|
On May 11 2012 12:59 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 12:47 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:On May 11 2012 12:42 lorkac wrote:Modern makes me want to stab my eye with a spoon terran. It forsakes art as act of creation and simply attempt to make essays out of pictures. The piece becomes impossible to appreciate within its own merits and one has to contextualize it with very specific and very time chained anchors. Count me as one of those who will, most likely, forever hate "modern art." + Show Spoiler +Really it's just 20th Century art in general that I hate, as well as a lot of contemporary art as well. If you mean essays as those made by angry self-absorbed teens writing about how they have life all-figured out, then we have an agreement. There are great modern arts though, Lucien Freud, Paula Rego, and even Mark Rothko (technically abstract exp., but I'd choose him to represent modern art then Koons all day). Don't get me wrong--I love art. I even enjoy looking at modern art while I walk around a museum, scroll through website galleries, etc... I even find some of their messages interesting and meaningful. However--I still hate modern art. Me enjoying a piece every now and then will not quell my hatred of it. I do wish my hatred of it made me stop going to galleries...
I completely understand you. I manage a small gallery myself and have been with the art "business" for a while. For me modern art is where it should be, but I think we need to sift through the garbage from the true art. Koons and Hirst and the absolute representatives of what is bad about modern art. But for every Michael Jackson and Bubbles (Koons), there is Rothko's almost religious red squares, and for every Mother and Child (Hirst) there is Rego's women.
|
Oiseaux, cheers to Banksy!
|
On May 11 2012 12:58 Oiseaux wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 12:56 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:
On another note, one that is not covered in the opening post, there is critical discussion now in the art scene about the inclusion and the qualification of street art, graffiti, stencil, comics, and other similar nontraditional arts into the fine arts. Comics is making a heady entry as there are massive literature to support its cause, as just a series of Gaiman's graphic novels will attest. Banksy, a UK-based street artist is also taking the modern art dialogue to another level. But just like there are horrible oil paintings and great oil paintings, there are also horrible graffiti and great graffiti. I am personally excited by the fact that graffiti is now gaining musuem credentials. In many ways it is like a subsumation of rebel art back into mainstream. The political tension is funny and ironic. Just wanted to throw some love towards Banksy. Dude's stuff is awesome.
Banksy is a GOD!
|
On May 11 2012 13:05 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 12:59 lorkac wrote:On May 11 2012 12:47 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:On May 11 2012 12:42 lorkac wrote:Modern makes me want to stab my eye with a spoon terran. It forsakes art as act of creation and simply attempt to make essays out of pictures. The piece becomes impossible to appreciate within its own merits and one has to contextualize it with very specific and very time chained anchors. Count me as one of those who will, most likely, forever hate "modern art." + Show Spoiler +Really it's just 20th Century art in general that I hate, as well as a lot of contemporary art as well. If you mean essays as those made by angry self-absorbed teens writing about how they have life all-figured out, then we have an agreement. There are great modern arts though, Lucien Freud, Paula Rego, and even Mark Rothko (technically abstract exp., but I'd choose him to represent modern art then Koons all day). Don't get me wrong--I love art. I even enjoy looking at modern art while I walk around a museum, scroll through website galleries, etc... I even find some of their messages interesting and meaningful. However--I still hate modern art. Me enjoying a piece every now and then will not quell my hatred of it. I do wish my hatred of it made me stop going to galleries... I completely understand you. I manage a small gallery myself and have been with the art "business" for a while. For me modern art is where it should be, but I think we need to sift through the garbage from the true art. Koons and Hirst and the absolute representatives of what is bad about modern art. But for every Michael Jackson and Bubbles (Koons), there is Rothko's almost religious red squares, and for every Mother and Child (Hirst) there is Rego's women.
I find your comment interesting for a couple of reasons. Specifically you hold an opinion on what is "true" art based on your comparison comments, yet also recognize you're in the art "business." I would infer that you host art in your gallery that you don't perceive as quality to some degree mainly because you recognize the monetary incentive in doing so. My question is where is the defining line between the two types? An easier way to conceptualize the question would be asking about the artistic merit between someone like Chopin and Miley Cyrus. I emphasize that I pose it as a question, because I feel it ultimately boils down to opinion on the matter.
