PDA

View Full Version : Modern Art- 'B...but it's just a shelf. With a cup on it.'



DrPumpkin
04-14-2011, 08:34 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/46/Oak_tree.jpg/300px-Oak_tree.jpg

Modern art is definitely a love it or hate it piece of work. Could a cup on a shelf question the nature of reality, or just be a fraud? Could it be a masterpiece, or simply a big middle finger to the general audience that just 'dosen't get it'?

Do you think its right for a picture that looked like it's been drawn by a small child to be sold at auction for lots and lots of money?

Do you think we've been sucked into a world so cynical and so centered on fortune and fame that we can no longer just enjoy a pretty painting or a simple idea?

Especially those people who are aiming to be actual artists here, what's your opinion on Modern Art?

ClockHand
04-14-2011, 09:00 AM
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/haters-gonna-hate-7.jpg?w=500&h=375

I'm a hater in this matter. I can't see the geniality, talent, skills, or the depth concept behind a cup or a not painted canvas. For my this way of art is more to fap the own ego.

But I love it when is not a ego fapper, and more a problem. I think my hate goes to the art that want to be art, than the art that recognize itself as art.


I have to make a distinction, when you see this

http://www.adifferentplace.org/new/modern.jpg

Its cool and I love it.


But this is kinda douche.

http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/modern-art.jpg

Delphinus
04-14-2011, 02:01 PM
Well, there are two main components to any work of art: the work itself, and what the work represents. Modern art has become increasingly focused on the symbolism of a work, but it usually requires a lot of background reading on the artist of a particular piece and their intentions (found on the placard beside said piece in a gallery) to understand how the symbolism of the piece relates to the physicality of it. That, in my opinion, is wrong, because it means the piece isn't self-contained. Of course, no work of art is ever totally self-contained: take for example Leda and the Swan. If you don't understand how the piece relates back to Greek mythology etc. then it just becomes a picture of a woman being raped by a swan (ignoring the skill involved in its composition, obviously). But you can still admire the craftsmanship of that sort of work without understanding the symbolism.

Nowadays, though, artists seem to prefer creating an elaborate meaning or questioning some essential fact of existence without having this bear any relation to the work. If you picked up a novel and the writer had written a load of random gibberish (DAMN YOU JOYCE) without it bearing any relation to what the novel was supposedly about (not you Joyce), you'd put that novel down immediately. Likewise if, to understand the book, you had to read a 40-page preparatory guide on the author's life and influences around the time the book was written, you'd probably say 'fuck this' and go read something less pompous.

I suppose what I'm saying is that a piece should have text and subtext: the subtext might be more comprehensible in light of learning about the author's beliefs and influences, but you'd still be able to read the book as it was without having knowledge of the context in which it was written. Modern art seems to sacrifice the text to the subtext, leading to what TvTropes would call a World of Symbolism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WorldOfSymbolism). That, in my opinion, is a great loss.

ClockHand
04-14-2011, 02:05 PM
Following what delph is saying.

Yeah, modern art appear to try to let a side the symbol for the symbolism, thing that is wrong, because if the symbol is not comprensible then the symbolism is lost.

Matt
04-14-2011, 02:17 PM
I'd rather pay $60 for a simple, but beautiful picture of a character on DeviantArt than $1,000,000 for a mess of colors that are supposed to symbolize an artist's feelings.

I feel that some of these modern "symbolism" pieces are just the artist's way of making (a lot of) money off a picture without having any actual artistic skill.

GunZet
04-14-2011, 04:27 PM
Anything can be considered art of any form. Anyone can like that said 'art'. So hate it or love it...personally, I don't hate nor love it because I just don't understand it.

Imma just call modern art 'abstract simplicity'. *shrugs*
Exactly [ this many ] fucks were given.

Arashi500
04-15-2011, 10:02 PM
I dunno, if I ever wanted to make a quick $200 I could sell a handpainted horizon line. In that I mean it is just a blue rectangle,, over a slightly darker blue rectangle. At a recreation center here in Boulder, there are like 6 of these paintings by the same guy, just in different colors, all of them sold over a summer.

