PDA

View Full Version : I hate modern art.


Calorie Mate
06-16-2007, 07:18 PM
Seriously, it sucks.

Healy
06-16-2007, 07:20 PM
That's all you could be bothered to say about it?

But yeah, I don't really like modern art either.

philliam
06-16-2007, 07:22 PM
oh god no

no no no no no no

Trent Dole
06-16-2007, 10:25 PM
Modern art make me want to rock out.

VsRobot
06-16-2007, 10:58 PM
I like pop art, underground art, outsider art, and pictures of fat butts.

Armored Robo Zaza Gabor
06-16-2007, 11:24 PM
Modern (http://www.cloaca.be/) art (http://www.cloaca.be/asseen.htm) is (http://www.loureed.org/) awesome (http://www.rogerdean.com/).

tungwene
06-16-2007, 11:46 PM
You only think it sucks because you didn't read the fifty pager thesis explaining what the piece was about.

alexb
06-17-2007, 12:05 AM
That's a broad statement and you've opened yourself up widely to attack. But not by me. Roy Lichtenstein ain't bad, but I have no use for Pollock, Rothko, De Kooning, or Warhol. Perhaps I don't get their work. But it doesn't say anything to me. A lot of modern art is critics and the artist explaining what their work supposedly means. I'm inclined to believe a lot of what's said is puffed up bullshit. Constructivism, I get. Cubism, sure. Dada, yeah. Some that was pretty dumb, but I at least see where they were coming from. But a lot of the stuff from the fifties forward seems to me to be a case of the emperor having no clothes.

I mean, what the fuck am I supposed to be seeing in a Pollock? I'm not saying there wasn't technique to his work that couldn't be reproduced by any alley dwelling drunk, but what's the content? How exactly am I supposed to interpret it without having him or some puffed up, jargon spewing critic take me by the hand and tell me what everything supposedly means. So called art completely removed from the context of history is of little use to me. How do you know he wasn't completely talking out of his ass? Besides, he was an asshole. Fucker killed himself and two women driving drunk. Selfish prick. I won't completely separate the artist and the art. Sue me. I can't listen to Wagner without thinking about what a bastard he was, either.

More than the individual works themselves, what I hate about modern art is all the bullshit they've injected into the popular imagination and critical discourse. This idea of the artist, this cliché of the stuck up, chain-smoking bastard in all black with the weird hair cut, somehow defining reality with fingerpaint on a dead crow nailed to a board. Pieces that say nothing to almost everyone that sell for millions of dollars. It's all a complete turn off. Is a little bit of populism in the arts such a bad thing? Maybe it would be easier to fund the arts if most people weren't led to believe that they're utter nonsense.

Healy
06-17-2007, 12:21 AM
That pretty much hits the nail on the head on why I don't enjoy modern art-- the not-understanding-much-of-it part, anyway. It seems like almost all the artists nowadays (well, from the fifties to present, anyway) speak their own little language that can only be understood by someone with degrees in Advanced Quigian Philosophy, The Effects of American Pop Culture on Bolshevik Peas, History of Governments on Mars and Qwrtsdytrhjklpdv, to name some (fake) hypothetical examples.

Then again, I've got some mental issues, so part of that could be me.

Excitemike
06-17-2007, 12:28 AM
How do you feel about modern love? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=vF3SBrLrgmE)

Armored Robo Zaza Gabor
06-17-2007, 12:37 AM
"How can anybody learn anything from an artwork when the piece of art only reflects the vanity of the artist and not reality?"



NOTE: Quote is from Lou Reed, not quoted from a post by Lou Reed who is not yet a member of the boards. Yet.

Healy
06-17-2007, 12:50 AM
How do you feel about modern love? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=vF3SBrLrgmE)

What period of Bowie is that from?

Armored Robo Zaza Gabor
06-17-2007, 12:55 AM
What period of Bowie is that from?

80's Bowie. From Let's Dance. Not his brightest moment. I still think Xenosaga's Ziggy should have been Ziggy Stardust, but I mean, literally singing the songs and using makeup and all (instead of all the religious stuff, etc.).

