Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel the exact same way. My girlfriend and I were in NYC and we stopped at the Whitney museum. An entire floor was dedicated to one "modern" artist who's name I forget and don't want to remember. The entire floor space was sectioned off in moulding forming individual squares. Smack in the middle of the squares were things like tiny children's chairs, beds and other tiny little reproductions of everyday items. It's a good thing the museum was rather empty that day because we laughed so hard at this so-called "art" we would have been thrown out.
The only painter who could be considered a "modernist" that I personally like is David Hockney. I could have painted the work shown on the first page of your link in kindergarten. Don't get me started on Jackson Pollock - IMHO his work was junk painted by a drunk!
I feel the exact same way. My girlfriend and I were in NYC and we stopped at the Whitney museum. An entire floor was dedicated to one "modern" artist who's name I forget and don't want to remember. The entire floor space was sectioned off in moulding forming individual squares. Smack in the middle of the squares were things like tiny children's chairs, beds and other tiny little reproductions of everyday items. It's a good thing the museum was rather empty that day because we laughed so hard at this so-called "art" we would have been thrown out.
The only painter who could be considered a "modernist" that I personally like is David Hockney. I could have painted the work shown on the first page of your link in kindergarten. Don't get me started on Jackson Pollock - IMHO his work was junk painted by a drunk!
To me, the most disturbing era in two dimensional art was what is referred to as abstract expressionism. The most celebrated of these frauds was a woman named Helen Frankenthaler. Google Image her name and you will suffer a view of the low point in American art, IMO. Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns are a couple other perpetrators who come to mind. The whole movement should be remembered and exalted as a good reason why art critics in general and the New York Times in particular should never be listened to.
Today, a similar movement is afoot. You described it well and laughed appropriately, if not politically correctly. Add to that the work of the toothpick and straw lady (everything is a mass of identical little items arranged in shapes) the blue everything lady (ordinary things all painted one color) and the mine is bigger than yours guy (hang 20 foot banners from something no one ever hung a 20 foot banner from before) and you have the current crop of talentless "artists" sucking up all of the oxygen from some very fine contemporary realists (today's version of master work).
I didn't "get" modern art until I realized the artists weren't trying to duplicate a scene (more or less) like a photograph as classical art does, but instead capture and communicate a feeling.
I still like traditional art more, but at least I see Modern art truly is art and not some people trying to sucker other stupid people out of their money.
I thought this was a rather interesting opinion on another site:
"No one who banged on piano keys like a 2 year old would get music critics to applaud or get their song played on any radio station and no music teacher would find value in it.
No architect could draw blue prints that would make a building with no structural integrity that would immediately collapse just to make a "statement about politics or the human condition."
What is allowed in visual art is purely the "emperor has no clothes" syndrome. If you can't admit that, then you are an easy host for any brainwashing scheme.
If an actor pulled out their script on stage and read it monotone, then vomited on it, it would not be a hit show on Broadway (who knows, maybe nowadays it would be).
If I hear another person parrot back what their art professor taught them about how it's all about the "artist's intent", I don't know what I'll do, but it won't be pretty... in which case it will probably be art (I just need to hire a really good writer to show my convoluted intent)."
I recall being at the Chicago Museum of Art, and there was a very large area of space dedicated to a painted canvas... in all black. The artist took a 10x20 canvas and covered the entire surface with lumpy black paint (perhaps varying shades and types of black paint... but still... an all black painting). An odd choice IMO. But, it did make me feel an emotion of disgust... which if that was the point of it the artist accomplished that part. I recently took a history of photography course, and it was all going well until I reached the post modern art section. It's astonishing, how brutally awful most of this work is - I don't even want to mention the artists - they should all be ignored.
So I was just curious on what other art fans thought - thanks for your thoughts.
For about 10,000 years, the artist's job was to portray nature. None of the portrayals was ever equally accurate, of course, but every major advancement in the artist's toolbox was created to imitate what the human eye naturally perceives in our natural surroundings.
Then, in the mid-1800's, photography was invented and tossed all that out the window. By it's nature, photography also doesn't depict nature fully accurately either, but our brain fixes what flaws in nature photography has.
Photography presented artists with a great conceptual struggle. If a photographic portrait can be taken in a matter of minutes, why pay and artist much more, and submit to several sittings, each consisting of an hour or more, to achieve the same thing? Especially when a painted portrait may not capture the person's appearance as naturally or as completely as a photo?
The answer is the way a human brain and human hand translates what they perceive and are able to capture. A camera is just a mechanical device. Point it at something, and it will capture what it is able to capture. The human eye can set the scene, choose the perspective, and choose the objectives of what is hoped to be captured, and the camera does the rest. There is a disconnection between the human and the machine.
Early on, artists and groups of artists understood this as photography soon spread all over the planet and cameras increasing became better, film became more versatile, and all required less careful set up and knowledge of chemistry and mechanics.
Only an artist can understand and present a human face as both a full face and a silhouette at the same time.
Once freed from the slavery of being as representational as could be possible, an entire world of strictly human expression opened up. It was natural that at some point, all naturistic elements would be abandoned, and the expression of the human brain and hand would become foremost.