DrPumpkin
04-16-2011, 01:57 AM
But surely part of what modern art is is to attempt to understand what the artist is saying? I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing the point of making modern art is to express feelings and thoughts that can't be expressed anyway else.

What I really dislike about modern art is the fact that people are so judgmental on the piece depending on who made it, or the price.

If a five year old painted a random blob, it's still a blob, but if a famous artist paints a blob, it's suddenly a masterpiece expressing something complicated. And if a little scribble is sold for the same price as a cup of lemonade, it's a piece of junk, but if the same piece were to be sold at auction for loads and loads and loads of money, people suddenly start seeing how deep and thoughtful it is.

I'm probably with gunzet on the fact that I neither hate nor love Modern art because I just don't understand it.

I'd like to, but I just don't.

Lucy
04-16-2011, 08:26 AM
MOST modern art is an incomprehensible or nonsensical mess to me. I am a very straightforward kind of person. If it's a truly beautiful piece I will probably love it anyway. If it's just a urinal then I'll go ahead and piss in it. If it is a scribble I will regard it as a scribble, i.e: probably junk.

If I get the impression that someone's taken a random object and said "THIS REPRESENTS [WHAT IT APPARENTLY REPRESENTS]," I do not consider it art at all. I consider it fraud.

ClockHand
04-16-2011, 12:33 PM
But surely part of what modern art is is to attempt to understand what the artist is saying? I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing the point of making modern art is to express feelings and thoughts that can't be expressed anyway else.

Impposible, because you are not the artist, ergo you can't understand the artist. So the artist need to use understandable symbols, so we can at least scratch the idea behind the art.



What I really dislike about modern art is the fact that people are so judgmental on the piece depending on who made it, or the price.

This happens not only in art, but in everthing in life. If I'm a scientiest who says X theory, everyone (most of the people) is going to work under that theory to affirm it, but no one (unless some years pass) is going to see if is fake or not. The weight of the recognition is heavier than the achievement.



I'm probably with gunzet on the fact that I neither hate nor love Modern art because I just don't understand it.

I'd like to, but I just don't.

The deal is that you have to try to understand it. If you want to be an artist, understand art is fundamental. There are supposed to be 3 levels of understandment on the art: The first and basic is just a judgment of like it or not. The second it goes to the identification of the symbols and the Third is the impossible, because only the artist knows it.

So my problem at least is that, when the artist kill symbols, so no one can reach the second level of understandment, which is the goal of modern art. And then is when art becomes more about the ego of the artist and not the dilema in the art.

And this is also how art become again in a legitimizator of power, as was in the middle age, in time of napoleon and so. The problem is not modern art, the problem is the artist who take advantage of this freedom in art.

GunZet
04-16-2011, 08:25 PM
the problem is the artist who take advantage of this freedom in art.
Blammo.
Or people who aren't in it for the art and therefore not artists. Who just want to get a piece of something they have no business being in.
Fraud artists suck mang.

DrPumpkin
04-16-2011, 08:42 PM
Impposible, because you are not the artist, ergo you can't understand the artist. So the artist needs to use understandable symbols, so we can at least scratch the idea behind the art.


The deal is that you have to try to understand it. If you want to be an artist, understanding art is fundamental. There are supposed to be 3 levels of understandment on the art: The first and basic is just a judgment of like it or not. The second it goes to the identification of the symbols and the Third is the impossible, because only the artist knows it.

So my problem at least is that, when the artist kill symbols, so no one can reach the second level of understandment, which is the goal of modern art. And then is when art becomes more about the ego of the artist and not the dilema in the art.

But surely, even without understanding what the artist wanted to say, you can still interpret the piece by yourself, can't you? I think what you're saying is 'You can't understand what the artist is saying, therefore there's no point', and I agree with you, since the part of the point of modern art is to get their message (or at least attempt to), but can't you interpret the artwork by yourself and get your own feelings and messages from that? And isn't that another part of modren art, to get your own interpretation of the message?

