Whats with modern art?

[Yerda]

I think like a good book, a painting or other form of art should be judged on how it makes you feel and how (and what) it provokes you to think. Some of Jackson Pollock's mental, mushy, splodgy, drippy efforts do really grab me. Mona Lisa does not. Modern art hits the spot sometimes, man, and the classic stuff sometimes leaves me bored.

 

[Smoke]

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.

I don't think anybody does. But Pollock wasn't just some guy who went out in the garage and started splashing paint around. In fact, if you try to re-create what he did in those "pour and drip" paintings, you'll see it's not as easy as it looks. I'll admit they aren't much to my liking. I like his Composition With Oval Forms much better. But that's just a matter of taste. I don't usually care much for Gothic architecture, either.

 

[dust1n]

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

Blue Poles: Number II (1952)

It isn't that particularly pleasing to me neither.. I mean, I like it.. it's definitely hang worthy. But, like I was mentioning earlier, the digital glass really ruins it. That painting is feet long and in person you would be able to really discern the contrast of colors and the thickness of the paint. Paint is really 3D, after all.

 

[dust1n]

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.

I guess some don't people just don't like innovation and creativity.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I guess some don't people just don't like innovation and creativity.

To date, my own most critically acclaimed piece was one about addiction. It was set to the music of Meredith Monk, which gave an even more twisted, haunting, and disturbing quality to the finished work. It was ugly, and honestly I hate it because it thrusts a metaphorical mirror in my face and exposes all that is ugly in me. But that's kind of what I was trying to accomplish.

It went on the road and was presented in front of tens of thousands of people back in the '90s. I was approached by a lot of critics who loved loved LOVED that piece, but the casual dance audience hated it because they thought it was trash ("what crap....*I* could have choreographed that dance. It wasn't even DANCE!") Let's just say that it was the more emotionally provocative pieces that the audience had seen, and that I was very successful in expressing what I wanted and crafting it effectively.

Sad thing is, since then it seems as if that was my creative peak. :sad:

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It isn't that particularly pleasing to me neither.. I mean, I like it.. it's definitely hang worthy. But, like I was mentioning earlier, the digital glass really ruins it. That painting is feet long and in person you would be able to really discern the contrast of colors and the thickness of the paint. Paint is really 3D, after all.

Not only should paints be viewed in a gallery, but theatre and dance ought to be experienced live. Film art is it's own genre, and sometimes can capture the connection between the artist and the audience in theatre and dance, but most of the time if there's a camera in rehearsals or performances, it's best left for archival footage.

 

[Revoltingest]

To date, my own most critically acclaimed piece was one about addiction. It was set to the music of Meredith Monk, which gave an even more twisted, haunting, and disturbing quality to the finished work. It was ugly, and honestly I hate it because it thrusts a metaphorical mirror in my face and exposes all that is ugly in me. But that's kind of what I was trying to accomplish.

It's good that people like you are bringing such art to dolts like me. It's also good that I can skip
such meaningful performances, & instead go watch a movie with lots of exploding heads.

 

[silvermoon383]

I'd like to why literally throwing paint at a canvas is worth thousands of dollars. It takes no effort, anyone can do it, but if I try it I'll get tossed out of an art gallery on my ***.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It's good that people like you are bringing such art to dolts like me. It's also good that I can skip
such meaningful performances, & instead go watch a movie with lots of exploding heads.

Awww dude, what if it were slow-motion exploding heads set to Debussy's "Clair de lune"?

But to be rather tangential, I'm totally into zombie apocaplyse movies, myself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Awww dude, what if it were slow-motion exploding heads set to Debussy's "Clair de lune"?

Kinda reminds me of A Clockwork Orange....to viddy the red red krovy flow to Beethoven's 9th. I'm open to it.

But to be rather tangential, I'm totally into zombie apocaplyse movies, myself.

I have an exploding head index for rating movies. David Cronenberg's Scanners was the impetus for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'd like to why literally throwing paint at a canvas is worth thousands of dollars. It takes no effort, anyone can do it, but if I try it I'll get tossed out of an art gallery on my ***.

Go ahead. Try it.

Here's a dance example of how something very intricately woven "throwing around" movements can be pulled off into something engaging and beautifully macabre (of course I have to put in some Mia Michaels, lol):

[youtube]yoOsE9385uA[/youtube]
YouTube - The Dance - Mia Michaels Contemporary (Top 16)

These dancers are breaking a LOT of rules in the more traditional ballet technique. Where are the turnouts? Where is the lift or loftiness in their movement quality? Why is their focus so haphazard?

I like to tell people when they see a dance that seems to be nothing but rolling around on the floor to go ahead and try it, and see for themselves how "easy" it is. Then try to roll on the floor with a sense of precision and expression. Many times, I'm still waiting for somebody to show me up on that challenge.