Art has a language that is more intuitive than words. It can express emotions and constructed thoughts that need no words to communicate. While a piece of abstract art may not appeal to a viewer, another piece can. The connection of a viewer and a painting may be immediate, or may be one that slowly grows on the viewer. Either way, a person either 'gets it' or doesn't.
It's very easy to say, looking at a representative painting of a rose, that the picture is of a rose. When the rose is broken down into only it's hues and shades of color, with no suggestion of a rose's petals or shape, it becomes a much different experience. For one viewer, that painting becomes the essence of a rose, while for another, it's just some colors.
When line is added to color, the implications are the same. We all know what surprise lines in a cartoon imply as representative art, but surprise is much less evident in abstract art, even though it may be there in abundance.
Take a look at this one. Pablo Picasso had all this figured out by 1907. This Mac logo works exactly the same as a cubist Picasso- it shows a face full-front and in profile at the same time. Picasso's device is so common now to modern eyes this is taken for granted, even when the 'face' is nothing but a square.
For about 10,000 years, the artist's job was to portray nature. None of the portrayals was ever equally accurate, of course, but every major advancement in the artist's toolbox was created to imitate what the human eye naturally perceives in our natural surroundings.
Then, in the mid-1800's, photography was invented and tossed all that out the window. By it's nature, photography also doesn't depict nature fully accurately either, but our brain fixes what flaws in nature photography has.
Photography presented artists with a great conceptual struggle. If a photographic portrait can be taken in a matter of minutes, why pay and artist much more, and submit to several sittings, each consisting of an hour or more, to achieve the same thing? Especially when a painted portrait may not capture the person's appearance as naturally or as completely as a photo?
The answer is the way a human brain and human hand translates what they perceive and are able to capture. A camera is just a mechanical device. Point it at something, and it will capture what it is able to capture. The human eye can set the scene, choose the perspective, and choose the objectives of what is hoped to be captured, and the camera does the rest. There is a disconnection between the human and the machine.
Early on, artists and groups of artists understood this as photography soon spread all over the planet and cameras increasing became better, film became more versatile, and all required less careful set up and knowledge of chemistry and mechanics.
Only an artist can understand and present a human face as both a full face and a silhouette at the same time.
Once freed from the slavery of being as representational as could be possible, an entire world of strictly human expression opened up. It was natural that at some point, all naturistic elements would be abandoned, and the expression of the human brain and hand would become foremost.
Art has a language that is more intuitive than words. It can express emotions and constructed thoughts that need no words to communicate. While a piece of abstract art may not appeal to a viewer, another piece can. The connection of a viewer and a painting may be immediate, or may be one that slowly grows on the viewer. Either way, a person either 'gets it' or doesn't.
It's very easy to say, looking at a representative painting of a rose, that the picture is of a rose. When the rose is broken down into only it's hues and shades of color, with no suggestion of a rose's petals or shape, it becomes a much different experience. For one viewer, that painting becomes the essence of a rose, while for another, it's just some colors.
When line is added to color, the implications are the same. We all know what surprise lines in a cartoon imply as representative art, but surprise is much less evident in abstract art, even though it may be there in abundance.
Take a look at this one. Pablo Picasso had all this figured out by 1907. This Mac logo works exactly the same as a cubist Picasso- it shows a face full-front and in profile at the same time. Picasso's device is so common now to modern eyes this is taken for granted, even when the 'face' is nothing but a square.
^
This is the reason why I don't quite like impressionists, I don't like Gauguin, Cezanne, don't like Modigliani, Van Gogh, and needless to say Picasso.
Not because they are not good painters, but because they represent to me just that - the beginning of a slippery - slope. Once they made a step away from the classical art that requires talent and proficient training, it was only a matter of time what next in line would pass for an "art."
When you speak of photography, putting it in the same category as painting, it means that you probably don't know much about painting per se. While creation of portraits was indeed a very important part for the development of painting, portraits were not a sole purpose of it. There is more to painting than just creation of someone's portrait ( or nature's scenery.) Even if I say that painting one's portrait requires a lot of insightfulness and skills on behalf of a painter, and you respond that same is required from a good photographer, this is where the parallel stops. The photography comes nowhere close when it comes to creation of more complex pictures, that requires original ideas, understanding of composition, talent and skillfulness of a painter. In contrast, what can a photographer do? Not much, really. He can go and hunt for what offered to him by pure circumstances; he is never a master of creation, but a slave of it, plus he has to rely on technical gadgets in order to create an image. So obviously where art is concerned, photography is a step down comparably to painting.
I think art, since the invention of the camera, has been a series of experiments. Panic! What can we do that the camera cannot do!
So they experimented with light, with lines, with color, with forms, etc. Some of these experiments have been absolutely ghastly, some are pleasing. I like Impressionism and a few other newer genres but I actually had to leave the museum once during an exhibition. What was it. Someone had dragged me there--I think it could have been abstract expressionism. It was so upsetting and jarring with lots of thick black lines and lurid colors. I didn't want to be rude or uppity by leaving but it made me feel sick.
I do think that some of modern art is art and will stand the test of time. The rest of it will be thrown aside because it was just part of an experiment by creative people trying to figure out what to do about art.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