Edit: Just throwing this out there to personalize myself and not make myself seem like some devil's advocate troll, I'm a big fan of a lot of modern day pop-surrealist art. Deth P Sun is one of my favorite artists; the only piece of original art I own is done by him on a wood block. Bought it back in the early 2000's for about $200.
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
im one of those guys that thinks that art is a scam
abstract paintings such as these
+ Show Spoiler +
always annoy me; there is no 'anger' or 'sadness'... its a bunch of colours mixed in everywhere! GET OVER IT!
the only appreciable art are the ones that are actually talent specific or massively creative, call me nuts but my favourite artist of all time is keith haring, simplicity yet creativity, and the story on him and his fast paced time attack trails in the subway before the police arrive is just marvelous.
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SavOMS6JsLM/TKNWsE98qyI/AAAAAAAAAAY/O3xOJZ-fgog/s1600/keith-haring-south-africa.jpg)
During the 1980's stuff like this, in the urban sprawl of new york city, in the subway of all places. Magnificent.
|
So i've always looked down on modern art, but after visiting the modern art museum in lisbon, i got to see some pieces that touched me and that i found interesting.
But most of it, i just did'nt got it, the vast majority of the pieces still looked like lazy and pointless work that is meaningless. I will always think that pure monochrome paintings are plain bullshit. You can argue that with me, "how it makes you feel", "there is a reasoning behind it", "it's the minimum and that's why it's good". It stills one full color on a paper and it's just not art to me.
But that's what i think, i won't look down on people because they like it. Just because i can understand whet they feel through the prism of music. I sometime listen to music that most people will find shitty. To minimalist, to repetitive. Or sometimes just to hardcore and "it's not music". It's just that they are not used to it so they can't get beyond the first impression and hear the subtlety of what's going on.
So yes sometimes i feel dumb for not understanding modern art, but i know that like in music, it's not because one piece is famous that it's good. I'm sure that there are plenty of modern arts in museums that are bad. If you're interested in that subject i recommend you this nice article on the subject : http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/im-sick-of-pretending-i-dont-get-art
Also another thing that bothers me with modern arts is the commercial side, what shocked me is that some pieces are in auction house before they are finished. They are already priced several thousands of dollars (if not more) and yet they are not even done, nobody has ever saw it. They are expensive just because it's a big name making the piece and this is just nonsense.
Also, nice OP 
|
On May 11 2012 13:14 Oiseaux wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 13:05 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:On May 11 2012 12:59 lorkac wrote:On May 11 2012 12:47 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:On May 11 2012 12:42 lorkac wrote:Modern makes me want to stab my eye with a spoon terran. It forsakes art as act of creation and simply attempt to make essays out of pictures. The piece becomes impossible to appreciate within its own merits and one has to contextualize it with very specific and very time chained anchors. Count me as one of those who will, most likely, forever hate "modern art." + Show Spoiler +Really it's just 20th Century art in general that I hate, as well as a lot of contemporary art as well. If you mean essays as those made by angry self-absorbed teens writing about how they have life all-figured out, then we have an agreement. There are great modern arts though, Lucien Freud, Paula Rego, and even Mark Rothko (technically abstract exp., but I'd choose him to represent modern art then Koons all day). Don't get me wrong--I love art. I even enjoy looking at modern art while I walk around a museum, scroll through website galleries, etc... I even find some of their messages interesting and meaningful. However--I still hate modern art. Me enjoying a piece every now and then will not quell my hatred of it. I do wish my hatred of it made me stop going to galleries... I completely understand you. I manage a small gallery myself and have been with the art "business" for a while. For me modern art is where it should be, but I think we need to sift through the garbage from the true art. Koons and Hirst and the absolute representatives of what is bad about modern art. But for every Michael Jackson and Bubbles (Koons), there is Rothko's almost religious red squares, and for every Mother and Child (Hirst) there is Rego's women. I find your comment interesting for a couple of reasons. Specifically you hold an opinion on what is "true" art based on your comparison comments, yet also recognize you're in the art "business." I would infer that you host art in your gallery that you don't perceive as quality to some degree mainly because you recognize the monetary incentive in doing so. My question is where is the defining line between the two types? An easier way to conceptualize the question would be asking about the artistic merit between someone like Chopin and Miley Cyrus. I emphasize that I pose it as a question, because I feel it ultimately boils down to opinion on the matter.
