Where are all the "modern art these days" haters now?
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
I believe that when ""modern art these days' haters" are hating on modern art, they are expressing dislike towards the current modern art style of doing non-artistic things like crumpling paper and scribbling and proceeding to call it art. I wouldn't call this modern art, but more so art that happens to have been drawn in modern times.
People bitch about what they don't understand. Much art is bullshit, modern or otherwise, but much modern abstract art genuinely pushes the envelope of culture and introduces new ideas into a field where virtuosic acts of realism were attained literally millennia ago. The revulsion is always underscored by this pessimism that a) art is pointless if not outright fraudulent, b) average Joe is a sucker for investing in it and it's better to be cynical than vulnerable and c) the future cannot be better than the past. All totally dangerous ideas for a species that wants to improve itself.
I don't think I'm understanding you (it's not your fault, I'm just in an uncomprehending state of mind right now). Are you defending the shit art such as a blank canvas with vomit on it, or a red square with a black circle drawn around it, or are you saying that those are indeed shit art and we have come to misinterpret 'modern art' as encompassing only the 'shit art' as opposed to all art made in the modern times?
Neither, exactly. So much of art is context that I'm not going to say a blank canvas with vomit is shit even hypothetically - if it were displayed in, say, an old lunatic asylum where ECT destroyed people's minds and bodies, it could be totally powerful and meaningful. Sold for $44m into some idiot's Manhattan loft, it might just be shit. There's a relationship between the artist's intention, the extant thing that s/he produces, and the meaning that the viewer takes from it, and art is as personal as it is communal. I'm not trying to tell anyone that they're wrong.
But - there's a definite vein of short attention spanned anti-intellectualism that shuns anything it can't grasp in six seconds, shuns metaphor, and values virtuosity over laterality. Being extremely good at something that's been tried before doesn't solve new problems, see? It's a way of thinking that limits us - that's what I'm saying.
Well, you would have to define "value" before I'd answer that with a yes or no, but... yes. The thing itself is only part of what's going on, and no two people will have exactly the same experience of it. No one person on two occasions. And that's before you take the artist's intentions into account.
value=how much it's appreciated by either an individual or society
-
This seems like it's going to get into the more philosophical realms of things which I'd not like to delve into because I'm a very callous, unthinking, and stupid person and will probably type something I'm going to regret.
-
ANYHOW, you do agree that the environment and audience is an important part of displaying the art?
Do you also agree that there is 'art' out there that is simply not worthy of being considered art by almost any standard? A square in a circle. The only thing I can appreciate about that (assuming a near perfect circle and square) is the mathematical precision needed to fit a circle perfectly into a square and the discipline to find the points to start with.
The overlap with philosophy is not accidental =)
I think that the audience contributes to the experience of the art as much as they take from it, yes. And yeah I think there's art that's just dumb, definitely. I don't give much time to art that's intended to inspire cynicism, myself. I don't consider Kim Kardashian's ass to have much intrinsic value.
Fucking hate not being able to do that! DAMMIT! *likes post* dammit!!
But - there's a definite vein of short attention spanned anti-intellectualism that shuns anything it can't grasp in six seconds, shuns metaphor, and values virtuosity over laterality. Being extremely good at something that's been tried before doesn't solve new problems, see? It's a way of thinking that limits us - that's what I'm saying.
-
This seems like it's going to get into the more philosophical realms of things which I'd not like to delve into because I'm a very callous, unthinking, and stupid person and will probably type something I'm going to regret.
-
ANYHOW, you do agree that the environment and audience is an important part of displaying the art?
Do you also agree that there is 'art' out there that is simply not worthy of being considered art by almost any standard? A square in a circle. The only thing I can appreciate about that (assuming a near perfect circle and square) is the mathematical precision needed to fit a circle perfectly into a square and the discipline to find the points to start with.
I think that the audience contributes to the experience of the art as much as they take from it, yes. And yeah I think there's art that's just dumb, definitely. I don't give much time to art that's intended to inspire cynicism, myself. I don't consider Kim Kardashian's ass to have much intrinsic value.
Last sentence gives 110% credibility to you
good chat =)