Opinions on modern art.

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

I must digress.

 

While Modern art in of itself is worthy of at least some degree of appreciation (I suppose it depends on which modern artist you favor and think made the bigger contributions in the movement) the world of art 'galleria' is definitely something to be criticized.

 

Is it really justifiable to put 2mil on essentially garbaged? Yes, it may be art in how it is presented, however is it really worth that much?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/oct/28/art-critic-dave-hickey-quits-art-world

 

Dave Hickey has a scathing critique on the current art world that some of you would sympathize with.

 

Be it Modern Art or Contemporary, the art that gets displayed in museums and upscale galleria is often controlled by a tight inner circle of greedy, shallow, self-serving snobs.

 

I think that's the real problem.

[Revy ~ Two Hands 862]

 

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

MLP:FIM is not in a prestrigious art gallery and it never will be it's far to un-ironically commercial. Anything can be art but it's not really an apt comparion. Also the 5 squares where very much contemporary the piece was about a year old maybe two.

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

MLP:FIM is not in a prestrigious art gallery and it never will be it's far to un-ironically commercial. Anything can be art but it's not really an apt comparion. Also the 5 squares where very much contemporary the piece was about a year old maybe two.

 

The 5 squares sound like an unimpressive piece that breaks no new ground and is hardly worth its price tag. Do you have an image?

 

Also, we are talking about contemporary art in general, not just what's in the gallerias.

 

Perhaps mlp:fim should not be counted because it is commercial, but it can still be considered art, both contemporary and post-modern.

 

Lichtenstein and Warhol's art centered around the commercial, heavily. You know what else does? Our fan art.

 

It seems to me what you are disgusted by is the selection of contemporary art chosen by big wig art galleria.

 

I've seen both impressive and unimpressive contemporary art in the gallaria. The best stuff I ever seen was done by Rufus Butler Sedler when he brought his, "Lifetiles" exhibition to SFA, Nacagdoches.

 

 

 

 

This particular piece I believe was part of a different exhibit he did, but basically it works in a similar manner that those old 'holographic' cards worked, back in the day. You'd move the card in your hand and the picture would move...except with big pieces like this, you had to move around the piece to see it move.

 

It was really neat, because it engaged the viewer more, forcing you to move around to see the piece in action. I got to go to that gallery and had a blast.

 

However, I do not allow what is only displayed in art galleria to limit my scope on what contemporary art really is.

 

Contemporary art is today's art, and today's art is everywhere. It's on hundreds of online galleries, DA, tumblr, and out on the streets and in small time indie art scenes if you know where to look.

 

Don't let the snooty upscale world of art gallaria limit your scope on what contemporary art is and can be.

 

If you do that...they win.

 

Viva la revelucion.

[Qual1994 29]

Primary and the most important fuction of art to portray a (real) object. Of course there can and should be some feelings because it's what makes the authors works stand out, but when it's all feelings or/and no depiction of a object, that is no art, that's design.

 

 

This is not art, this is design.

But this is Art

 

[Invincible 2,090]

I guess that some works of art display a great deal of depth through the abstract, but some look like utter, meaningless nonsense.

 

Reminds me of a story i heard. Somebody took a bunch of monkeys and made them fight with paint pellets over a sheet of canvas, then took the nonsensical piece of "art" and presented it to critics who appeared to appraise it for various reasons. 

[I used to be a stranger 7,988]

Any art's quality can be distinguished by comparing it in technical demonstration and emotional expression in comparison to the artist's previous work and the precedent set by past masters. To compare the subject matter only to one's own personal preferences does not deserve the distinction of being called art.

 

Innovation should happen, but it would be stupid to reject the shoulders of history's giants from which many modern artists dive into shallow shoals of mediocrity, triteness, pretensiousness and the scatalogical. To build upon the present is far better than to reject it due to parts you dislike about the past.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Blue

[cuteycindyhoney 13,283]

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:

 

 

and sculptures like this:

 

 

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:

 

 

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.

 

img-3204813-3-celestia_by_katiramoon-d5mpoyi.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."