Excitemike
06-17-2007, 01:12 AM
What period of Bowie is that from?
I think that was from the period he was sleeping with Mick Jagger.
(guys, cocaine is not your friend)

Red Hedgehog
06-17-2007, 02:57 AM
I like modern art when it is aesthetically pleasing. Rothko, Pollack, Mondrian and others fulfill that. Shit in Jars and people displaying an old chair they found does not.

Sheana
06-17-2007, 03:53 AM
I think that was from the period he was sleeping with Mick Jagger.
(guys, cocaine is not your friend)

I sadly know enough about Bowie to correct that statement, probably at length, but this is a modern art thread.

And speaking of which, I'm not keen on what a lot of folks consider modern art. Slapping urine or meunstral blood on something, or cutting out pictures from porno rags and arranging them in a pattern, and then calling it art? Yeah no thanks.

Sanagi
06-17-2007, 04:14 AM
Never allow genre labels to get in the way of appreciating art.

nadia
06-17-2007, 08:12 AM
Damn, Modern Love and Let's Dance are two of my favourite Bowie songs.* What does that say about my appreciation for modern art?

Jesus Christ, this video. I grew up in this era. Surely this kind of exposure is more dangerous than all the lead-painted toys in the world put together.

*Also When the Wind Blows.

Calorie Mate
06-17-2007, 09:43 AM
That's a broad statement and you've opened yourself up widely to attack. But not by me. Roy Lichtenstein ain't bad, but I have no use for Pollock, Rothko, De Kooning, or Warhol. Perhaps I don't get their work. But it doesn't say anything to me. A lot of modern art is critics and the artist explaining what their work supposedly means. I'm inclined to believe a lot of what's said is puffed up bullshit. Constructivism, I get. Cubism, sure. Dada, yeah. Some that was pretty dumb, but I at least see where they were coming from. But a lot of the stuff from the fifties forward seems to me to be a case of the emperor having no clothes.

I mean, what the fuck am I supposed to be seeing in a Pollock? I'm not saying there wasn't technique to his work that couldn't be reproduced by any alley dwelling drunk, but what's the content? How exactly am I supposed to interpret it without having him or some puffed up, jargon spewing critic take me by the hand and tell me what everything supposedly means. So called art completely removed from the context of history is of little use to me. How do you know he wasn't completely talking out of his ass? Besides, he was an asshole.

Yeah, see, this is EXACTLY how I feel (I posted this after a visit to the US Museum of Modern Art in DC, which had a bunch of Warhols and, especially, Pollocks). I just didn't feel like typing out all that, because I knew somebody eventually would (although, you did it rather well, so my hat's off to you).

p.s. As for Bowie, I only like Ziggy and Hunky Dory.

tungwene
06-17-2007, 10:47 AM
No one seems to realize I was making a Banksy (http://www.picturesonwalls.com/Art_Artists.asp?Artist=Banksy&Offset=0&PageNo=1) quote. This in turn makes me a sad panda.

sraymonds
06-17-2007, 10:56 AM
I like Bowie, yet I have none of his songs.

But what about Modern Talking? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ect3VoEUJn8)

nadia
06-17-2007, 11:07 AM
I mean, what the fuck am I supposed to be seeing in a Pollock?

My first reaction upon seeing Pollock's "She-Wolf" was, "Is something wrong with his eyesight?"

philliam
06-17-2007, 11:15 AM
all of you are faggots

alexb
06-17-2007, 11:24 AM
C-man, you should've put this in one of the non-flames forums. Parish, can you put this in creative endeavors forum? This is a pretty nice thread.

BEAT
06-17-2007, 11:28 AM
I am fine with people creating works of art in our point in history.

I just object to people going to town with a cow and a chainsaw, putting it in a glass box, slapping the label of "Art" on it, and then charging taxpayers one million billion dollars for it.

openedsource
06-17-2007, 11:42 AM
I am fine with people creating works of art in our point in history.

I just object to people going to town with a cow and a chainsaw, putting it in a glass box, slapping the label of "Art" on it, and then charging taxpayers one million billion dollars for it.

I think that might be contemporary art.

And artists charging taxpayers? That sounds like a governmental problem more than an art critique. I mean, I'm not a big fan of people denying scientific fact for things they read in a storybook, but it happens.

So, how does everyone feel then about postmodern art?

alexb
06-17-2007, 12:24 PM
What? Like Christo and Jeane-Claude? It's just the continuation of the least followable strains of Modern art, as far as I can see.

tungwene
06-17-2007, 12:24 PM
On second thought, I think just about everyone "got" the gist of the quote but sadly no one recognized it.

