fur in clothing. I am not making this up. For two days people raved about my artistic talent, and even asked if I had any showings. I finally owned up and called them all fools and admitted it was just a big lump of dryer lint. I got banned.

LOL!

 

The painting you shared was beautiful though. The comic book cover, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern art I don't like bear in mind modern art is from the 1940's-1970's or so. Contemporary art that is todays art I absolutely hate.

No I do not think 5 squares coloured blue on a white canvas is worth 2 million dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

No. I honestly think in the cases I listed, it's the "artist" laughing his way to the bank after he conned gullible fools out of their money. Did you even look at the links I provided? One "artwork" literally consisted of a stained drip pan under a slapped together wooden structure. The other, literally was garbage. It actually was just discarded crumbled newspaper and cookie crumbs in a bag. Actually, what you posted was little better. Someone shoved trash into molds and made mannequins. The social message is "Look what I got idiots to pay me thousands of dollars for!" People will literally buy anything if someone manages to convince them it's "ART".

 

This is a true story that took place about five years ago. For whatever reason, I used to save the dryer lint in a big red plastic coffee can. (I stopped doing that because my husband thought it was weird.) Anyway, on a site that seems to have died recently, there was a discussion thread about art. The comments on "art" such as I linked to in my original post were very amusing to me. On a whim, I dumped the compressed lump of lint out onto a black tee shirt so there was nothing at all in the background. I took a picture of it and posted it on the site. I said it was a piece I created to protest against the use of animal fur in clothing. I am not making this up. For two days people raved about my artistic talent, and even asked if I had any showings. I finally owned up and called them all fools and admitted it was just a big lump of dryer lint. I got banned.

LOL!

 

The painting you shared was beautiful though. The comic book cover, not so much.

 

I can see and understand your point of view, and I find your anecdote a humorous one at that.

 

There is quite a bit of 'art' out there that does seem so laughably easy to make it leaves one wondering if it's really art or something the artist sneezed up and only goes by 'art' through grade A bullshitting.

 

However, I'm not here to debate if their price-tag is justified, only that those stand up as art in their own right. Even if these things are not 'good' art they did push the limits and boundaries on what could be called art and that in itself is a contribution.

 

To go a step further, what you did with the lent can be considered art at its finest as well. A fabulous critique of the silly sensibilities of the artistic community as a whole, an intellectually driven event something akin to a digital happening.

 

If you had recorded the entirety of this event via screen-shots and/or video cam, you could have very well created your own installation to be put on exhibit and label it, "An Ironic Critique." After that, just sit back and suck up the cash.

 

Thank Sinvanor for posting the painting, I just reposted it in my quote.

 

As for the comic, that brings up another interesting point about Modern Art that I wanted to make.

 

Roy Lichtenstein is a famous pop artist (my favorite) who created large industrial paintings based on comic book arts such as this:

 

img-3225761-1-resize%20IMG_1456.jpg

 

and sculptures like this:

 

img-3225761-2-roy-lichtenstein-cup-and-s

 

Comic book art, at the time, was considered a 'low' art form, but because of Roy this notion had its head turned upside down.

 

The reason I bring all this up is because I want to make a point that despite whatever opinions you may have on modern art, I want to make sure that you and others understand its place and contribution in history.

 

I love the modern art movement because it truly paved the way for all of us. Think about it. Once upon a time in the classical era, for something to be considered high art, it had to look like this:

 

02CompetitionPaintingRaphaelTransfigurat

 

If you were to show an old renaissance painter something like the picture below and call it, "art," you'd be laughed right out of Venice.

 

post-25708-0-95567700-1415018098_thumb.jpg

 

What on God's green earth is that!? Is that? Is that a garish outline!? Where is the shading? Is that suppose to be a unicorn or a pegasus, cause I don't know which. It doesn't even look like a horse! The eyes are too big and the hair is completely unrealistic!

 

...is probably what they would say. (The blasphemers...Celestia deserves better praise than that!)

 

Yet, we today consider this good art! Fan art, yes, but great fan art! Such is our sensibilities towards art, a more or less shared cultural sensibility that we are able to have precisely because of the contributions that the modern art movement made in regards to what can be considered art.

 

Modern art, unfortunately, doesn't often receive the appreciation it deserves because it lacks relevance in a post-modern world. Today's youth will look at it and say, "What garbage!" but back in the day it was, "Avant-Garde."

 

 

Modern art I don't like bear in mind modern art is from the 1940's-1970's or so. Contemporary art that is todays art I absolutely hate.

No I do not think 5 squares coloured blue on a white canvas is worth 2 million dollars.

 

Is this 5 squares of colored blue on white that you saw a modern art piece, or a contemporary piece? Sounds like it's modern to me and if it's not then I have to agree that it shouldn't be worth 2 million. A post-modern piece that does nothing but copy old modernism, does nothing but shoot itself in the foot.

 

Surely though you don't hate all contemporary art?

 

MLP:FIM is contemporary.

 

Just about everything you find on DA is contemporary.

 

Do you only like classical art?

 

Also, the actual beginnings of the modern art movement are quite debatable. It's generally accepted that it began in the 1900's but it can be argued that it goes back even further.

 

Relevant link. http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/sep/18/art

Edited by Minister KelGrym

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't pay attention to art unless it's really old or fan art of a show I like.

fim has tons of epic fan art, so does pokemon, adventure time, and almost every other anime I love.

I even like fan art to anime I don't like as long as it's cute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.