I used the term "business" for convenience, and since a majority of the task I do is curatorial and management. But yes, my background is in art theory and history, so I tend to favor a certain aesthetics over the other. I am not familiar with Miley Cyrus as a musician so there will be no credit on my comment to her artistic credit. I know her only as a media personality. However, I can elaborate on Koons in the interest of our discussion. I have no problem with Koons' approach to manufacture art, what I find revolting, and ultimately disserving modern art where there are other truly greats, is him trying to philosophize his work as a critical commentary on philosophy or religion. I have even heard him say in one of his interviews on MichaeL Jackson and Bubbles that it is supposed to summon religious gravity, in the sense that Renaissance art of religious patronship, and even of religious significance. Now, I don't think the Renaissance is the best artistic period in human history, but what is problematic in his self-appreciation of his work is that it exists in a vacuum of deceit and conceit. It might have been enough had he described it as the absolute material nature and folly of modern society, but to elevate its significance beyond pop or kitsch to the level of Pieta is offending. I don't mind art of any kind, any expression is good for me, But certainly, there are art that speak more truths and beauty than others. Just as there are good art and bad art.
|
On May 11 2012 13:30 Marou wrote:Also another thing that bothers me with modern arts is the commercial side, what shocked me is that some pieces are in auction house before they are finished. They are already priced several thousands of dollars (if not more) and yet they are not even done, nobody has ever saw it. They are expensive just because it's a big name making the piece and this is just nonsense. Also, nice OP
While I'm not saying you're in the wrong for this phenomenon to bother you, think about it in another way. Louis Vutton is about to release some new bag of some sort, but no one has seen what it looks like yet. Would you be surprised if people were ready to plop down thousands of dollars on that bag before they see what it looked like?
|
MBW is the tool who Banksy inspired to make his shitty art. The first 2 pieces of art were actually cool though, made me reconsider modern art actually
|
On May 11 2012 13:36 oldgregg wrote:
MBW is the tool who Banksy inspired to make his shitty art. The first three pieces of art were actually cool though, made me reconsider modern art actually
And Banksy regrets every single day he had of knowing MBW.
|
On May 11 2012 13:30 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 13:14 Oiseaux wrote:On May 11 2012 13:05 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:On May 11 2012 12:59 lorkac wrote:On May 11 2012 12:47 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:On May 11 2012 12:42 lorkac wrote:Modern makes me want to stab my eye with a spoon terran. It forsakes art as act of creation and simply attempt to make essays out of pictures. The piece becomes impossible to appreciate within its own merits and one has to contextualize it with very specific and very time chained anchors. Count me as one of those who will, most likely, forever hate "modern art." + Show Spoiler +Really it's just 20th Century art in general that I hate, as well as a lot of contemporary art as well. If you mean essays as those made by angry self-absorbed teens writing about how they have life all-figured out, then we have an agreement. There are great modern arts though, Lucien Freud, Paula Rego, and even Mark Rothko (technically abstract exp., but I'd choose him to represent modern art then Koons all day). Don't get me wrong--I love art. I even enjoy looking at modern art while I walk around a museum, scroll through website galleries, etc... I even find some of their messages interesting and meaningful. However--I still hate modern art. Me enjoying a piece every now and then will not quell my hatred of it. I do wish my hatred of it made me stop going to galleries... I completely understand you. I manage a small gallery myself and have been with the art "business" for a while. For me modern art is where it should be, but I think we need to sift through the garbage from the true art. Koons and Hirst and the absolute representatives of what is bad about modern art. But for every Michael Jackson and Bubbles (Koons), there is Rothko's almost religious red squares, and for every Mother and Child (Hirst) there is Rego's women. I find your comment interesting for a couple of reasons. Specifically you hold an opinion on what is "true" art based on your comparison comments, yet also recognize you're in the art "business." I would infer that you host art in your gallery that you don't perceive as quality to some degree mainly because you recognize the monetary incentive in doing so. My question is where is the defining line between the two types? An easier way to conceptualize the question would be asking about the artistic merit between someone like Chopin and Miley Cyrus. I emphasize that I pose it as a question, because I feel it ultimately boils down to opinion on the matter. I used the term "business" for convenience, and since a majority of the task I do is curatorial and management. But yes, my background is in art theory and history, so I tend to favor a certain aesthetics over the other. I am not familiar with Miley Cyrus as a musician so there will be no credit on my comment to her artistic credit. I know her only as a media personality. However, I can elaborate on Koons in the interest of our discussion. I have no problem with Koons' approach to manufacture art, what I find revolting, and ultimately disserving modern art where there are other truly greats, is him trying to philosophize his work as a critical commentary on philosophy or religion. I have even heard him say in one of his interviews on MichaeL Jackson and Bubbles that it is supposed to summon religious gravity, in the sense that Renaissance art of religious patronship, and even of religious significance. Now, I don't think the Renaissance is the best artistic period in human history, but what is problematic in his self-appreciation of his work is that it exists in a vacuum of deceit and conceit. It might have been enough had he described it as the absolute material nature and folly of modern society, but to elevate its significance beyond pop or kitsch to the level of Pieta is offending. I don't mind art of any kind, any expression is good for me, But certainly, there are art that speak more truths and beauty than others. Just as there are good art and bad art.
