Poll: Why, Modern Art? Why?

[Johnn Johnston]

Let's get something out of the way first. I'm not a fan of modern art. Don't take it personally if you are a fan yourself, but it would probably be best for you to skip to the last paragraph here.

Recently, I decided to go to the Tate Modern gallery in London. "Now," I thought to myself, "this would be a great time for me to restore my faith in modern art, after my trip to the Modern Art museum in Venice, Italy tore it to formaldehyde-saturated chunks." I wandered in, and took a look around. Suffice to say from my opening lines, it took those chunks and fed them through a shredder made of disdainful thoughts. I like my art in the classical style. I like Monet and Da Vinci. I like DeGas and Van Gogh. What I don't like, however, is something obscure such as a bird nailed to a wall. If you go to the Tate Modern, relax. You won't find that there. What you will find are three stuffed birds attached to the wall with arrows, next to a basic drawing of a house - fifteen lines at most. Some of the items do not even begin to qualify as "art". Yes, they have no purpose except for their own existence, but so does a Jeffery Archer book and I won't go near that unless I was paid twice my weight (what can I say, I'm a thin guy) in gold. Art, for me, needs to be a respresentation of a scene or mental image. I admit that I'm partial to a bit of abstract art, or perhaps some cubism, but as I wandered through the Venice Museum and saw a cow cut up vertically into half-foot long sections I failed to find anything that even vaguely qualified as such. There was, instead, a wall made of mirrors and pills, and a repeating out-of-sync video of a woman in a clown suit and face paint apologising.

When one of the artworks on show is named "Genital Panic", I can't say that I have a particularly high expectation. The room containing that piece also consisted of photos of maimed limbs and plaster casts. "Oh," I hear you cry, "plaster casts can be brilliant pieces of sculpture!" Well, I fully agree with you, but when it is a plaster cast of the maker's, shall I say, bathing suit area and streaked with his own blood, it loses much of its appeal. Another was literally this: a stack of bricks.
[img_inline caption="Modern Art: Clearly Serious Business." width=250 height=400 align=left]http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue7/images/carlandre_equivalentviii.jpg[/img_inline]
This was on display as art. To paraphrase the great surrealist Magritte, ce n'est pas le dessin (correct me if I'm wrong, my French is a little rusty). It is just someone making a bit of a mess on a piece of canvas and selling it off for several million. I'm sure that some of you have heard that Damien Hirst, the British modern artist, has made £100 Million in one auction after selling off some of his pickled animals. To his credit, he did saw off the hooves of a pig and replace them with gold replicas, but a pickled pig is still a pickled pig, regardless of the smile put on its face by the purported artist. Some works hardly even qualify as abstract. [img_inline caption="Clearly Serious Business Indeed." align=right width=200 height=200]http://jonnyopinion.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/a-jackson-pollock-painting.jpeg[/img_inline] They look like nothing and are merely dribbles of paint of a canvas, yet they still fetch several hundred grand and are snapped up by the rich, famous and naive. In the Tate Modern, they have the remnants of an artwork which was just a crack painted in the floor. One celebrated exhibition had a man in a bear suit running about as one of the main attraction. The final travesty is that some of the Turner Prize finalists/winners have included an unmade bed and an amphibious shed.

So, all rants out of my system, I pose a question for you for some discussion. Do you think "Modern Art" qualifies as art? Please elaborate on your opinion, if you would. If you disagree, please explain how it fails to meet your criteria, and if you agree, explain how it does.

 

[internutt]

Modern art to me is nothing but a mess. When a urinal sells for 30k you know someone is out there easily manipulating the masses. A URINAL! How can that be 'art'?

What ever happened to landscapes and self portraits? Is there something wrong with them? Or does the modern in modern art really mean, a lazier generation?

 

[Sir_Montague]

It is an individual's expression of themselves. It is creative to an extent, and fosters thoughts and imagination in the minds of others. However, sometimes it fails to connect on many levels... And is wasted expression on the masses. Sometimes, it's just plain ridiculous, just like many games released these days as well...

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Do you think "Modern Art" qualifies as art? Please elaborate on your opinion, if you would. If you disagree, please explain how it fails to meet your criteria, and if you agree, explain how it does.

Yes and no. Oxymoronic answer out of the way, allow me to explain.

Modern art is not all paint dribbles and dogs tied to posts. I've seen a piece where a man created a giant, functioning fan out of cheap fabric, a broken leaf-blower's engine, and some chicken wire. It was a giant, slow-moving cloth fan, but it actually worked. As such, it qualified as modern art, and I genuinely liked it.

