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.
when someone can urinate in a cross and call it modern art... (pyss-christ)
that's when it got ridiculous, that's when it got to be about headlines....
and yeah, as a Christian I was offended by it....
oh, and that's what art does ??
do the same with Obama .... as you did with jesus..... and there in lies another issue no one would dare (gasp) to do this to Obama....... but to a symbol of jesus...and religion.... its ok..in the art world because 99 % lean farrrrr left
Wait - "unsettling" and "of no value" are two entirely different things.
The term "modern art" is very broad, and I like much of it. In fact, even just Picasso is very broad. (Cubism was long gone by WWII, though.) There are certain things I'd love to own - but I probably wouldn't pick anything Cubist.
Any reason that you didn't post this in the Art forum?
Because most modern artists want to make people angry, not happy. Most modern art is disturbing, not beautiful. Most modern art is about the artist, not the canvas.
Because most modern artists want to make people angry, not happy. Most modern art is disturbing, not beautiful. Most modern art is about the artist, not the canvas.
If you go to the Getty in L.A., and view all that 13th-16th century art, now that kind of art makes me angry! Recently, when I was there, a teacher was explaining to her pupils why the paintings were all so religious in context, and she told them that it was the wealthy churches with all the money, and no artist could make it without the backing of the church.
Same with all those real life portraits of Kings, Queens, political rulers.
To me, there's not enough truth in those type of paintings, all window dressing and deception! And if you dislike modern art, then go to the museums for real life paintings, and enjoy!
Because most modern artists want to make people angry, not happy. Most modern art is disturbing, not beautiful. Most modern art is about the artist, not the canvas.
LOL.
My local art museum features Santocroce's Martyrdom of Saint Lawrence (who was essentially condemned to be slowly grilled to death over an open fire for his work with the needy) , which is pretty graphic and angry, and it was painted in the mid-1500s.
Also several renaissance painters' depictions of Judith beheading the Assyrian general Holofernes, which is fairly grisly and disturbing, as subject matter goes. "Unsettling," even.
I wouldn't say modern art has the market cornered on "disturbing."
Funny to me that many seem to want this topic put into 'Fine Art', as it is inferring (IMO) that art needs to be elitist.
Stay with me here. I like many different types of art from ancient to classical to impressionist to modern and of different types / forms.
A few others have touched upon some of the primary reasons why and I'll try to summarize.
Artists by their nature want to be 'new', different, creative et al and tend toward trying to 'test' sensate and emotional boundaries of those observing their work be it two or three dimensional. Many want to tell a 'personal or deep' story, which, if one doesn't know the context, is analogous to meeting someone in an interpersonal exchange and they immediately go into their political beliefs of whatever sort. Some simply want the audience to determine their works meaning by being overly abstract. I think a small percent of people like this and very many will not and 'Modern' art has a much greater propensity to be this way.
It also seems to me from observation that most 'modern' art tends toward bringing attention to "the artist" for being 'different' and when you don't have the context or an artist over intellectualizes on some bizarre imagery it is annoying. Another analogy: it is like a person who uses sarcasm too frequently without proper context in that they are purposefully being complicated in communicating by forcing you to add layers of possible interpretive meaning to their work. Again, a small percent of people might like to engage in this for its own sake but I surmise a large percent of people do not.
I get it that some people want to make an audience 'think'. Often times what they fail to understand is they may not like to think (cognitive dissonance) and when an artist overtly creates to attack ones thought processes you are not necessarily talented but simply annoying like a bad commercial. The danger in this is, much like a bad commercial, the creators think they are successful if enough people remember it for the wrong reason because - ah-ha, 'I got you to remember' sort of analogous to the website content creator who thinks just because a lot of people 'clicked' that they were 'successful'. No you simply annoyed people.
Personal anecdotal favorite modern art experience: I like technological art and recall seeing / experiencing a fascinating visual display based upon the person moving through the enclosed environment which was profoundly beautiful. Sort of a kinesthetic visual display based on movement via some sensors (it was all experienced in darkroom so it had element of discovery) and various hanging materials that reacted with movement, pressure and heat. (I think it was traveling exhibit in Austin or San Antonio about ten years ago. I've been to quite a few of the renowned art museums in many of largest metro urban cities in USA / Europe and the thing I am struck by most is the amount of vision, skill, talent, imagination and creativity an artist needed to bring out imagery / form / tension / texture / structure etc... with various tools be they paint, metal work, stone work, fabric weaving etc...
What modern art tends to do more than in other periods is as someone else aptly mentioned - when you see something hanging on a wall anyone could have done or accidentally done, it's not really 'art' it is a common novelty. To illustrate, we have a piece in our CLE Museum of Art I chose to write about as part of a two part essay we were required to do in HS English class: Write about one object you liked and write about something you did not.
The one I did not was simply a piece of plywood about 3 foot by 4 foot that the "artist" looked like they simply portioned off and cleaned their brushes with of various pigmented materials. These types of pieces = common novelty it could have been found as a scrap on a construction site. OTOH another artist in modern art section took a common material not often used for art work and with precise metalworking skill made it into an amazing object even though abstract.
So, since "Art" is a subjective thing like beauty, everyone's tastes / preferences will vary - but if it is easily replicated it doesn't convey a sense of value to most people to appreciate as art and from what I observe of most "Modern Art" this is why I think many people are not 'receptive' to it.
And if it is base for that matter - like the urine / feces gonzo desecration art, it has as much artistic skill and beauty as the images of religious icons and celebrities people see in breakfast cereal, grilled cheese, pancakes, and spills on a paper table cloth - none.
That's my two cents - FWIW Apologies if this seems rambling.
My local art museum features Santocroce's Martyrdom of Saint Lawrence (who was essentially condemned to be slowly grilled to death over an open fire for his work with the needy) , which is pretty graphic and angry, and it was painted in the mid-1500s.
Also several renaissance painters' depictions of Judith beheading the Assyrian general Holofernes, which is fairly grisly and disturbing, as subject matter goes. "Unsettling," even.
I wouldn't say modern art has the market cornered on "disturbing."
I wasn't saying it hasn't. But the only art that seems to get media attention today is that which is angry, horror-filled, has some sort of horrific social justice attached to it, or is sexualized with the intent to make people upset or enraged.
Art to make people happy, joyful, peaceful or contemplative? Nah, media doesn't want it. Better to make people disturbed, yeah, that's it. Make them sad and p-ssed off. Then it's "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.
