Is abstract or modern art really art?

Question

I dont understand, what am I missing, from what ive seen this so called modern art is a pile of [e-mail] decides what should become art, If I was to blob and smear paint on a canvas would it be art? if not why not, what makes it any different from things you might see in the Tate modern? Dont get my wrong I just want to understand, I love Monet and Van gough they have great style, but at least you can tell what its supposed to be.

Answer 1

No, most of it is not art.

critics hide being stupid statements of support , hinting that the rest of us are wrong and they know exactly what they are talking about. If they have to explain the interpretation or thought behind it, then to me it doesn't stand up by itself. Maybe the "process of creating it" was art. But the finsihed item, not its just a piece fo tat

If someone is willig to sponser it, or pay for it, that doesn't make it art. Thats saying that only those with money can decide what is art. Clearly rubbish

All pretentious rubbish by people who don't know what a fine piece of artwork is.

Its a case of the emporers new clothes.

I have a plate on my desk with crumbs of a plum cake on it. Its called "The remains of Summer", wanna buy it ?

Answer 2

You're right, I don't see much point in abstract art either. But ya know what? My car doesn't need a cupwarmer either. Luxury is the possession of things you don't need, or anything above 'bare minimum', so in a way, Abstract art is luxury. P.S. the one painting that REALLY irks me is that painting of the Campbells soup can by Andy Warhol. I just HATE that painting. It's completely pointless, and isn't even 'Abstract', or whatever he markets it to be. I hate it when someone tries to explain the 'meaning' behind that damm can of soup. IT'S JUST SOUP!!! P.P.S. Those three artists are actually pretty different... Gogh is a post impressionistic painter, Dali is a surrealist, and Picasso is... well... Picasso. I'm assuming that you like some of their more popular works. Mmmkay. Well, Gogh has a whole collection of his "Starry Night" series. I've always been quite fond of those. However, in the interest of sticking to "Abstract art", I wouldn't recommend pursuing his other work. Dali, well what can I say. I don't much care for him. Let's leave it at that. Picasso is Picasso, there aren't many that follow his 'style' (Look for Paul Klee's work if you're interested in cubism). An artist that you could check out is MC Escher. His work isn't that abstract, but it has a certain sense of mysticism. René Magritte is also one that you might want to take a look at. Voilà.

Answer 3

If the artist says it's art, it's art - doesn't necessarily mean it's good, or that you have to appreciate it or even look at it though. Most so called modern artists who smear blobs of paint about and create something that you can't understand have studied art and art history and usually have something to say, and some explanation for what they've done (often overintellectualized and pretentious, but not necessarily). In my experience, the more background explanation a work of "modern" art needs, the poorer it is. I think one of the points of art is that it works at a direct visual level and doesn't need to be explained. However, even the old masters are enhanced by the story that lies behind them and sometimes if you are led to the point behind much modern stuff it suddenly doesn't seem so crap any more...

Answer 4

oooooooh-I love a good art debate-everybody has an opinion, and that's not something you can say about other areas of human activity-like politics for example. This for one thing, shows what power art has.

The important points raised here are-

-Monet and Van Gogh, when they were alive and painting, people said almost exactly the same as you are saying now about 'modern' art! Its hard to believe now, but people really thought this was shocking stuff when it first came out.

-People seem to feel 'cheated' in some way by modern art. They think artists and gallery owners are laughing at them all the way to bank. And this simply isnt true. What has happened with 'modern' art, is that times have moved on, soceity is more complex now, and the art that soceity produces is more complex. So maybe you have to put more work in to understand it, but its worth the effort. Its easier to just cop out, and say 'The emperors new clothes', rather than really think about things, and how a peice of artwork made you feel.

-The people who decide what art is, are people who have studied the history and development of visual culture, people who dedicate their entire lives to art. This, in some ways is arts problem-its a very insular world, and often the only people who understand a peice of work by an artist are...other artists! So people that complain about art and feel they are being laughed at, feel shut out.

-I think life would be pretty boring if everything was easy to understand. Thats what we need art for, to give us a little mystery and excitement in our lives!

Answer 5

Life is a constant cycle of evolution & revolution so long as humans continue to exist. Art has always existed from the time our ancestors started scrawling/drawing on the cave walls and since then assumed/produced in various forms of media (as we now call it).

I believe artists of late are just creating pieces that are typical of this generation, i.e. "blob, smear". And yes, it could get worse. I once saw an artist's t*rd in a tin can as part of an exhibition.

I keep my hopes up, though, because once in a while, there's always someone who makes some sense whilst convincing us all, non-artistic citizens of the earth, that the piece is visually aesthetic.

Who decides what's art and what's not? The people who enrol in art colleges/uni hoping to one day becoming legit artist-critic.

Answer 6

Art is a personal feeling about what youre seeing. Van Gogh etc are great loved and well known pieces of art because peole can see straight away what its of. Modern art, you have to look closewr and open your mind, like those Magic Eye pix. Some people can just see dots, because thats all they WANT to see. However, if you just relax....bingo! You can see whatever yu want! Bxx

Answer 7

It seems that the only people who truly "love" modern art are gallery owners and museum curators. Both groups have long disdained "realism" as far back as the early 20th century. However, the public loves realism and that's why Monet, Manet, Andrew and Jamie Wyeth, Winslow Homer and other realistic artists are classics. They evoke something in the human spirit that modern art cannot match...

Answer 8

People rejected the impressionists when they first saw it. Perhaps you should read up on some art history. Try Robert Hughes Shock of the New, which explains how modern culture formed modern art

Answer 9

It's the thought process behind the image that is the real art - But I agree some doesn't seem to have the thought of a goldfish behind it... I have a Fine Art Degree and apart from that being useless in itself the whole Art world is a pretentious glass bucket of vomit...

Answer 10

have you ever seen the simspons where homer makes a BBQ? and it becomes art?? now thats a gr8 episode!