I think I understand where you're coming from. It immediately bring to mind a talk that my partner had gone to where the author of this text she really enjoyed came to her campus to give a talk. Every analytic meaning and value she holds in that text was completely undermined by what the author's opinion was about it. Authorial intent is not the end-all to a text. A text is ultimately what you extrapolate and make of it (with art very much so being a text as well). Even if an artist hold some obnoxious conceited notion of what their art means to society, it is ultimately society that inscribes what that message and meaning is.
|
Don't use Hirst and Koons as decent examples of modern art. Both are terribly commercial and kitschy.
Hirst's 'crystal skull' is the best example of this. An incredibly obvious, gaudy, and completely tasteless piece. The 'asking price' was 50 million but apparently no one wanted it.
|
On May 11 2012 13:55 inky wrote:
Don't use Hirst and Koons as decent examples of modern art. Both are terribly commercial and kitschy.
Hirst's 'crystal skull' is the best example of this. An incredibly obvious, gaudy, and completely tasteless piece. The 'asking price' was 50 million but apparently no one wanted it.
After everything I've posted in this thread, I will agree that Hirst is a total chode btw.
|
On May 11 2012 13:55 inky wrote:
Don't use Hirst and Koons as decent examples of modern art. Both are terribly commercial and kitschy.
Hirst's 'crystal skull' is the best example of this. An incredibly obvious, gaudy, and completely tasteless piece. The 'asking price' was 50 million but apparently no one wanted it.
Ah yes, forgot to mention that. The price of all these modern art is really what makes them impossibly absolutely abominable. The gap between artistic merit and price could not be bigger.
|
On May 11 2012 13:46 Gesamtkunstwerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 13:36 oldgregg wrote:
MBW is the tool who Banksy inspired to make his shitty art. The first three pieces of art were actually cool though, made me reconsider modern art actually And Banksy regrets every single day he had of knowing MBW.
haha yup, totally hijacked his documentary too!
|
Yeah, I kind of thought Mr. Brainwash was Banksy's own admission that the art world is 100% full of ****, and that just as the saying goes, literally anyone can do this stuff.
Banksy's art I do like, in the classical sense. How could anyone not like his holes of paradise on the Israeli wall? That's just beautiful stuff, with a clear message. That's about as far as my love for modern art goes, however.
|
On May 11 2012 14:17 Leporello wrote:
Yeah, I kind of thought Mr. Brainwash was Banksy's own admission that the art world is 100% full of ****, and that just as the saying goes, literally anyone can do this stuff.
Banksy's art I do like, in the classical sense. How could anyone not like his holes of paradise on the Israeli wall? That's just beautiful stuff, with a clear message. That's about as far as my love for modern art goes, however.
agreed. street art is the true 'modern' art
|
i generally hate modern art (there are some very good ones though) because of how pretentious it is.
i can't stand when people talk about how "deep" an artwork is, or when they try to make it seem highly intellectual.
|
Is this the part where I act like a cool kid and hate on modernity because its evolutionary abstraction gutted and stripped the pretentious and inneficient art and artists of past?
|
United States4796 Posts
I like modern art. Malevich. Ellsworth Kelly.
I'm also a street art kid.
I feel like modern art doesn't have to be seen as elitist and deep. As long as you think it looks interesting, as simple as it is (just a black canvas on white space), enjoy it. If you don't like it that's okay. I like seeing that giant black canvas in the gallery. That doesn't mean I have superior taste or a better understanding of art. I just like the way it's composed.
I could be wrong. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.susanolmetti.com/brian-abstracts/maines-abstract-art.jpg)
