|
Read this motivating thread first (NSFW): "**** modern art" [possible offensive word blotted out by me]
My idea:
Make a thread where people try to explain modern or contemporary art to each
other.
Is it explainable? Can one like modern art more (or indeed get to like it at all) if it is explained to oneself? What motives other than beauty is behind contemporary art?
My motivation:
Hello, I like to have ideals, maybe that is not rational since an ideal is always (or isn't it?) unattainable.
One of my ideals is to be a renaissance man or polymath, a man that can excel at any aspect of intellectual exercises: math, physics, litterature, art, history. You name it. Men such as Goethe, Leonardo da Vinci or Leibniz (Benjamin Franklin is probably the most well known American homo universalis).
Personally I'd also like to be a physically fit and strong but that is another thing.
Needless to say I am far away from that goal but the pursuit I feel must be done.
So what am I worst at?
Appreciating modern or contemporary art.
I can't see beauty or meaning in most of anything considered art since and beginning with Picasso. I don't get Abstract expressionism (Pollock) nor Dadism (Duchamps) and certainly not why something by a minimalist (Hirst) can be worth 4-5 Rembrandt paintings.
The thread:
- Anything after or contemporary with Picasso is the sought after prey (can go earlier in some cases, that is the cases when "normal" people find the art unintelligible).
- A painting or a sculpture represented by a jpg-photo (maybe a film if it's applicable, such as live art) and preferrably meta data such as price, date, artist, claim to fame and other interesting
things.
- The replies to such a post should be either why it is bad or why it is good, bash them if you like but provide a reasoning.
Is it a good idea? Do you 'get' modern art? Would it be fun or interesting?
|
if you're open and receptive, you can "get" modern art without even having to understand any of the underlying structure of it, how and why it was created as it was, etc etc.
|
On September 10 2011 03:38 Truedot wrote:
if you're open and receptive, you can "get" modern art without even having to understand any of the underlying structure of it, how and why it was created as it was, etc etc.
I have to ask you, assuming that you "get" modern art, did you appreciate it from the "beginning"? Or was there a learning curve from classical art?
The whole reason I ask is if I have any chance to start appreciating it:
1. Is it worth it, will I gain pleasure from it?
2. Can other people open my eyes to that which I currently does not appreciate?
3. Am I inhibited by pre-conceived notions?
That is some deep questions which I personally can't answer.
I like opera but I sure didn't like it from the start.
|
edit: I'm talking about things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire
Dissenting opinion: modern art is mostly worthless and how highly it is rated (e.g. "an excellent piece of art... versus ... terrible piece of art" is based almost entirely on the reputation and or character/attitude of it's creator.
I feel that if a random person were to scribble on a piece of paper, or make a circle in crayon on a piece of paper, then hand that to a world-renowned modern artist and have THAT person enter it in a high-level art competition, it would be highly rated, but if it were sold under the original unknown persons name it would be considered worthless.
I'm talking about modern art that is very basic, like a brown line on a white page, not sculpture or anything btw.
tl;dr I think modern art is a circlejerk based around people reaffirming how deep and artistic/cultured they are, when in fact the actual artwork takes little to no skill but rather requires a respected name and reputation.
|
On September 10 2011 04:49 cz wrote:
tl;dr I think modern art is a circlejerk based around people reaffirming how deep and artistic/cultured they are, when in fact the actual artwork takes little to no skill but rather requires a respected name and reputation.
Well how do you get a respected name? There must be something to it, although I don't understand it.
|
On September 10 2011 06:01 DEN1ED wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 04:49 cz wrote:
tl;dr I think modern art is a circlejerk based around people reaffirming how deep and artistic/cultured they are, when in fact the actual artwork takes little to no skill but rather requires a respected name and reputation. Well how do you get a respected name? There must be something to it, although I don't understand it.
I think the point of the thread is for people who 'get' it to explain to the rest of us what it is they get. Obviously they're doing something different, the argument is whether it's art. At some point the communication breaks down.
|
On September 10 2011 06:01 DEN1ED wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 04:49 cz wrote:
tl;dr I think modern art is a circlejerk based around people reaffirming how deep and artistic/cultured they are, when in fact the actual artwork takes little to no skill but rather requires a respected name and reputation. Well how do you get a respected name? There must be something to it, although I don't understand it.
I saw some documentary on national swedish television called The Great Art Bubble in Swedish or Brave New Art world in english about Hirst and his multi-million pound artworks. The creator of the program Ben Lewis has some articles here which may interest you:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23555605-why-i-was-banned-from-damien-hirsts-120m-gamble.do
There is that side to it, the market has inflated the prices on contemporary art.
But there is also a problem, as I see it in any art, things has to be "new" in the art world to seem as revolutionizing or great art. If you paint a can of soup it is not valued as highly as when Warhol did it.
1. Modern Art is about being first with something and/or shock people.
2. That something can be so trivial in it's execution that anyone can do it
3. It doesn't even have to be the artist who does something, Warhol even called it "the factory"
4. "Normal" people can't appreciate it, they see no beauty in it.
With these 4 observations it seems to be impossible to say what is good art and what is not when popular appeal, a clear maker or the thing itself seems unimportant. It is like everything revolves around a "meta-art" which is anything but the thing itself - only the artists intention or even lack of intention matters.
For me, as I appreciate art right now.
1. Great art is timeless.
2. Great art requires a genius in composition and making.
3. Great art is the result of both the genius by hand and mind together, everything else is a copy.
4. It should be possible to almost instantly feel that art is beautiful.
Maybe some of these criteria are primitive but maybe they can be changed. Maybe not all..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
