The truth about modern art

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

I've heard that many of these "works of art" also serve to money laundering. This video is very true in my view, because I always thought this kind of art extremely useless and even a 3 year old child can do better.

 

 

[GC_Vos 714]

I agree, a lot of modern art is just lazy. Put random object A inside random object B, put a spotlight on it and hey, it's worth a million dollars.

M.C. Escher remains my favorite artist of the last century, I don't think anybody will ever top his brilliance.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Art is often in the eye of the beholder.  Unfortunately, so-called modern art is merely garbage excreted from the anal orifice of some of the more useless members of society then ignorantly taken into appreciation by even less useful members.

I like Picasso, and some of the great ones of the last century.  Andy Warhol at least said something.  These days, if you puke on a piece of board, it is considered art.  Pfaugh!

The highest art form, music drama, is still being produced in small quantities.  It is anything but instantaneous and goes through cultural changes as necessary.  In the 19th century it was called grand opera, in the 20th century it became "Broadway" musicals, and today you have things like Cats, Les Mis, and revivals of Cabaret (which was about as anti-NAZI as the composer dared at the time).  IMHO, the greatest piece from the 20th century is West Side Story with South Pacific running a hot second.

[inspire224 13]

Modern art is very much overrated! Love art that depicts real scenes tho!

[Skimbo 304]

I guess this problem is as old as art itself. While I agree on specific things (where I truly wonder why they get so poular) I also have to admit that I don't like many of the popular "classic art" artists. Like thoose who often painted saints with their eyes rolled as far to the sky that it makes them look loke they where on drugs or just seconds away from dying....

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 2/27/2016 at 2:28 PM, A Nonny Moose said:

Art is often in the eye of the beholder.  Unfortunately, so-called modern art is merely garbage excreted from the anal orifice of some of the more useless members of society then ignorantly taken into appreciation by even less useful members.

I like Picasso, and some of the great ones of the last century.  Andy Warhol at least said something.  These days, if you puke on a piece of board, it is considered art.  Pfaugh!

The highest art form, music drama, is still being produced in small quantities.  It is anything but instantaneous and goes through cultural changes as necessary.  In the 19th century it was called grand opera, in the 20th century it became "Broadway" musicals, and today you have things like Cats, Les Mis, and revivals of Cabaret (which was about as anti-NAZI as the composer dared at the time).  IMHO, the greatest piece from the 20th century is West Side Story with South Pacific running a hot second.

You do realize that there were people 70 years ago who said the exact same thing about Picasso. In fact, some of them even went as far to put Picasso in a museum for 'degenerate art'. Actually, I'm pretty sure every time someone came up with a new type of art, there were people claiming it was all kinds of terrible. 

If you don't like certain types of art because it isn't your taste, thats fair. No need to go around and claim that the people who make it are useless and what they produced is 'garbage excreted from the anal orifice'.  

I kinda like modern art. I used to be unable to see what was so special about it, but that was because I was only looking at the art with my eyes, rating it wholly on its aesthetic appeal. Now I realize that there are stories behind the installations, that the artist is trying to make a point or invoke some type of feeling, and I like modern art a lot more. Sure, there are still things that I don't particularly like, but frankly I found that from every time period and every art movement, there are artist that I like and ones that just won't do it for me. For example, Rembrandt is hailed as one of the greatest Dutch painters ever, and having seen his works all I can do is yawn. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I like most art, except for government-subsidized conceptual art. Talentless hacks are taking money away from infrastructure and other construction projects, just like greedy executives are pushing the government deeper into debt.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

When it comes to art appreciation, everyone is entitled to his opinion.  If you don't want to know don't ask.

The only art form I particularly do not care for is heavy metal music, but it is a matter of taste.  Some people, including my son-in-law not only like it, but perform it.  Chacun à son goût.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Hehehe, Canada has some pretty good metal bands. Your SIL doesn't happen to play in 'The Agonist' does he? 

