The problem with modern art? (professional, painting, artists, make)

[Chango]

Originally Posted by LookinForMayberry

I used to feel much as you've described, but after years of seeing lots of really great modern art -- as well as lots that has left me completely nonplussed, I can no longer agree. Art, like life, has to be taken on its own merits without expectation or preconceived structures.

As a young woman, I hated Picasso. Then we went to Paris in September '98, and happened across the Picasso museum. I didn't want to leave.

Picasso was trained in the classical arts and had every bit as much technical skill as just about any classical artist in history. His work also communicated a deep understanding of the human psyche as well as how the brain puts information together, accomplishing the same things a complex classical painting does in a simple, elegant stye all his own.

That is why Picasso is worshiped as a virtual pagan god by the art scene.

But most contemporary art completely lacks Picasso's brilliance... possibly because the artists didn't seem to grasp/appreciate what classical art was trying to accomplish beyond mere technical skill in the first place.

Picasso didn't toss out the book on classical art, he merely reinterpreted and re-validated it.

[gardener34]

"Abstract artists, from the beginnings to the present, all undergo a transition from storytelling conventional image making to the completely intellectual and tricky abstract image. To do so requires a progression of visual knowledge that has to be studied just as much as learning a second language demands."

Yes, I agree, but I get the idea that there are a lot of posers out there. I have seen many art students that are not correctly taught the fundamentals. It is sad.

[whoisjongalt]

I recently found this great "Sister Wendy" video on Modern Art. She really does a great job explaining artists like Pollock, Rothko, and Warhol.


Sister Wendy's Story Of Painting - 10 The Never-Ending Story - Art on DocuWatch - free streaming documentaries about art & art history

[BVitamin]

I am baffled by the incongruous discussion of Modern Art with that of Post-Modern Art. While, I personally believe, arbitrary lines were drawn by these late, recent, and present movements in art, it's good, I suppose, to have some kind of definitions for the sake of clarification and discussion. No point in discussing anything if we are going to apply our own definitions of what is "modern" and what is "post-modern" or any subject for that matter, in essence we should establish an anchor point and go from there. No?

Modern Art, from what I recall, is the abstraction of classical art. Well let me just say this, all art is an abstraction of life, much like language, thought itself is an abstraction. What Modern Art accomplishes is the bending, breaking rules of formal classical elements of art.

Post-Modern Art, is that anything goes. Turn things upside down, the proverbial in-your-face mantra of this movement seems to be, "What is Art?". I believe, and sources disagree, that Duchamp is the father of this school. While some art historians love to draw clear lines/dates when one movement ends and one begins, it really isn't quite so. Much like Existentialism didn't just start with Nietzsche, there were less famous philosophers that held similar ideas way before him. So for me, ideas of art expressed are better indications of movement rather than dates.

Hirst would be considered post-modern, hoisted in our faces by a smart and savvy art dealer -- he's a hack. I remember reading about a recent show he had (paid for the space by himself to have a show for himself) of paintings he did (of the Modern variety), they were terrible and the critics were ruthless in criticizing him; which goes to show you, his art dealer had more to do with his 'success' than he did. News arose how his works were ripped off from other artists who did similar works years ago -- I think even Damien knew it wasn't going to last, ergo his sudden direction to go the other way. I'm sorry but I have to laugh at those who worshipped him. But I digress.

Contemporary Art, as I understand, is merely present day art, without indications and only an inclination to the 'progress' of art. It's absurd that we think we've become self-actualized movements, that time has certainly passed with the current conditions of art -- an accolade of indifference.

While I generally agree with Scrutin, he glosses over these movements or if you prefer, ideas, for they in some effect portray "beauty". One can even say that Impressionism is a precursor to Modernism and without regard, purpose, and/or root of these differing ideas it makes me skeptical of his understanding of his opposition to his idea of beauty.

[LargeKingCat]

who painted these?



Answer: Picasso

You are right, Picasso was a master artist in the classic sense....but his addition of abstract expression and subsequent mastery of it have led him to artistic demigod status.

Picasso revered the masters as well.

The above post is correct, the distinction that is modern and post-modern and contemporary is not even known by many, we had it drilled into us in art history class in college.
I would venture to say that contemporary art has reached a point of becoming , and I would not use the word desperate, I would use the word IMPATIENT as artists and art collectors have sought to force movement and meaning into every last thing being produced, from grafitti and tattoos to neo-classical sunday works, that they want to act as though we are all producing something that will influence the next generation. Thing is, the dircetions have gone off now into a seemingly near infinite number of divergent paths that sorting out contemporary art is difficult. And thanks in part to the hyperinflation of art prices several years ago, the expressive junk I am painting is not selling today !

[Huckleberry3911948]

Originally Posted by Dude111

Yes Modern is basically garbage compared to classic..... (As ALMOST EVERYTHING MODERN IS)

not all, to be fair i see the inspiration and spirit, but like fencing, (just attended nationals in anaheim) w/o the training, its just guts and ferocity and mediocrity.

[Shizzles]

It seems to me there are two tracks that art has taken- say since the industrial revolution: the beauty track, and the intellectual track, which is to say the art of the visual and the art of ideas. They don't necessarily overlap, although there is no reason why they can't. They are related only in this way: the second is a critique of the first. In other words, since beauty is such a moving target- subject to taste and to the moment in time- it begs the question of "what is art?".

Why not simply go for the objectivist answer: Art is Beauty. Beauty is Art. To me as an ardent classicalist, alot of times people's critique of Classicalism is it's seeming irrelevance to comtemprary society, or that it does not seek to ask the partaker to engage in any meaningful thought regarding philsophical points of view. My contention is why does it have to? Our society always seeks to have meaning in every object/product (Which, IMHO, is a result of the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic tradition of practicality and pragmatism versus the romantic inclinations of the Latin world) and often lacks an ability to appreciate any work of art (be it architecture, music, film, etc) at it's face value.

I enjoy art, and thus when I visit an artistic institution I expect to encounter works that bring sensory pleasure and joy. It's with this framework many people simply cannot and do not appreciate "Modern Art". This isn't to say it does not fill a niche within the creative world, but I think it's disingenious to call it art. Certainly if your goal is to bring about a political or philsophical point of view then it has it's merits.

[LargeKingCat]

Originally Posted by Shizzles

Why not simply go for the objectivist answer: Art is Beauty. Beauty is Art. To me as an ardent classicalist, alot of times people's critique of Classicalism is it's seeming irrelevance to comtemprary society, or that it does not seek to ask the partaker to engage in any meaningful thought regarding philsophical points of view. My contention is why does it have to? Our society always seeks to have meaning in every object/product (Which, IMHO, is a result of the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic tradition of practicality and pragmatism versus the romantic inclinations of the Latin world) and often lacks an ability to appreciate any work of art (be it architecture, music, film, etc) at it's face value.

I enjoy art, and thus when I visit an artistic institution I expect to encounter works that bring sensory pleasure and joy. It's with this framework many people simply cannot and do not appreciate "Modern Art". This isn't to say it does not fill a niche within the creative world, but I think it's disingenious to call it art. Certainly if your goal is to bring about a political or philsophical point of view then it has it's merits.

Reading classical works on art, Plat oand such, there is a definate aspect of beauty and art, as in a classical since. Perhaps tht is what we mean by "LIFE IMITATES ART" we in life strive for an artistic ideal of beauty, spending billions of American dollars on plastic surgery, fashion clothing, jewelry and makeup trying to give our wives and girlfriends that idealized imitation of beauty (although many of the woemn spend it on themselves) AND it is not just the females, us guys shell out hundreds at a time for the nicest suit, pay way too much for a haircut (well, I don't do haircuts personally but you know what I mean) Colognes, and my favorite, gym memberships --- not just for health but for an idealized classical figure (How we all wish we could be sculpted like a greek statue instead of a Picasso) !!!
Tattoos anyone? I do not have one, but I know that they are not cheap. Someone's iinception of beauty, art on the skin, again leads life to imitate art, at least on the surface (skin deep in fact to use a pun) '
Yes, classical beauty influences us more than we consciously realize. When someone breaks out of that mold to contemporary art, and does something which depicts reality or non-idealized beauty, then mnay will say "EW that is hideous" but again, it is a statement, and getting away from classical ideas, we have to look at relative beauty and add the abstract idea of content and statement.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by Shizzles

Why not simply go for the objectivist answer: Art is Beauty. Beauty is Art. To me as an ardent classicalist, alot of times people's critique of Classicalism is it's seeming irrelevance to comtemprary society, or that it does not seek to ask the partaker to engage in any meaningful thought regarding philsophical points of view. My contention is why does it have to? Our society always seeks to have meaning in every object/product (Which, IMHO, is a result of the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic tradition of practicality and pragmatism versus the romantic inclinations of the Latin world) and often lacks an ability to appreciate any work of art (be it architecture, music, film, etc) at it's face value.

I enjoy art, and thus when I visit an artistic institution I expect to encounter works that bring sensory pleasure and joy. It's with this framework many people simply cannot and do not appreciate "Modern Art". This isn't to say it does not fill a niche within the creative world, but I think it's disingenious to call it art. Certainly if your goal is to bring about a political or philsophical point of view then it has it's merits.

What is 'art' and what is not has always been a hot topic for discussion for the past 300 years or so.

Since all artists try to expand their personal abilities and push the envelope as much as they can (or allowed to do so), there has, and always will have, those who don't like something in the present. Art context is completely visual, most often with little or no supporting words to allow any understanding of the artist's intent.
Artists who make a living by their work have always had to consider who, where, or how their work will be purchased. Tweaking the interest or outrage of their patrons has always gone on, and will always happen. In the past, more than one artist (including sculptors) have gone to the stake, gone to prison, are banished, or have faced any number of punishments for going too far for their times and places.

These days, depending where the region is, similar stuff can still happen to them, but in most of the world, most artists are expert at delivering what their buyers want. There is always someone who will be willing to put up the cash, even for the most controversial. The artists I know do not set out to be deliberately controversial, but controversy sells pictures just as much as anything else, so without a doubt, there are some artists who set out to offend.

But emotions that arise in the viewer are beyond the artist's means of control. Any two viewers can come away with feelings of delight or disgust after looking at the same work.

Only time and continual popularity makes the final decision of who is a master or not. Breaking new ground is a rarity always, and is always controversial, even if the subject matter (or lack of it) is not inherently controversial at all.

[LIGuy1202]

Originally Posted by banjomike

Oh, yes they can! Abstract artists, from the beginnings to the present, all undergo a transition from storytelling conventional image making to the completely intellectual and tricky abstract image. To do so requires a progression of visual knowledge that has to be studied just as much as learning a second language demands.

That's easy to prove; all you have to do is compare any abstract artists early works to his late works. Just pick the first abstract artist you know about and back track.

Representational story-telling art is hardwired into the human species. Any human can draw an image that helps explain what can't be understood by words alone, even if they are totally illiterate. Every parent knows this; a 3 year old child can draw an understandable image of a human being, and they always accompany their picture with a story to explain it.

Any adult can draw an image that helps explain what can't be adequately expressed. And all of us can understand it when the visual is connected.

If given a pencil or a paint set, any adult who creates an image will do something representational, and we can all understand what the image is with no verbal explanation at all.

People who take up art with no training all try to do representational art first. Some will include abstract elements in their work, but most are attempting in a naive way to be as realistic as possible, even if the results look like abstractions to everyone else.

But a person who is serious with producing art, studying the subject and other artist's work comes very natural. Developing the skill to realize an abstract concept demands the use of intellectualization that only comes from an already learned skill in the use of color, shape, contrast and hue- all stuff that is first learned in doing representational art. Realism could be compared to speaking a different language, but Abstraction is similar to writing a poem in a second language.

It sounds to me, LIGuy, that you haven't ever attempted to paint a picture. I'll bet that at some point in your life, you decided you just couldn't do it well enough to ever be satisfied. That's what happens to most kids around 8 or 9. But if you have seriously attempted to do a painting, failed in your own estimation, and tried a second or third to do the same thing better, you know what I'm talking about.

It sounds to me, LIGuy, that you haven't ever attempted to paint a picture. I'll bet that at some point in your life, you decided you just couldn't do it well enough to ever be satisfied.

I'm pleased with the results of my efforts. But I will admit I was surprised by how early others were willing to buy my work and how much they were willing to pay. I concluded my mediocre art can be valued by people whom don't know how easy it is to produce modern abstract.

Take, for example, Ilya Bolotowsky. Ilya Bolotowsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia His work is so simplistically reproducible and uninspiring that 'Vertical Diamond' couldn't be sold at a church auction and ended up at Goodwill and sold for $10.

Painting Bought for $9.99 at Goodwill Valued at $15K | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo!

The lowest price I got for any of my work was $75, during my first showing of 8 pcs.(6 sold, most for $250), while still in college. My largest piece was commissioned a few years later...36x60 for $1,750...and I'm not even an artist. LOL!

So, you see, I know first hand modern art is a load of crock!....unless it sounds to you I'm some sort of intuitively talented master.