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.
That is the thing. When something has to be explained to be understood it loses its audience.
I toured the Louvre years ago and I was blown away by the great works of art from the Masters because they spoke to my emotions whereas modern contemporary art speaks more to the intellect.
I'd rather enjoy a piece for what it presents than try to figure out something for what it tries to convey.
I'm the opposite. Though I appreciate the Masters and some of the work speaks to me on an emotional level, I enjoy the intellectual side of art which makes you think. Contemporary art forces people to slow down and evaluate what the artist is communicating instead of giving the viewer the "right answer."
I think there is a place for both types of art in our world.
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.
I don't know of many artists, from any time period, who wanted to make people happy. Excluding of course their patrons. Otherwise, most artists don't care about making people happy. They care about the expression of their chosen craft.
I don't know of many artists, from any time period, who wanted to make people happy. Excluding of course their patrons. Otherwise, most artists don't care about making people happy. They care about the expression of their chosen craft.
You are misunderstanding. Let me rephrase:
Modern artists prefer to create "art" that evokes feelings of anger and disgust, rather than tap into elements in art that make people feel happy, serene, peaceful or loved.
It's along the lines of why there are no academy awards for comedies. Happiness is not of value to our society. Tortured, angered, depraved souls in dark, tragic circumstances are the preferred method of expression, and the preferred topics by the media. The more violent and offensive the better it is. Add in some sort of stand on injustice and you've got a winner.
Modern artists prefer to create "art" that evokes feelings of anger and disgust, rather than tap into elements in art that make people feel happy, serene, peaceful or loved.
It's along the lines of why there are no academy awards for comedies. Happiness is not of value to our society. Tortured, angered, depraved souls in dark, tragic circumstances are the preferred method of expression, and the preferred topics by the media. The more violent and offensive the better it is. Add in some sort of stand on injustice and you've got a winner.
The purpose of art is to evoke feelings and thoughts. Not only feelings of happiness. As has been pointed out many masterpieces of Renaissance art portray gruesome religious themes. Modern or post-modern art is not singularly focused on angst and anger.
To claim only art that you find beautiful or inspiring is worthy of being called true art is ignorant at best. Your claim that happiness has no value is not even a comparable argument. What you are saying regarding art is ONLY happiness has value. Big difference.
And to clarify, "modern art" includes Impressionism, much of which is considered quite beautiful and is often pastoral and serene.
For painting and sculpture, I have a simple definition of art, it has two factors.
If it looks like something - could be art. If it looks like nothing - not art.
If I could do it - not art.
If by modern "art" you mean a monkey threw balloons of paint through a jet engine pointed at a canvas; or a huge block of brick red with a single line thorough it. Then no, to me that is not art.
If someone wants to call some mess art and say it it their expression of themselves as an artist, I might believe them if they show me they can actually paint something that looks like something. If they cannot actually paint something, then the blobs of color are not an artists expression of themselves, it is just a person with no talent making excuses. Just my opinion.
The purpose of art is to evoke feelings and thoughts. Not only feelings of happiness. As has been pointed out many masterpieces of Renaissance art portray gruesome religious themes. Modern or post-modern art is not singularly focused on angst and anger.
To claim only art that you find beautiful or inspiring is worthy of being called true art is ignorant at best. Your claim that happiness has no value is not even a comparable argument. What you are saying regarding art is ONLY happiness has value. Big difference.
This thread is titled: Why Is Modern Art So Unsettling To So Many People?
I am not debating/defending/discussing other periods of art. What I am saying is that modern artists who gain attention and have careers are those who create art that evokes feelings of disgust and unhappiness. It is pretty well known that controversy will sell. Happiness is not controversial. Anger and violence is controversial. And people are attached to the "life of the artist" as a means to defend/support work. The more the artist is portrayed as a sufferer, the more the art sells. A happy modern artist creating beautiful, uncontroversial works that evoke feelings of peace? Not so much.
Read up on someone like Yayoi Kusama. She might not be joyful, per se, but her art definitely makes people happy.
People also like to be outraged about art and to roll their eyes at it. That's the kind of stuff that makes the news. Yes, Robert Mapplethorpe did take a series of sexually explicit photos. That makes the news. But he also took other, beautifully composed photos of people, statuary, flowers, etc.
I know Kusama's work. She is actually institutionalized, and her work reflects her mental illness. At our museum we had a sculpture of hers that we docents called, the penis chair. It was a chair covered in stuffed canvas appendages. It could not be called a happy piece. To most of us women it conjured up male domination and discomfort, which I believe was Kusamas intention.
The purpose of art is to evoke feelings and thoughts. Not only feelings of happiness. As has been pointed out many masterpieces of Renaissance art portray gruesome religious themes. Modern or post-modern art is not singularly focused on angst and anger.
Now, this is an example of good modern art. It's not conventionally beautiful, but still beautiful in its own way. And most importantly, those glass sculptures took real effort to create.
I know Kusama's work. She is actually institutionalized, and her work reflects her mental illness. At our museum we had a sculpture of hers that we docents called, the penis chair. It was a chair covered in stuffed canvas appendages. It could not be called a happy piece. To most of us women it conjured up male domination and discomfort, which I believe was Kusamas intention.
Here's more modern art. Does this evoke feelings of happiness and serenity? If not is it only "art"?
By the way, even happily married mothers are allowed to express feelings other than happiness and serenity.
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.
Otherwise, most artists don't care about making people happy. They care about the expression of their chosen craft.