[raynev1 1,886]

   Personally , I believe art is a way of self expression . An expression of the artist's feelings . And all of the forms of art is amazing to me . Writers , actors , musicians , painters , sculptors , they all have talent . Some people just don't understand the feelings they are expressing . As said above , " art is in the eye of the beholder " if they understand it . Now the monetary value of art can be quite insane if you ask me . Performing artist's seem to make the most money , while painters and sculptors art doesn't become as valuable until after they have died . My favorite art would have to be music , so much diversity .

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think the problem is we are confusing talent, effort and complexity of art with the function of art.

Simple easily done things can be beautiful. Complexity can be ugly. Just because art work a is more technically difficult than art work b does not make it less worthy.

But the financial aspect of art is like the music industry, and plenty of chaff sells.

I do not think art is in a decline, nor do I think metal is any less artistic than Beethoven. But I will agree that the connection between financial success and quality of work is not perfect.

A plain black canvas may be austerely beautiful but you would be right to say a child could mass produce such.

With the digital age such flat art is so easy to create and print.

I would not carve a grave stone for good art, but admit that there are rich people who should get a real job.

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

I'm sorry, but I don't think paying almost 44 million dollars for two blue rectangles with a white line in the middle is due to 'taste'.

Some modern art pieces are just to 1)Money laundering 2) For people who buy these things pretend they are intelectual enough to "see the message behind the piece", I mean, they're idiots.

http://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Good point.  What do you think of Andy Warhol's Tomato Soup Can?

[LexusInfernus 908]

2 hours ago, JP Schriefer said:

I'm sorry, but I don't think paying almost 44 million dollars for two blue rectangles with a white line in the middle is due to 'taste'.

Some modern art pieces are just to 1)Money laundering 2) For people who buy these things pretend they are intelectual enough to "see the message behind the piece", I mean, they're idiots.

http://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/

I agree with you in the sense that I would never pay 44 million dollars for a painting. Then again, for 44 million dollars I'd expect to buy an apartment building or something. 

But just because I'm unwilling to pay that much money for art, does that mean the art is bad or just ridiculously overpriced in the monetary sense? That painting looks quite nice, I wouldn't mind hanging it in my bedroom if I had the space, but I would pay 200 maybe 300 dollars at the most for it. If that painting was sold for 300 dollars, would you still claim that the art sucks? 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It is not the image that often causes a problem but the pretense there is more to it than meets the eye.  I'm sure we've all seen the recent Advertising Council satire on the painting 'Pensive Blizzard' posted at $14,000,000 and closed with a remark about truth in advertising.

Last night, while channel flipping, I caught the end of a Tom and Jerry Cartoon.  I happen to like these old films so I watched it to the end.  It was on a children's channel and the commercials that followed were come-ons for some of the worst computer graphic art I've ever seen in my life accompanied by exhortations to get this stuff off the Internet (Parental permission required).  No wonder television is going to die a horrible death.  The sooner the more merciful.

[Jasoncw 11,933]

This is what happens when schools treat art like a touchy feely therapy activity where everyone is right and everyone gets an A for effort. The result is that people know essentially nothing about what art is or how it works.

I had art every semester from 1st grade to 12th grade and the closest thing we ever got to art theory or history was one time we had to make a 5 minute powerpoint about an artist we liked. I did mine on Katsuhiro Otomo (because why not?).

Even in college I had a few semesters of low level art courses. You sat around and did still lifes in various mediums. There was nowhere near enough time in the studio to actually develop any technique, and there weren't lecture components to teach us how to do anything, and there wasn't enough one on one time in the class to compensate for it. So you end the class still not being able to actually draw (or do anything else), and without even having any understanding or appreciation of art. 

imo art classes in middle and high school should be at least half theory, and the activities that are done should be fun, easy to engage with in terms of art, and its success should not be determined by high-skill technique. I think comics would be great projects.

Art is ultimately about communicating content (intellectual ideas, emotional ideas, worldviews, topical statements, etc.) via a medium (painting, music, architecture, etc.). Understanding art is about understanding what the content is and how its expression within the medium affects the meaning of the content. Unlike what school teaches, technique is mainly the means to the end, not the end itself. Still lifes are practicing technique that 99% of students will never actually apply to creating art.