Also, can you tell me where you got the three levels of understanding art from? I'm just genuinely curious to see who said it.

ClockHand
04-16-2011, 10:12 PM
Artist generate an idea through symbols to be understanded in a part (you never understand the whole idea).

When artist use unknowed symbols, you can't understand the idea behind the art.

As you can't, you have the option to interpretate it as you want. But then you are killing the Artist (because the artists and the idea are not needed anymore and the symbols are tools for your own ego).

So at the end, when you do a interpretation of your own, for yourself, its become the art of the ego. And not the art of the idea.

When artists use symbols for a idea and us being unnable to see the complete idea, we are also doing a consensus between our ego, and the little we can see of the ego of the artists and the idea (even so, a lot of the time, we don't see us in the art).

And for me this is more solid, the idea that art has a goal, because the artist mean it to be like that, and we are also participes of it.

This is like a sandbox game, if I gave yo ua sandbox game without story/meaning, is boring, and it only useful if you want to do something. But when I gave you a game with a story, you not only developt yourself, but also you rebuild the game.


This is why I love sometimes modern art, and others I hate it. Because artists use it for their egos, to kill it, and in other good cases, to make this dialectic with the viewers.

Delphinus
04-17-2011, 07:01 AM
As you can't, you have the option to interpretate it as you want. But then you are killing the Artist (because the artists and the idea are not needed anymore and the symbols are tools for your own ego).

To wit:

Death Of The Author is a concept from the field of literary criticism which holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight when coming to an interpretation of his or her writing; that is, that a writer's interpretation of his own work is no more valid than the interpretations of any of the readers.

This is why postmodernism (and/or democracy) is a load of bullshit.

Arashi500
04-17-2011, 09:45 AM
http://www.photographyuncapped.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/understanding-modern-art-spray-front.jpg

GunZet
04-17-2011, 11:40 AM
To wit:


This is why postmodernism (and/or democracy) is a load of bullshit.
YOU CAN'T....DESTROY...THE DEMOCRASAY!
http://keiththegooner.footballunited.com/files/2011/02/obi-wan460.jpg

Blue_Dragon
04-17-2011, 02:27 PM
I dunno...a lot of modern art I don't like because it does seem like it took little effort or skill in its creation. I don't mind if it exists, and I can respect its existence (if it's say, a way to help break free from the old rules that restricted creativity, which is what Manet kinda helped start (Monet, too, but Impressionism is different from what Manet was doing.) I like some modern art, like Klee and some of Newman's stuff, or even Pollack since there's some busy-ness going on. Maybe not a lot of effort, but it's appealing to the eyes.

Now-a-days I do feel a lot of it is a rip off. I mean, I see what Yoko Ono was doing with her "happening" where you cut off a piece of her clothing (women's issues and such,) but on the other hand, something like licking jam off of a car with a bunch of people....I think that's licking jam off a car with a bunch of people...not art. Even if I was partaking in the act with them, I'd just be thinking "gee, I'm licking jam off this car w/ others. Ew. Hope I don't catch some creeping crud and die." Maybe I just don't get it.

I like some color field, but most I think is just laziness. Sorry if I miss the point. :\



I like:

http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/cubism/images/PabloPicasso-Ambroise-Vollard-1915.jpg
and
http://www.robinurton.com/history/20th%20c/cubism/Picasso/Mandolin10.jpg

I don't like:
http://www.keithgarrow.com/images/movements-picasso-demoiselles.jpg

I like:

http://www.bobkessel.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hall-light-bob-kessel.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kx1atcJusW1qzn0deo1_500.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iGVPerTj0aU/TMwloSXtWaI/AAAAAAAADCY/cgTW96SiKuU/s1600/Color+Field+Painting.jpg

but not this:
http://emptyeasel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/be-i-by-barnett-newman.jpg