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?
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
Its cool and I love it.
But this is kinda douche.
Last edited by ClockHand; 04-14-2011 at 09:16 AM.
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. That, in my opinion, is a great loss.
Originally Posted by Fenn
You forgot your F in Modesty.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks