What do you think of postmodern/modern art? (paintings, artist, make)

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by Rowen

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!

That's the thing about modern and post modern art. Everyone who spends a little time looking at the pictures always find something they like or don't, and everyone's thoughts are equally valid.

In my case, the first time I ever saw an Pollock painting happened many years ago. It was hanging close by an Andy Worhohl silkscreen. The Worhohl did nothing at all for me- to my eyes, it was just a bad screen job, because I knew the process and had created silkscreens of my own.

But the Pollock was an entirely different experience. It burst out of it's frame with fierce energy, and I couldn't take my eyes off it. If I had a couple of million to spare, I would absolutely love to own one- his work is much more fun than watching TV.

Neither artist reached the state of those two pictures quickly or easily. Pollock's transition from an objective to abstract artist was slow, and his first paintings using his dribble techniques had more traditional brush work than dribble. To my eye, his early stuff is ugly; the brushed portions are ungainly and stiff, and I dislike the color choices he used in most of them.

His big breakthrough came when he discovered Duco Automobile paint. It was the perfect paint for the dribble, and his pallete brightened and cleaned up immensely as soon as he began using it.

Pollock continued to use brushes; he shoved the Duco around with brushes, flat sticks and other tools, and his intense concentration is very evident. Nothing happened completely by accident in his work.

Pollock was alcoholic, but like a lot of artists who suffered from the addiction, he was never drank when he painted.

Truly, the only way a person can fully appreciate abstract art is to see it in real life. Size and surface matters, and the printing process never fully captures a work of fine art. A printed 4x6 inch image is not even close to seeing a 4x6 foot original.

[kanhawk]

I am not a fan of most post modern art. I am mystified why some people are willing to pay 6 or even 7 figures for many of these works of art. What I resent from the arts community, which speaks and writes of this stuff in their own almost indecipherable jargon, is the condescension toward those who disagree with them. Just because I don't like a lot of this stuff doesn't mean I "don't get it". It just means I have different tastes.
One form of modern art I do sometimes enjoy is Surrealism such as Salvador Dali. But I don't think because some others may not like it , that some how they are lacking in intelligence or taste.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by kanhawk

I am not a fan of most post modern art. I am mystified why some people are willing to pay 6 or even 7 figures for many of these works of art. What I resent from the arts community, which speaks and writes of this stuff in their own almost indecipherable jargon, is the condescension toward those who disagree with them. Just because I don't like a lot of this stuff doesn't mean I "don't get it". It just means I have different tastes.
One form of modern art I do sometimes enjoy is Surrealism such as Salvador Dali. But I don't think because some others may not like it , that some how they are lacking in intelligence or taste.

I, for one, would never knock anyone else's tastes in art. As far as I see it, every painting sold, old or new, floats a lot of other boats.

Art is all in the eye of the beholder. One man's garbage is another man's treasure. But the thing that I've learned is: the more you look at everything, the more you find new visual interests. Just because you like something now does not mean you won't like it in the future, along with art you may not like now. You don't have to give up anything for something else when it comes to art.

While I'm a big fan of Jackson Pollock, I still love Charlie Russell's cowboy paintings just as much as I did when I was 10. I love Gustav Klimt and Rockwell equally, too. The only difference is I've known Charlie and Norman longer.

[Rowen]

Originally Posted by banjomike

That's the thing about modern and post modern art. Everyone who spends a little time looking at the pictures always find something they like or don't, and everyone's thoughts are equally valid.

In my case, the first time I ever saw an Pollock painting happened many years ago. It was hanging close by an Andy Worhohl silkscreen. The Worhohl did nothing at all for me- to my eyes, it was just a bad screen job, because I knew the process and had created silkscreens of my own.

But the Pollock was an entirely different experience. It burst out of it's frame with fierce energy, and I couldn't take my eyes off it. If I had a couple of million to spare, I would absolutely love to own one- his work is much more fun than watching TV.

Neither artist reached the state of those two pictures quickly or easily. Pollock's transition from an objective to abstract artist was slow, and his first paintings using his dribble techniques had more traditional brush work than dribble. To my eye, his early stuff is ugly; the brushed portions are ungainly and stiff, and I dislike the color choices he used in most of them.