Optionally, I also saw a series of a series white cloth strips in various shades of dirty. It was an art student project, and most that fit into "modern" were random jumbles, but there were a few that really did a good job of conveying emotion and purpose. Most were weak, but one hit home very well, for which I was surprised. To be fair, they conveyed bondage, which did do well with the clinical-white-on-disheveled-dirt-brown. I generally liked those that did well.

So, I'm going to say "It depends." There's a lot that could be done with it, especially if you're more creative with the medium. But if you simply leave the insanity with artistic license, something devoid of artistic meaning and effort shouldn't simply be called art.

Ultimately, though, you're right to say modern art is kinda screwy. It's insanity conveyed in a weird way, mislabeled art, and sold for millions. Frankly, that's no more or less art than this [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Jet_engine_(PSF).png/800px-Jet_engine_(PSF).png].

 

[Shivari]

Modern art to me is nothing but a mess. When a urinal sells for 30k you know someone is out there easily manipulating the masses. A URINAL! How can that be 'art'?

I know some artist once put a toilet on display to symbolize how art was going down the drain. Now, you would not think of that when you first saw it, but it does have something behind it. If the art can't accurately get its emotion or whatever it's trying to say, it's not a successful piece of art. It's still art, but not good art.

I prefer the ancient civilization art in art museums though. I feel like I'm learning something and it's genuinely interesting. The number one reason I hated the Smithsonian art museum in DC was because every painting was "Oh look a rich merchant", "A rich merchants wife", "There's a rich woman with a dog on the side". I don't care if it's done well, I don't care about some rich person from 1578.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

So, I'm going to say "It depends." There's a lot that could be done with it, especially if you're more creative with the medium. But if you simply leave the insanity with artistic license, something devoid of artistic meaning and effort shouldn't simply be called art.

Oh, of course. I've seen a few modern art pieces that have the ingenuity to really pique my interest and gain my approval, although they are in the minority. It's a shame, as they perfectly portray the potential that modern art has.

I can appreciate that certain people may have no interest in attempting to engage with certain artists but the suggestion that something beyond our understanding is "not art" is dangerous & regressive.

Those that really do mean something are fine by me as well; I enjoy art (or anything, for that matter) that provokes intelluctual thought. Unfortunately, those works of modern art that really do provoke that are in the minority. Sadly, I've seen many an artwork that meant nothing, such as the out-of-sync apologising clown.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Modern art? I feel as a whole its a good new medium for expression. Examples of modern art I like include pictures made using different colour bottles (can you tell i'm at uni? ), self creating art and self destroying art (eg the piece where a polystyrene block had acid poured on it so as the acid ate through it new shapes and forms were continualy created and destroyed-hope I explained that right). There is a lot of "art" that hides under the term modern art however (like your genital panic exmaple) that in my opinion need not have been made.

 

[Maet]

Of course modern art looks silly if you take it out of context and make no attempt to understand the motivation behind it. You could say, "Oh it's just a urinal," but that's totally missing the point.

Art shouldn't require a context to be effective.

My high school philosophy class had a debate on modern art. Instead of voicing my opinions, I demonstrated them. I walked to the front of the class, flipped one desk on top of another, put my empty Cream Soda can on the floor underneath the two desks, and said "it's a depiction of my teenage angst with regards to ambivalent politics and the crumbling social order. I'll start the bidding at $500,000."

edit -- I forgot to mention this, but excellent rant.

 

[broadband]

well i consider mysef someone of simple tastes, soetimes i prefer see a nicely drawn fanart of my favorite anime character than some painting that was madeby just throwing buckets of paint thats suposed to have some deep meaning.

EDIT:

I walked to the front of the class, flipped one desk on top of another, put my empty Cream Soda can on the floor underneath the two desks, and said "it's a depiction of my teenage angst with regards to ambivalent politics and the crumbling social order. I'll start the bidding at $500,000."

hahah thats just something that should have been recorded.

 

[meatloaf231]

I heard about these guys in New York (I think) who took metal bits/garbage and put them in clear plastic cubes, selling them as novelty paperweights for five dollars or so. They realized that if they called it art, it would sell for 50-100 dollars. Well, they did.

I don't know if that's accurate, but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

Art shouldn't require a context to be effective.

I suppose this is where we differ. For me context is hugely important in determining the worth of any art.

Consider an obvious example: Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Taken as a individual work of literature it's pretty uninteresting. Ol' George's opposition to big government was certainly nothing new at the time and plenty of people have made a better case against "Big Brother" (even if he did coin the term). What makes it a worthwhile read is the insight it gives us into the hysterical sense of post-war paranoia felt by many people at the time, Orwell included.

