Let's discuss modern art shall we?

This has been bugging me for a while as the term has come up in ask.fm, in some of my classes, and in some conversations as well. To clarify: when I speak of modern art I'm not talking about "art that is modern" which can refer to anything that was produced in a relatively recent timeframe. The art I'm talking about definitely fits that description, but it's too vague as it is. I'm talking about those magnificent blotches (or incredibly simple pieces) some people like to look at and then rant about for a million times just for the hell of it.

Example:


If it's not clear yet, I like banging on it. Sometimes I do it in hope that somebody walks up to me and points out something I've been missing this whole time.

Here's my take on it:

Modern art defies art as it is conventionally known. It looks like it was done by child and/or conceived by a mere accident involving tipping a few paint cans and some unfortunate canvas lying on the floor. Based on that criteria it is certainly rubbish. It holds nothing against realism or impressionism, which always keep a tether onto what seems to be organized thought and proper contemplation. However, some modern art achieves certain effects such as interesting blends of color and/or eye-catching blurs that remind you of some other things which aren't blurs. For example, the piece above might remind you of trees. Maybe. Sometimes it looks like a hospital bed when focusing on the bottom-left too much while ignoring the yellow. Some other ones might mix color in such a way that make you think about a certain adjective, like "adversity", "hostility", or "warmth."

Whatever the case, the process of making modern art has no order, no clarity, and focuses on the effect it hopes to make (through the power of luck).

I'd might as well paint my buttcheeks with random hues and rub that against a canvas. If I'm angry I'll use a lot of yellow and red. If I'm sad I'll use a lot of blue and violet. And then If it looks kind of "deep" or pretty we'll call it modern art.

Which in turn says a lot about modern.

Discuss

I have an itching feeling to turn thread this into art forum, but considering your length, I suggest it immediately be transferred to the art forum.

I didn't consider that at all

Well, zark.

I think modern art is extremely interesting. As much as I enjoy the grandeur and godly sort of magnificence found in Baroque art, the extremely expressive and flowing colors of Romantic art, the stunning preciseness of Realism, and the thoughtful foresight and predictive nature of Futurism, I think that modern art also has the potential to be thought provoking and imaginative, which sort of is the point of art anyways.

It's elegant but chaotic at the same time – maybe it's because of this sort of ironic paradox that allows me to enjoy it so much. Maybe it's the visually striking presentation that pieces like No. 5 by Pollock provides, and the chaotic beauty that it inspires. Or maybe it's my respect of the pretentiousness of the artist, and their questioning of the foundational assumptions of what is art in the first place, like in woman V by Kooning. At first, it seems eccentric for the sake of being eccentric. But my respect the artist's intentions slowly transforms into admiration of the work itself, and the small details within the piece, whether painstakingly intentional or completely coincidental, as a side effect of random blotches of paint. It doesn't really matter in the end how the artist created the piece and what their intentions were, if one is to objectively view, interpret, and enjoy the piece as a separate entity in it of itself.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can admire art pieces that not only have a message about life or death or humanity or the corrupt government, but also only exclusively have aesthetic value and elegance, with a faint (sometimes non existing) subjective interpretation, like in Composition with Yellow, Blue, and Red by Mondrian .

Works I mention:
I do not have much expertise in analyzing art, nor am I an artist myself. But even I can tell you that Pollock did not simply slap some paint on a canvas and call it a day. There is obviously careful choice in the hues and tones of the colors– the dark, grimy look of the brown/tan, and the blood, dark red. The entire piece has a black background, adding to this dark feeling. However, he also chooses to use a bright, striking yellow to sharply contrast the chaotic darkness of the other colors. His grays are very "scratched" out and almost fuzzy, while the yellows are applied as very long, sweeping motions. The rare glimpses of white paint add balance the the work, and provide for a counterpoint and contrast to the other colors. There's a tan, almost mortar like border surrounding the border of the piece, adding even more depth to the already complex piece.

others see this as a jumbled mess, but I see it as elegant chaos. Maybe there's no deep meaning or message, just layer upon layer of the raw emotions of anger, frustration, confusion, or even hatred. But I can appreciate the aesthetic value and striking visual of the work.

There's rumours that in the Cold War, Modern Art artists were secretly funded by government organizations as to override and silence another school of art: Social Realism, which reflects life's atrocities.

Brian OA wrote:

SPOILER

That is definitely water pouring into a small lake upside down.

Apex wrote:

There's rumours that in the Cold War, Modern Art artists were secretly funded by government organizations as to override and silence another school of art: Social Realism, which reflects life's atrocities.

That is why I do not like Modern Art.

I do not like public parks because there's rumors that on 9/11, the federal government secretly crashed the planes on purpose.

mathexpert wrote:

Apex wrote:

There's rumours that in the Cold War, Modern Art artists were secretly funded by government organizations as to override and silence another school of art: Social Realism, which reflects life's atrocities.

That is why I do not like Modern Art.

I do not like public parks because there's rumors that on 9/11, the federal government secretly crashed the planes on purpose.

You are right, I will think again.



This picture is created by splashing brown, yellow, black, and gray paint. When viewed it is like yellow spots in a war zone, with the ground covered with black and gray ashes, and brown corpses and dirt.

Still:

103

The by far most interesting strawman I hear people use when they are "against" modern art - as if it's a thing you can be against, like abortion or foreign immigration - is that "anyone can do that." Your take on the matter starts with a bias: "It looks like it was done by child and/or conceived by a mere accident involving tipping a few paint cans and some unfortunate canvas lying on the floor. Based on that criteria it is certainly rubbish. " Yes, based on the completely false assumption that all modern art is an incidental creation, it is rubbish.

The fact that an interpretation is not set in stone does not mean there is none. Mianki, methexpert and Apex have proven this already by interpreting every piece of contemporary art that has been posted in this thread so far, but just to humour you I'll post another:

This series of four canvases by Barrett Newman has been attacked on two separate occasions with a knife, just because of the strong feelings a primitive color scheme like that of De Stijl evokes. Once in irrational anger at the painting, again because the assailant interpreted it as "a pervesion of the German flag," and found that his gashes completed the art piece.

Modern art does not defy anything about conventional art. It just isn't conventional, that's the real problem you have with it. It's a stupid, close-minded way of thinking to assume that something is not art because you do not understand it, or are not willing to understand it, and it pains me that society keeps repeating that same mistake. In the early twentieth century, people thought cubism wasn't art. Before that, people thought expressionism wasn't art. Before that, impressionism wasn't art... It's time to stop ripping into things because they do not conform to tradition or even our common sense. We got to where we are today by constantly challenging the idea that the world is just as it should be. And if "anyone could have made it", well then, they should have, because it's beautiful.

(On that note, this discussion has gotten much too deep to hold it in Off-Topic. Welcome to the Art subforum, everyone!)

Wojjan wrote:

Modern art does not defy anything about conventional art. It just isn't conventional, that's the real problem you have with it. It's a stupid, close-minded way of thinking to assume that something is not art because you do not understand it, or are not willing to understand it, and it pains me that society keeps repeating that same mistake. In the early twentieth century, people thought cubism wasn't art. Before that, people thought expressionism wasn't art..

And this begs the question, is art really interesting if it is completely conventional? Regardless of if we're talking about music, film, literature, poetry, illustrations, or even video games. I feel that the most interesting pieces of art are those that are beautiful, but are also experimental.
We're studying Emily Dickinson's poetry in English class. Her works are extremely beautiful and concisely elegant, and I was very shocked to learn that during her lifetime only 6 of her poems were published, and they were heavily edited as well. The publishers thought that she was too "radical" and "experimental".