A glass of water, a red stripe on a white background, a light going on and off. Sorry but what's all that about? Look at Turner, Monet, Manet, Constable, Van Gogh, Picasso, Seurat, etc. These were artists. What is all this modern crap about?
2006-09-19 11:43:04 · 19 answers · asked by helen p 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
It's to provoke a reaction. It certainly does that.
I went to the Tate Modern a while back.
I was cracked up in hysterics the whole way around.
2006-09-19 11:45:40 · answer #1 · answered by Hairyloon 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have no time for the shoddy masquerading as the creative in any branch of the arts but please don't consign all contemporary art to the rubbish bin. There are some very talented painters working today and I don't mean famous ones who can be named and recognised - just ordinary folk with an urge to paint.
When you speak of 'modern' art, what exactly do you mean - work that has been done recently or work that has a particular approach ? I once asked a critic what he meant by modern art - he replied, "All this abstract stuff". Abstract painting (amongst other styles) was done on the walls of caves some 20,000 years ago. It's very difficult to pin this one down.
Many young artists today seek (in their own words) , to 'wow' people with their work, yet have not learned the craft of painting.
It's not all their fault, for many art colleges have discarded the teaching of technical skills such as the understanding and application of colour. I have known students leave a visual arts course with a first class honours degree yet be totally unable to draw. It's a bit like a novelist setting out to 'wow' people when he hasn't learned to spell and construct sentences.
I sometimes think that people looking at art are like the crowd in the story of the emperor's new clothes. Crooked tailors had fooled the emperor into thinking that he was wearing a suit, when in fact he was naked. The people were told that only fools couldn't see the suit - nobody could see it but nobody would say so because they might be the only one. This hold over the people was only broken when a child shouted, "But he's got no clothes on".
Maybe this is what is happening in the art world today - if people are told that a painting is an outstanding example of contemporary art and it is displayed in a prestigious gallery, who wants to be the first person to shout, "Rubbish" - just in case everybody else can see something that they can't?
But here's another way of looking at it - Do you like 18th century painting ? It is purely representational and the viewer has no difficulty understanding it. Do you like the popular music of today? Now turn this around - we already know that you don't like what you call modern art - but what about 18th century music ? The point I am making is that 18th century painting is easy to understand, whilst its music is difficult - today's painting and music are the opposite way around. Do people like the stuff that gives their brain the least amount of work ?
2006-09-23 14:12:12 · answer #2 · answered by graphics 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps if your art research went beyond Picasso's death in 1973 you would... people thought Cubism was rubbish when it was first shown.
Some of these pieces (which incidently don't classify as modern art) raise some interesting questions within the artworld, the artists right to call everything art is questioned by calling said glass a water a tree.
I'm not trying to be rude, but it is very infuriating when people call things crap simply because they don't understand. There are art critics who have opinions similar to yours...difference being they have informed opinions
Read Mathew collings this is modern art and robert hughes the shock of the new to get upto speed
2006-09-20 12:48:41 · answer #3 · answered by fingersmith 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Salvador Dali said that modern artists have lost the skill of some past ones, so they try to pass off mere eccentricity as originality. I add that obscurantism is mistaken for profundity. Dali said Jan Vermeer Van Delft was the best painter of all time and that one drop of his divine blue pigment is worth more than all of the paintings that came after him. Art historians agree. So do I. The painters you list are far inferior to Vermeer, Diego Velasquez, Raphael Urbino, Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo Buonarotti..but they are ahead of Jackson Pollock who splattered paint on big canvases on the floor. I discard the rags I use to clean my brushes, but they are as much art as the weird stuff you mention. It seems that people are brainwashed about many things. Some of the answers that defend trash passing as Art upset me. I hardly know whether to laugh at such pretentious and ridiculous drivel or cry about the sad state into which painting has fallen. There is an apocryphal story that Picasso told someone that he was a mountebank selling trash to fools. That goes double for Jackson Pollock and Vassilli Kandidinski.
2006-09-20 00:45:36 · answer #4 · answered by miyuki & kyojin 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you are objecting to Postmodern and Contemporary Art. You seem rather a fan of what is called Modern Art judging by the artists you have listed. There are times when art can be frustrating and provoke a strong reaction. That's a good thing. It means people care about art. If an art work or style annoys you, get out there and counter it with some art of your own! Art is a conversation. Say something back.
2006-09-19 19:54:42 · answer #5 · answered by foundobjectsman 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i went to lacma (los angeles county museum of art, very, very big and impressive area) a couple months back and i also just didn't get the modern stuff. i love classic foreign arts, such as chinese tapestry painting and hindu sculpture. the modern art was bright and colorful and it definitely did catch my attention. in my opinion, modern artists go for the viewer's curiosity, not emotion. they want you to turn your head sideways and spend ten minutes figuring it out, because with the simplicity, the mind can imagine an infinite amount of things. there was a ten-minute clip i've seen once of nothing but a traffic light. ten minutes of green, yellow, red, then back to green. and because it was so simple and the duration was so long, i was practically delirious by the time it was over. i was imagining tons of different things and about ready to snap the traffic lamppost in half. so, i guess the play on curiosity and imagination is what modern artists aim for.
2006-09-19 20:20:16 · answer #6 · answered by NoDontTrustMe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont understand it. If I drew a red stripe on a canvas then tried to pass it off to an art gallery as art, I would be shown the door and most probably laughed at.
The modern rubbish is a sign of the times........people trying to get money for doing F**K all!
2006-09-20 05:52:39 · answer #7 · answered by Catwhiskers 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most modern art is heavily based on theory. To understand it visually, you would probably need information on the artist's philosophies and intentions. Alot of modern and contemporary artists write essays to accompany their work. The representative properties of art have been exhausted, artists want to go beyond drawing a true-to-life replica of what s/he sees around him.
By the way, Monet and the other Impressionist were considered a joke when they first exhibited their paintings. People couldn't understand their loose, dabbled method of painting.
2006-09-20 06:22:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well you must remember at the time(late 19th c) Impressionism was considered radical and MODERN. It was not well received in many art communities.
Personally I don't like it....it looks as though one is looking thru an old pc of glass while it's raining..seems "out of focus" or blurry to me.
Picasso is considered a "modern" painter.
Different strokes( a bit of art humor..lol) for different folks...I guess.
2006-09-19 19:03:53 · answer #9 · answered by lethallolita 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you points painting its about expression painting art your Van goghs etc are colourful painters and masters of expression.. Modern Art is the use of colour and blends.. beauty is colour and what you see .. I paint spiritual painting in visual arts sence take a look at www.visualrealisationart.com thats what I try to express in my work !! . I will 100% agree about the Glass of water etc not very artistic and thoughtless !! Good question !
2006-09-21 12:15:36 · answer #10 · answered by Andy P 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