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

I agree with you that arts in schools is very superficial, but I still think that in the case of modern art, most of the works are as superficial as the classes, and are highly valued simply because there are people who see a spectacular meaning behind 2 blue rectangles. Really??? I agree it is a pretty picture, like Lexus said, and I would even buy it if it was cheap. But I see no good reason to pay so much for something like that. I would buy it, but never give it a meaning because I think it hasn't. It's just a nice picture in my opinion.

You may not like the older styles of art, but it is undeniable that their talent was far superior, at least the manual talent. So I think that the works of old times has much more value.

I think Lexus is actually right about me, my problem is not exactly with the modern art, but with its prices

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It really depends on what one calls art.  Many people think only of graphic images of some sort, but let me assure you speaking from my nearly eight decades that the highest forms of art usually involve the dramatic arts, live, on stage.  Let's take, for example, a stage performance of some well known item: West Side Story.

To put such a thing on the stage you need many artists besides the performers.  Someone has to design and produce the sets, the costumes, the stage business (dances, etc.), the scene changes.  You need an arranger and a conductor for the orchestra.  Someone, usually a vocal coach or two as well as the conductor has to work with the singers to get agreement on many points that can only be considered artistic with respect to the performance.  And to tie it all together into a cohesive whole, a director who has been around and not just around his old mother.

Bits of paint on some substrate, or a visiplate full of pixels is nothing compared to this.  Even such a minimalist item such as Our Town which can be performed almost without stage sets (a couple of step ladders will do) still needs costumes, some set painting, a director, and, of course, the artists themselves.

The interesting thing about live theatre is that for a given audience you only get one kick at the cat.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

On March 11, 2016 at 6:17 AM, JP Schriefer said:

$44 million painting

http://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/

I would love a painting like that. I could easily ask my mother this summer to paint something just like that but use torquoise on the left.

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

39 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

I would love a painting like that. I could easily ask my mother this summer to paint something just like that but use torquoise on the left.

I can paint something like that to you if you want, I can even sell it cheaper to you, like 10 million dollars, just contact me

[Jasoncw 11,933]

22 hours ago, JP Schriefer said:

I agree with you that arts in schools is very superficial, but I still think that in the case of modern art, most of the works are as superficial as the classes, and are highly valued simply because there are people who see a spectacular meaning behind 2 blue rectangles. Really??? I agree it is a pretty picture, like Lexus said, and I would even buy it if it was cheap. But I see no good reason to pay so much for something like that. I would buy it, but never give it a meaning because I think it hasn't. It's just a nice picture in my opinion.

You may not like the older styles of art, but it is undeniable that their talent was far superior, at least the manual talent. So I think that the works of old times has much more value.

I think Lexus is actually right about me, my problem is not exactly with the modern art, but with its prices

I have to admit that during the 1970s art became something that I don't have much understanding of. I was the Detroit Institute of Arts, which is a relatively good art museum, and one of the sections had... a bunch of stuff that didn't really make much sense. It must have been important to be taking up so much space, but googling the artists came up with next to nothing and so it was impossible to learn what they were about. It's possible that no one knows what they're about. There's a lot of information about a lot of things on the internet, so there's something wrong when something is supposed to be important enough to be in an art museum and yet it is not important enough for there to be any information about it online. I do personally think that the rise of postmodernism, the increase in the volume of art produced, and the greater amount of exposure of artists (the internet, the proliferation of small galleries, etc.) has made it difficult to have a coherent discussion about art. But it could also very well be that I just need to take the time to do some reading to understand these things better. But I'm probably not going to because I know that art since then doesn't suit my disposition or my own ideas about art.

But to be frank the reason you don't understand or appreciate art from the last 150+ years is because you don't have knowledge of art from the last 150+ years (for me it's only 30+ years). It's like watching the last 5 minutes of the last episode of a long running and complicated tv show, and it's, say, just a man watching some children play in a playground from a distance. And everyone in the room is totally engaged and some people are even crying, but to you it's just a really boring scene of a man watching kids play. And if you ask them to explain, they'll tell you about what happened in the last season, but then they'll say that that won't make much sense unless they explain the season before that, and then eventually in order to understand and appreciate the last episode they'll have explained everything that's happened in the show since the first episode. 