Anyway, I'm throwing in my more serious two cents here. I say if something can make your head turn and can evoke some kind of emotion, even if it's just rage that someone would pay several million dollars to hang a piece of shit on their wall, then that piece has successfully served its purpose.

There's something whimsical about walking into a museum room to find it filled with randomly placed floor to ceiling round concrete pillars covered with wallpaper with tree bark printed on it and speakers playing the sounds of leaves rustling in the wind and bird song. It was the liveliest room in the entire museum because there were all these kids running about, hiding behind the "trees", and randomly hugging them (and before you ask, yes, there was a sign in the room that said people were free to touch the exhibit).

One of the most memorable pieces I've seen was in the Chicago Museum of Contemporary Art, I think. It was a long piece of string hanging from the ceiling to the ground that then ran straight along the length of the room for a yard or two in the middle of a room that also had paintings on the walls. It was on the normal floor, without a raised platform underneath the part of string that touched the floor though there was a little placard screwed into the floor next to it with the name, artist, etc. It was amazing to watch people's different reactions to this piece. Since it was on the floor, some people crossing the middle of the room didn't notice the placard and would step right over the string on their way across. Others who saw the sign in time would have a "Oh crap this is supposed to be a display" look on their faces and would skirt around the piece of string making a lengthly detour to get across the room.

Art should engage the viewer, get a reaction out of them even if it's one of disgust. I don't think something's automatically superior just because it's depicting something "real". There's tons of classical paintings that don't do a thing for me. Who cares how anatomically correct these half-clothed gods and goddesses romping in a fake-looking idyllic countryside with trees that look like they were painted by some one who's never looked closely at a real tree in his entire life when I can't tell it apart from the half a dozen canvases of cavorting naked people in the same room. Who cares how realistic the people are if you can't make them stand out. Standing out and trying something different has its own risks because then you get the WTF is this shit reaction from people but if you don't step up and try you'll never know if what you create might actually be good.

alexb
06-17-2007, 12:59 PM
Art should engage the viewer, get a reaction out of them even if it's one of disgust. I don't think something's automatically superior just because it's depicting something "real". There's tons of classical paintings that don't do a thing for me. Who cares how anatomically correct these half-clothed gods and goddesses romping in a fake-looking idyllic countryside with trees that look like they were painted by some one who's never looked closely at a real tree in his entire life when I can't tell it apart from the half a dozen canvases of cavorting naked people in the same room. Who cares how realistic the people are if you can't make them stand out. Standing out and trying something different has its own risks because then you get the WTF is this shit reaction from people but if you don't step up and try you'll never know if what you create might actually be good.

The problem is that too often, the entire intent seems to be to get a rise out of the audience and nothing more. That's just shock for the sake of shock. That's fine once or twice, but so much of modern art seems to be making something that will make the Midwest say, "What the fuck?" and then feeling superior. I take issue with the entire idea that art has to be repugnant to be meaningful. The idea that, because you can't render the human form as well as Raphael or create the illusion of natural light on human skin like van Eyck, these things are not really art is just preening horseshit. Modern artists are by and large not as skilled as the old masters and I feel like a lot of what is said and done regarding this is attempting to deflect attention from that fact. Sometimes artists starve because they're poor artists. But sometimes poor artists can talk a good game and become rich beyond all imagining.

Wow, you bought millions of dollars of fabric and hired a team of workers to wrap the Reichstag with it. Oh boy, you stripped naked and read a feminist manifesto from a scroll you stuffed up your gash. I'm sick of shock art. Shock me with the beauty or self evident humanity of your work for once, instead of the absurdity or ugliness. I don't like Rococo, either. It's vapid ego stroking for the rich assholes of the period in which it was created. It's ugly, tedious, candy colored shit. I don't like the overwrought, canned emotion of 19th century Romantic works, either. Forcing a "proper" moral message into everything is mind numbing and insultingly didactic. I understand what they were reacting against. But if all they've achieved is making art navel gazing and unpleasant to look upon, I don't consider that an improvement.