His big breakthrough came when he discovered Duco Automobile paint. It was the perfect paint for the dribble, and his pallete brightened and cleaned up immensely as soon as he began using it.

Pollock continued to use brushes; he shoved the Duco around with brushes, flat sticks and other tools, and his intense concentration is very evident. Nothing happened completely by accident in his work.

Pollock was alcoholic, but like a lot of artists who suffered from the addiction, he was never drank when he painted.

Truly, the only way a person can fully appreciate abstract art is to see it in real life. Size and surface matters, and the printing process never fully captures a work of fine art. A printed 4x6 inch image is not even close to seeing a 4x6 foot original.

Thanks for the background of Pollock's painting technique. I have seen many paintings of abstract art and Jackson's paintings in real life and it is just not my cup of tea. Sorry. Everyone sees something different in each painting or style of painting especially abstract. surrealism, dadaism and cubism. For instance I do not like surrealism at all, but my husband loves Dali and makes a pilgrimage every year to the Dali Museum in Florida while I pass on that museum having been there once. I just cannot "connect" to his style of painting.

However I do like Warhol's silk screen portraits (there is a nice collection of them at the Brooklyn Museum) and Juan Gris. No pun intended but "different strokes for different folks"!

[erasure]

Originally Posted by banjomike

I have to disagree in part, erasure.
Talent is only the innate genetic ability to create. How it develops is mostly a matter of a lot of work and time spent. Training cannot make an artist alone, although it can sure help in the development of talent.

Talent is also not a steady constant. Like everything else in humanity, there are those who have a great river of talent, and for others, it is a thin stream. For some it never ceases to flow in full flood, while in others, it trickles down and runs dry.

There have always been self-taught artists who did just as well as schooled artists.

I don't see any disagreements here.

Photography as art is just the same. From the very first, photographers manipulated their medium, just as artists manipulate theirs. As photography's mechanical processes advanced, further manipulation was done, just as it was done when new artist's materials were developed. As far as a popular art medium, photography has been just as popular as older media for a very long time. The fine photographers' work of the past and present command prices that are similar to fine paintings.

Sorry, the work of machine can't be the same as painting and "commanding of price" has got nothing to do with it.

The disciplines are different, but each depends on the human, whether he is behind the lens or has a brush in his hand. In each, thousands of small specific choices are considered while producing the work.

Sorry again, but "lens" is a step down in terms of creation comparably to "brush in hand." First is a work of the machine for the most part, the second one - is purely creation of the artist.

I actually know quite a lot, thanks. I've been a professional artist for over 50 years now, and am fairly well schooled; went to 3 colleges, and have a pretty good knowledge of art history. I have always made a living with my art in some fashion or other. I've also been a musician almost as long. To me, there's not much difference between making music and painting a picture- the biggest difference is the music vanishes the instant it's done, but lives in the mind for a long time. A painting hangs on the wall forever, but it also lingers in the mind, too.

But I've never seen that slippery slope- just like all the arts, everything always progresses, and the old always becomes the new, and vice versa, in big circles. When any means of human expression freezes and does not change, it dies and fades into history, largely forgotten.

I do see the slippery slope in art and culture overall. Art reflects the culture of the society and I don't see any developments there, when we are talking about European culture. The way I see it, it went through different stages, reached its peak few times ( the Greeks and the Romans, the Renaissance, Middle ages, and probably 18th-early 20iest century.) That's it. In terms of art it has been steadily going down from that point on. We don't see anything as impressive as the works of the old masters. So I suspect that we are living in times of decline of European culture and hence - the end of European period in history overall.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by banjomike

I, for one, would never knock anyone else's tastes in art. As far as I see it, every painting sold, old or new, floats a lot of other boats.

Art is all in the eye of the beholder. One man's garbage is another man's treasure. B . . . .

I have been trying to be more patient on this subject, but it just does not seem to being working for me.

What you have said is pure rubbish. Nonsense. Tripe.

Art is not in the eye of the beholder any more than some four year old plinking away on a piano is just as much musical art as Elton John puts out, or Roseann Barr's version of the National Anthem is just different than Whitney Houston's, or the Return of the Anteaters was as good a film in its own way as Casablanca.