It's also very much deniable that painters from the past had more talent than recent ones. If by talent you mean technique, then you see it on facebook and other sites all the time: people making photorealistic images. It certainly takes a lot of practice to learn how to do that, and most art created today does not require photorealism so most artists don't bother, but today photorealistic artists are a dime a dozen. Painters capable of painting beautiful landscapes are also very common. It's true that some painters were historically exceptional masters of technique, but most weren't. If anything recently technique has gotten even better just because of the raw number of artists and art schools and information available through the internet.

The real talent of artists is not the ability to paint, it is the ability to know *what* to paint. Or to put it into musical terms, artistry comes from knowing what to play, not how difficult it is to play it. Obviously you need to be able to play it, but as long as you can, the ability to do so is not important. If difficulty/technique is what's important, then your favorite album would be a 40 minute long technical drum solo.  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"There are some people who can show the location of the sun as a blot of yellow paint, and there are others who can use a blot of yellow paint to show the sun." -- A paraphrase of something said by Pablo Picasso.

"Si monumentum requiris, circumspice"  [If you want a monument. look around].  -- Found on plinth standing in a desert.

This last is true, however.  Look around you for art.  Some of the 'tagging' you find on public walls is better than some of the stuff found in galleries, and some tagging is really great.  Art doesn't live in museums.  Nobody feeds him there.  Art lives with the rest of the people, and he really can't live without them.

So-called modern artists as a class are generally frauds, the same as many hip-hop 'artists'.  They simply get on the bandwagon, but often the one they choose is missing a wheel or two.  Is it art if the general public doesn't like it?  Probably not!

If you have to be a member of the cognoscenti to 'appreciate' a work, there is nothing wrong with you, there is something wrong with it (and them).  There is too much mutual masturbation in the art world.  (Any is too much.)

Sometimes it takes a bit of study to really get the point of some items that are really art.  I didn't really get the works of Lauren Harris (Group of Seven) for a few years, but now I do.  Abstract or realistic, it is often hard to grasp what is there, but if there is something there you will get it eventually.  Don't give up, but don't give in, either.

[Jasoncw 11,933]

You shouldn't need to have a phd in art to understand it, but the basic background knowledge of understanding/appreciating art is not rocket science and the only thing preventing the average person from understanding it is the nearly complete lack of exposure or explanation to it. Art classes in school teach nothing. In elementary school most kids will go on a field trip to an art museum where they'll be rushed through and where nothing will be explained. 9 year olds are too young to really explain it to but the teachers don't have any understanding of the subject themselves so they couldn't explain it anyway. It's just "hey look at the pretty pictures! They're really important because... uhhhh... because it's art and art is important!"

Your complaint about "modern art" is really a complaint about all of art. What period in art does the average person have any understanding? And I don't mean that they think it looks cool (that's superficial) but really understands it? Certainly not impressionism. But people don't have the literary and cultural knowledge to understand renaissance art either. What art does the average person have any understanding of?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Understanding and/or appreciating art is also a matter of experience and exposure.  I never really understood all the fuss about Titian until I saw a few of his original works in the municipal museum in Bordeaux when I was about 40.  New things can (must) be learned daily.

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 3/13/2016 at 6:04 PM, A Nonny Moose said:

So-called modern artists as a class are generally frauds, the same as many hip-hop 'artists'.  They simply get on the bandwagon, but often the one they choose is missing a wheel or two.  Is it art if the general public doesn't like it?  Probably not!

If you have to be a member of the cognoscenti to 'appreciate' a work, there is nothing wrong with you, there is something wrong with it (and them).  There is too much mutual masturbation in the art world.  (Any is too much.)

So basically the only thing that can be art is stuff that panders to the lowest common denominator to achieve mass audiences. Congratulations, you have just elevated the works of Thomas Kinkade and Jeresy Shore to the status of high art because of their popular appeal. 

Also, how are those hip hop artists frauds if millions of people love their work? 

And no one has to be a member of the cognoscenti to appreciate modern art. But that also doesn't mean art has to be so basic, simplistic and mediocre that it takes no effort at all to understand whats going on. 

Anyways, perhaps its time to stop with the stupid sweeping generalizations of artists as frauds? 

/13/2016 at 1:36 AM, Jasoncw said:

It's also very much deniable that painters from the past had more talent than recent ones. If by talent you mean technique, then you see it on facebook and other sites all the time: people making photorealistic images. It certainly takes a lot of practice to learn how to do that, and most art created today does not require photorealism so most artists don't bother, but today photorealistic artists are a dime a dozen. Painters capable of painting beautiful landscapes are also very common. It's true that some painters were historically exceptional masters of technique, but most weren't. If anything recently technique has gotten even better just because of the raw number of artists and art schools and information available through the internet.

 

To add to that, look at what people can do with photoshop. It has made it relatively easy for digital artists to come up with the most fantastic images. All you need is to know your way around photoshop and maybe a good computer with a tablet. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

On March 12, 2016 at 10:04 AM, A Nonny Moose said:

Some of the 'tagging' you find on public walls is better than some of the stuff found in galleries, and some tagging is really great.  Art doesn't live in museums.

So-called modern artists as a class are generally frauds, the same as many hip-hop 'artists'.  They simply get on the bandwagon, but often the one they choose is missing a wheel or two.  Is it art if the general public doesn't like it?  Probably not!

If you have to be a member of the cognoscenti to 'appreciate' a work, there is nothing wrong with you, there is something wrong with it (and them). 

Sometimes it takes a bit of study to really get the point of some items that are really art.  I didn't really get the works of Lauren Harris (Group of Seven) for a few years, but now I do.  Abstract or realistic, it is often hard to grasp what is there, but if there is something there you will get it eventually.  Don't give up, but don't give in, either.

Graffiti can be art, as can performances, sculpture, landscaping, digital media, and music.

Top 40 pop trash and hip-hop sell outs are not artists, they don't make artistic music, they make noise to set to music videos.

 I will expand your statement with the following: if a typical, undergraduate-educated person cannot tell the difference between a "masterpiece" and something a kindergartner made, the piece of "art" is expensive trash.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A simple measure of 'art' is something that astonishes you.  It may be the use of colour or the approach to the subject, but if you are moved, you are likely being subjected to art.  If you have that cold, I've been had feeling, then you know that it is not for you.  One man's meat is another man's poison.

And one point for our perennial troll: Popularity is neither a measure of success nor of artistic endeavour.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Reading Sexual Personae and came across a passage that made me think of this thread:

"Art, no matter how minimalist, is never simply design. It is always a ritualistic reordering of reality. The enterprise of art, in a stable collective era or an unsettled individualistic one, is inspired by anxiety. Every subject localized and honored by art is endangered by its opposite. Art is a shutting in in order to shut out. Art is a ritualistic binding of the perpetual motion machine that is nature. The first artist was a tribal priest casting a spell, fixing nature’s daemonic energy in a moment of perceptual stillness. Fixation is at the heart of art, fixation as stasis and fixation as obsession. The modern artist who merely draws a line across a page is still trying to tame some uncontrollable aspect of reality. Art is spellbinding. Art fixes the audience in its seat, stops the feet before a painting, fixes a book in the hand. Contemplation is a magic act."

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 3/15/2016 at 6:57 PM, A Nonny Moose said:

A simple measure of 'art' is something that astonishes you.  It may be the use of colour or the approach to the subject, but if you are moved, you are likely being subjected to art.  If you have that cold, I've been had feeling, then you know that it is not for you.  One man's meat is another man's poison.

Again, if a specific sort of art is not for your taste, thats fine. But do you need to call the people who made it 'frauds' or describe their art as " garbage excreted from the anal orifice of some of the more useless members of society then ignorantly taken into appreciation by even less useful members." 

Aside from the insulting nature of your comments to not just the artists, but also to the people who do like modern art, you are essentially just going after people because of differences in tastes. 

I think that if you got nothing nice to say then keep it to yourself very much applies in this situation. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Some people are not the right ones to be quoting Thumper's father from Bambi.