Whats with modern art?

[Revoltingest]

The music toward the end of Full Metal Jacket works perfectly despite being weird as hell. Disturbing scene.

Now that's what I'm talk'n 'bout!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The music toward the end of Full Metal Jacket works perfectly despite being weird as hell.
Disturbing scene.

Watching the girl die in slow motion reminded me of the line from Elton John's song "Ticking":
You danced in death like a marionette,
On the vengeance of the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, sometimes the classics are best....

[youtube]qnPGDWD_oLE[/youtube]
YouTube - The Simpsons - Space Chips

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The problem with what is broadly considered as "modern" art, is that it is generally just an outlet for untalented "creative" people to feel like they can be visual artists. Making good modern art still requires an eye for, and understanding of, the various components of what makes visual art appealing - an attribute severely lacking in many people who like to call themselves artists.

 

[YmirGF]

The problem with what is broadly considered as "modern" art, is that it is generally just an outlet for untalented "creative" people to feel like they can be visual artists. Making good modern art still requires an eye for, and understanding of, the various components of what makes visual art appealing - an attribute severely lacking in many people who like to call themselves artists.

Agreed. I consider much "modern art" to be crap that snooty artsy fartsy types attempt to tell me is fantastic, on so many levels, and yet, deep down inside, I know my cat could barf up the same - or better - mess.

 

[Magic Man]

The problem with what is broadly considered as "modern" art, is that it is generally just an outlet for untalented "creative" people to feel like they can be visual artists. Making good modern art still requires an eye for, and understanding of, the various components of what makes visual art appealing - an attribute severely lacking in many people who like to call themselves artists.

Agreed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed. I consider much "modern art" to be crap that snooty artsy fartsy types attempt to tell me is fantastic, on so many levels, and yet, deep down inside, I know my cat could barf up the same - or better - mess.

But your cat will never get a NEA grant.

 

[YmirGF]

But your cat will never get a NEA grant.

Well I am already petitioning the government to allow me to study how climate change affects the frequency of hairballs, so I'll get around to the NEA grant when that is decided.

 

[dust1n]

I take it there a lot of Jackson Pollock non-fans in this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

I take it there a lot of Jackson Pollock non-fans in this thread.

My cats enjoy emulating his art, but they work with a different medium - puke on carpeting.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I take it there a lot of Jackson Pollock non-fans in this thread.

I had never heard of Jackson Pollock (no big surprise there), so I had to Google up his work.

Take a look at this:

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I have to confess - the painting I posted was actually the work of an elephant:
elephant painting - Google Search

Mind you, I'm not saying either of these is bad. I'm just saying that there is a similarity.

 

[Revoltingest]

liked this one.

 

[Smoke]

I take it there a lot of Jackson Pollock non-fans in this thread.

I love Jackson Pollock, but I'll admit that his "pour and drip" paintings aren't my favorites.

Blue Poles: Number II (1952)

Number Seven, 1951

Composition With Oval Forms (ca. 1934-38)

Going West (ca. 1934-35)

 

[tomato1236]

It feels great to create it sometimes, just because you have no expectation to meet or standard of quality to measure up to. It's like singing tone-deaf in the shower. But you can't expect anyone to want to listen to you sing in the shower, and I never expect other people to appreciate the results of my painting. Realism is where it's at.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I take it there a lot of Jackson Pollock non-fans in this thread.

Or experimental music. Or in dance such "oddities" such as Doris Humphrey, Hanya Holm, or Martha Graham.

Van Gogh, Mozart, and Balanchine aren't the only artists in their respective fields.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't get it, it dosn't seem like art to me, well I saw one piece (that was a woman pulling a poem out of her vagina and reading it) that stuck a bit of a nerve with me, but the rest is just so boring.
What ever happened to the style of the renissiance?
What ever happened to Gothic architecture?
We should employ these again in my oppinion.

The Renaissance and Gothic architecture are still there. New art adds to these things; it doesn't supplant them. They're still there.

However, I've never experienced the feeling that I did when I walked into the main atrium of the Eaton Centre during Nuit Blanche Toronto and saw a giant, shimmering silver, inflatable rabbit floating over my head.

Modern art doesn't do the all same things that Renaissance art did, but Renaissance art doesn't do all the same things that modern art can do. There's a place for both.

Previous generations learnt the skill and techniques of their art before they tried to push the boundaries.
To day that effort and search for knowledge is not though worthwhile, and only the boundaries are important.

The art world has for the first time in history, separated itself from the common man.

Funny, I think the exact opposite. I see much more of an attempt these days to connect the people with art than has occurred in the past. Moderately wealthy and educated members of the bourgeoisie have had good access to art in the past, but in terms of the actual common people, I think the connection between art and the people has never been stronger.

Take something like Nuit Blanche - at any time in the past, has there been such a deliberate, explicit reaching out to pull people into the world of art.

Also, I think that new technologies have connected people with art in ways that were never even thought possible. Through the internet, I can personally see every great painting, hear every great symphony, and read every great novel ever written. I can go to any mall and buy inexpensive, but still high quality, reproductions of all sorts of important works. A few centuries ago, a person would've had to go to France to see the Mona Lisa. Now, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who hasn't seen it.

Historically, the common man or woman's main exposure to art would've been through their church. Now, they're literally surrounded by art... while they still have the same opportunity to see the art in their places of worship that they always had.

 

[Magic Man]

I think the main thing about modern art is that, while I won't say that people shouldn't just make whatever art they want to, I don't think a lot of it should really be considered art worthy of being displayed in museums. People are more than welcome to paint shapes on a canvas or splash paint on things or whatever. I just wouldn't consider it all art.

 

[Magic Man]

Funny, I think the exact opposite. I see much more of an attempt these days to connect the people with art than has occurred in the past. Moderately wealthy and educated members of the bourgeoisie have had good access to art in the past, but in terms of the actual common people, I think the connection between art and the people has never been stronger.

Take something like Nuit Blanche - at any time in the past, has there been such a deliberate, explicit reaching out to pull people into the world of art.

Also, I think that new technologies have connected people with art in ways that were never even thought possible. Through the internet, I can personally see every great painting, hear every great symphony, and read every great novel ever written. I can go to any mall and buy inexpensive, but still high quality, reproductions of all sorts of important works. A few centuries ago, a person would've had to go to France to see the Mona Lisa. Now, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who hasn't seen it.

Historically, the common man or woman's main exposure to art would've been through their church. Now, they're literally surrounded by art... while they still have the same opportunity to see the art in their places of worship that they always had.

I won't speak for Terry, but I think the difference is that some of the modern art we see, despite our having access to so much art from past centuries, doesn't have the same artistic value some others do. In past eras, artists took the time to study different methods and their paintings and art reflected that. Much of the modern art doesn't make me think the artists took the time to learn about different methods.

 

[MissAlice]

Art is art no matter where you go or what you see. It's an expression of many things including those that may not be so asethetically pleasing.

Yes I'll admit there are some modern art that won't move me but that doesn't mean it will move others. You just have to move around and look around. I find some incredible art outside the trailers of my own neighborhood.