That's my view, anyway.

I feel that while art can have a context, it should not orbit around one. Using your example, Nineteen-Eighty-Four can be a good read when you don't use the context, but the context enhances it. I feel the same should apply for art - feel free to add a context, but do not try to make the context be the heart of the art.

 

[Maet]

I feel that while art can have a context, it should not orbit around one. Using your example, Nineteen-Eighty-Four can be a good read when you don't use the context, but the context enhances it. I feel the same should apply for art - feel free to add a context, but do not try to make the context be the heart of the art.

That's basically what I would've said. Saying that the context and immediate relevance of a piece compensates for any of its deficiencies is something I don't agree with.

When it comes to my tastes, I'm more a fan of art that embodies timeless qualities. I prefer books, movies, paintings, sculptures and songs that aren't stuck in the moment.

 

[The Iron Ninja]

As a general rule I have no patience for modern art.
If it's not a picture of something I can recognise, like say... A cow. Then I have no interest in it.
I prefer paintings that actually took along time to paint, in order to capture what they were painting looks like properly and in detail.
Not some squigily blue lines on a white canvas accompanied by the words "Raging Sea?" or some weird shit like that.

 

[Alex_P]

Art shouldn't require a context to be effective.

Communication is impossible without shared context. For fine art, the whole museum is part of the context.

Would the Mona Lisa be special if it was produced today?

-- Alex

 

[Johnn Johnston]

Not some squigily blue lines on a white canvas accompanied by the words "Raging Sea?" or some weird shit like that.

How about a piece from the Tate Modern which was a few squiggily beige lines on a black canvas accompanied by "Une Étoile caresse le sein d'une négresse" (French for "A star caresses the breast of a nigress")?

 

[DC_Josh]

I define artwork as a picture of somthing that i can enjoy. Take for example the artwork present on many fantasy book covers these days. It took time to do and i can appreciate it. However modern art, like aformentioned "urinal" appears to me to be more like a poem. Its obvious meaning supllanted by the projected meaning of your own personal self.

But 100 million for pickled animal bits? Maybe i should shit in a bag and see if i can get on the forbes rich list...

 

[The Iron Ninja]

Not some squigily blue lines on a white canvas accompanied by the words "Raging Sea?" or some weird shit like that.

How about a piece from the Tate Modern which was a few squiggily beige lines on a black canvas accompanied by "Une Étoile caresse le sein d'une négresse" (French for "A star caresses the breast of a nigress")?

Yeah that too.

 

[Jobz]

I personally don't like the term modern art to describe these paint splatters and brick piles that some random guy with a overly European sounding name and a pencil mustache (Steriotyping, I know) tries to pass off as "conveying emotion".

It seems to suggest that any art made in modern times is nonsense or requires no talent to create (Which really, modern art does not.) I've seen pictures sold for millions of dollars that my dog could have painted, and my dog has three legs. Plus he's been dead for well over two years. And he was the runt of the litter. Anyway, enough of that. My friends and I do have an ongoing joke that if we make a mess, break something or do something else that looks odd/makes no sense and someone asks about it we simply tell them it's modern art. I get a chuckle out of it.

Anyway, if we're in a time when a South American man can tie a dog to a poll, not feed it and call it art...I think we have a bit of a problem. (True story, guy's name is Guillermo Vargas)

 

[mark_n_b]

"modern" art as you are calling it may be better defined as art you don't
1. like

or

2. understand

Question, is Picasso's "Guernica" art? It looks like a hot mess drawn by a four year old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_painting

Now, you seem to offer up an understanding of art that makes me wonder why I make this point. But art is about the message it conveys and how it chooses to convey that message. Not necessarily the materials or techniques used in the construction of the piece.

The difference between an artist slapping paint on a canvas and you doing it is that the artists is constructing something that is designed to make social commentary. The artist is using colour balance, white space, specific materials to achieve a specific technique.

I will note tossing out names like Monet and Van Gogh causes you to come off as someone who only looks to the message and talent in non-realism styled forms only if the artist was around in the 1920's or earlier. Which is a kind of snobbery worthy of the rich people who dump several thousands into a piece for little other reason than to say they are therefore connoisseurs of the arts.

For the record, I am a great fan of Cubism and therefore admire Picasso an all his work.

 

[DC_Josh]

I am informed by my artist-girlfriend that the term "contempory art" is preferred over modern art, since modern art was a movement some time ago.

As with anything you can attach contempory to a subject and it automaticly gains +5 pretentiousness.