Work doesn't have to be representational for me to enjoy it. I can appreciate the intrinsic beauty of the balance and rhythm of geometric forms and pure color in a Mondrian. One of my favorite paintings of the twentieth century is Guernica. I can read that. I respect the sentiment behind it and feel the sense of despair and loss the artist was trying to convey. But I find most modern art, or contemporary, or postmodern, or whatever you want to call it, to be vain and empty and self-aggrandizing.

openedsource
06-17-2007, 01:12 PM
But I find most modern art, or contemporary, or postmodern, or whatever you want to call it, to be vain and empty and self-aggrandizing.

But does that really represent most modern art? Or just the stuff that gets your attention? Because then that sounds like good marketing as much as an artistic ploy.

What about when someone like Banksy hangs his stuff in a "proper" museum (http://gothamist.com/2005/03/23/museum_shows_for_banksy.php)?

alexb
06-17-2007, 01:21 PM
But does that really represent most modern art? Or just the stuff that gets your attention? Because then that sounds like good marketing as much as an artistic ploy.

What about when someone like Banksy hangs his stuff in a "proper" museum (http://gothamist.com/2005/03/23/museum_shows_for_banksy.php)?

You're quite right. It's the people who make millions of dollars and get into the textbooks. The old eccentrics from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. But Banksy's pretty cool in my book. I really enjoy the way he's tweaking the establishment. And there doesn't seem to be a lot of pretension in his work. That's really what gets me, after all. The pretense.

Caithness
06-17-2007, 04:11 PM
You don't have to understand something to be able to enjoy it. In fact, many times the confusion or other related emotion is the primary form of enjoyment. It's similar to things like Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo and Papuwa, where it just seems like the manga artists are having a contest to see who can come up with the weirdest, most bizarre stuff. Sometimes people look at things that make them go "WTF" because they just like being made to think "WTF".

Savathun
06-17-2007, 06:40 PM
I just hate stuff like The Gates or whatever in New York. You know, the ones by Christo or Christof or whatever.

I used to do that in my room as a kid (and last week, I guess), and nobody ever called it art. People called it "Get your goddamn comforter off the wall. What, did you nail it up there? Jesus. How old are you? No, I don't care if it's a fort, you're just some kind of retarded."

Kate or Die!
06-17-2007, 07:14 PM
I love it and hate it. I've seen some bitchin' stuff at the Whitney, but I have no taste for Rothko and Pollack. It's really a matter of personal taste. I have a friend who thinks sculptures built outta tampons are cool.

alexb
06-17-2007, 07:55 PM
Are we all on the same page here? Modern Art is actually a pretty specific term. At it's broadest, it's everything Post-Impressionist (1890s) through the 1970s. It's specific, but actually too broad a term to mean that much by itself. I was talking mainly about Modernism, which is a subset of Modern Art. Stuff they did mostly from the fifties to the seventies. If you're talking about art that is new today, that stuff's usually called Contemporary Art. So Banksy is Contemporary Art, not Modern Art. Thing is, Banksy is only Contemporary at the moment. Eventually, he'll be filed away under some other heading and Contemporary will mean something different. These terribly unhelpful descriptors are another thing I hate about the state of art criticism.

Coinspinner
06-17-2007, 08:52 PM
I know so little about art I had to google every name dropped in this thread and wiki the phrase "modern art".

Torgo
06-17-2007, 08:54 PM
And the victory goes to Coinspinner.

Runners up are alexb and Calorie Mate.

Sheana
06-17-2007, 09:18 PM
Bah, I've always thought that kinda dumb. If it 'ended' in the 1970s it's going to be really dumb going around calling it "Modern Art" in a few more decades. Modern and Contemporary being two different things just doesn't seem quite right to me.

nadia
06-17-2007, 10:12 PM
I still have a "Modern Love" earworm burrowing through my brain. Thanks, TT.

Excitemike
06-17-2007, 10:18 PM
I still have a "Modern Love" earworm burrowing through my brain. Thanks, TT.

Modern Love - walks beside me

Balrog
06-18-2007, 06:57 AM
Modern Love - walks beside me

Gets me to the church on time, church on time...

Calorie Mate
06-18-2007, 02:53 PM
And the victory goes to Coinspinner.

Runners up are alexb and Calorie Mate.

Wow, I don't even have to try anymore and I still get Second Place.

alexb
06-19-2007, 12:08 AM
Third place, actually.