 

 

 

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

I should clarify my comic book cover comment. I don't care for that individual cover. I didn't mean ALL comic art. I also do like that coffee cup sculpture. Is it me, or does Jesus have some funky weird looking feet in that painting?

[Kel_Grym 1,917]

Primary and the most important fuction of art to portray a (real) object. Of course there can and should be some feelings because it's what makes the authors works stand out, but when it's all feelings or/and no depiction of a object, that is no art, that's design.

 

 

This is not art, this is design.

But this is Art

 

You bring up an interesting subject, and while the lines can be blurry, there is a distinct difference in art and design, though where the two begin and end is something that will be argued about forever.

 

One of the biggest differences between art and design, is that art usually is meant to express something. Pure design doesn't have to express anything at all.

 

Relevant link.

 

I do not believe that, in the case of visual arts, there needs to be a subject. Neither do I believe that if there is a subject that the subject has to be 'real' as you put it.

 

Case in point.

 

 

There is no subject being displayed here. This is a gorgeous cup, a product of undeniable artistic talent. It no doubt has a design to it, but the design is artistic. If the design is artistic, then why can't the cup be considered art? One could say that the cup itself is the subject, however, if the cup itself can be its own subject, then why can't an abstract painting on canvas be its own subject?

 

Why must a design,no matter how artistically expressive it is, be denied the title of art?

 

The painting that you displayed at the top was painted by Piet Mondrian, a big cahoona in the De Stijl art movement back in the early 1900's. He called his style neoplasticism and he genuinely meant to express an idea with it.

 

A theorist and writer, Mondrian believed that art reflected the underlying spirituality of nature. He simplified the subjects of his paintings down to the most basic elements, in order to reveal the essence of the mystical energy in the balance of forces that governed nature and the universe.

 

 

Mondrian chose to distill his representations of the world to their basic vertical and horizontal elements, which represented the two essential opposing forces: the positive and the negative, the dynamic and the static, the masculine and the feminine. The dynamic balance of his compositions reflect what he saw as the universal balance of these forces.

 

-Source

His art was very philosophically driven, and indeed was meant to express something. However, it's hard to appreciate it without the intellectual knowledge of his art theory to put it into context. The requirement for this intellectual knowledge behind the art 'theory' of modern art is in fact what led to its fading out and the ushering in of the post-modern art movement.

 

I do still believe that his art classifies as art, and the quality of the art is shown in his technical skill in creating it. He didn't design that painting in photoshop like any of us easily could. He painted it. Not something one case easily do with such precision.

 

An interesting article about Piet Mondrians painterly process.

 

Any art's quality can be distinguished by comparing it in technical demonstration and emotional expression in comparison to the artist's previous work and the precedent set by past masters. To compare the subject matter only to one's own personal preferences does not deserve the distinction of being called art.

 

Innovation should happen, but it would be stupid to reject the shoulders of history's giants from which many modern artists dive into shallow shoals of mediocrity, triteness, pretensiousness and the scatalogical. To build upon the present is far better than to reject it due to parts you dislike about the past.

I think you would have liked reading The Painted Word, by Thomas Wolfe.

 

While I get the gist of what you're saying, the way you word it seems a bit clunky.

 

To compare the subject matter only to one's own personal preferences does not deserve the distinction of being called art.

 

This is confusing to me because the topic of the sentence is about comparing the subject matter of art to one's personal preferences, but ends with a comment that had nothing to do with the topic you began. Did you mean to imply that the act of comparing subject matter to personal taste was being called art, and did not deserve the distinction? I don't think you did.

 

To build upon the present is far better than to reject it [the present] due to parts you dislike about the past.

 

Could you put that into some context for me, please?

I should clarify my comic book cover comment. I don't care for that individual cover. I didn't mean ALL comic art. I also do like that coffee cup sculpture. Is it me, or does Jesus have some funky weird looking feet in that painting?

I should have picked a better example, but I just grabbed that one randomly from my image search.

 

I didn't think anything about it, but now that you mention it they do have seem a little goofy. Maybe its the way the heel is hidden behind the rest of the foot or the way the smaller toes point so far away from the big toe. I'm not sure.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Minister KelGrym

[Megas 27,052]

I'm just gonna stop by and post this here