If you cannot discern good art, then you are paying homage to the Emperor's New Clothes. And that makes you part of the problem, i.e. the foisting of untalented shock jocks on a public thirsting for real two dimensional art.

And, Jackson Pollack is only the tallest midget in the room because his spots, drips, and drizzles are more colorful than any other splasher. And, he did not invent "Duco."

There, that feels better.

[Clark Park]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

I have been trying to be more patient on this subject, but it just does not seem to being working for me.

What you have said is pure rubbish. Nonsense. Tripe.

Art is not in the eye of the beholder any more than some four year old plinking away on a piano is just as much musical art as Elton John puts out, or Roseann Barr's version of the National Anthem is just different than Whitney Houston's, or the Return of the Anteaters was as good a film in its own way as Casablanca.

If you cannot discern good art, then you are paying homage to the Emperor's New Clothes. And that makes you part of the problem, i.e. the foisting of untalented shock jocks on a public thirsting for real two dimensional art.

And, Jackson Pollack is only the tallest midget in the room because his spots, drips, and drizzles are more colorful than any other splasher. And, he did not invent "Duco."

There, that feels better.

I disagree.

I like "modern art" ... more precisely, "non-objective" or "abstract" art.

To me Picasso's "Les Desmoiselles D'Avignon" was a triumph and a masterpiece. I really like Van Gogh, Matisse, Braque, Georgia O'Keefe, Miro, Leger, Marsden Hartley, Soutine, Chagall, and Mondriaan.

You have a perfect right to your opinion. People have different taste in what they like. I am glad your expressed your opinion, and I assure you that millions share your point of view. No one is forcing you to buy a Rauschenberg and hang it in your living room.

However, my opinion is this: as far as visual art is concerned you are a philistine ... naive, uneducated, uncultured, boorish, unsophisticated, and with a childish and reactionary taste in art.

There, that feels good to get off my chest!

[Wilson513]

I am glad that you feel better, but I cannot discern why you would.

First, you have made it apparent to anyone following this thread that you are either too lazy or unable to read the meager 5 posts that I have made here, none of which pertains to anything you have said.

Second, you have demonstrated that you know virtually nothing about post modern art. You claim to be a fan of non objective art or as you quaintly put it "abstract art" (haha) and then extol the virtues of several modern realists and surrealists who are neither non objective nor abstract. Then you babble some insults to yadayada your way to another primarily objective artist.

Fortunately for me, I am accustomed to your ilk. You like being hip and like what the NYT says is hip. You just don't know what it really is. Try visiting some of those great museums in Philly. When you get to the Frankenthaler, take a deep breath and remember how much you liked to two Chagalls. What you will experience is as though a very creative child put his fantasy masterpiece on the blackboard and you went back only to find that his mean spirited five year old sister has erased it all and painted over it with a blue square or some finger paints.

[paulklee53]

I'm just waiting for someone to say, "Shut up, little man!"

I like a lot of, but not all, "modern" art.

I like a lot of, but not all, representational art.

I like works by Rembrandt, Rockwell (even though he's "just" an illustrator), Mondrian, Klee, Rockwell, O'Keefe, Pollack, Hoffman, Hoffman, Frankenthaler and Motherwell.

I think photography is art. (I'm NOT a photographer.)

I don't care about technical prowess. I do care about work that makes me want to keep looking at it, once I see it.

I think art is subjective. If you're more educated than I am, or smarter than I am, or more experienced than I am, or more sophisticated than I am it's not going to change my likes and dislikes.

You don't have to agree with me. If you don't, I won't call you a dumb-dumb doo-doo head or a pooh-pooh face. Either directly, or indirectly. The mix of people makes life interesting. How boring it would be if we were all the same.

[Wilson513]

When you say "little man" assuming that is directed toward me, is that supposed to belittle my opinion? it doesn't. I didn't say that your work was derivative drivel, copied from your namesake only because you can. Try copying Gerome.

Originally Posted by paulklee53

I don't care about technical prowess.

Once known as skill. This combined with an important message is what makes a good painting.

Of course, by your logic, anyone with a message can be a great artist. Since we all have something important to say, at least in our own opinion, we are all great artists. Even you.