What do you think of modern art?

[EcK]

This while pointlessly 'angry', pretty much expresses the view I've had about it for the longest time. (except political name calling which I find to be kind of pointless)

I think the ideas are often extremely simple and put most of the success of the majority of modern art down to elitism. (ie: small group 'gets it' so they are 'better' - when there's nothing to 'get' in the first place)

There is OF COURSE good modern art. My own sister works with modern and contemporary art so I've been exposed to good modern art since childhood. All I'm saying is that a great number of supposed 'deep' modern art is well. bullshit. (or human shit sometimes) as it allows for people to claim something is art without having to follow any standard of traditional 'mastery' in the craft.

All of this of course is backed by art galleries and auction houses making millions out of skillessly crafted 'art'.

 

[Dyslexxie]

WHAT. You're from France, I blame you all for this. (Kidding. I know you aren't. I still blame anyone remotely associated with France for everything though.)

Jokes aside, while I find modern art weird as all hell, there are aspects of it I enjoy tremendously. I'd be a liar if I said I didn't like it to some degree, seeing as I go to the local modern art gallery once a month, and make it a point to go to the local art gallery in every city I visit.

Anyway, some of my favorite modern artists include:
Nick Cave:

Allison Sommers:

Rashad Alakbarov:

Lee Yong Baek:

Lee Yong Baek's work is going to be featured in an upcoming exhibit at the Seattle Art Gallery and I'm making a trip for this alone. I guess you could say I can appreciate modern art, even if I don't have the best understanding of it.

 

[Kheledon]

I adore modern art. I consider art museums to be "temples of humanity" and, as a beta humanitarian, my Fe gets really, really engaged and energized by the validation of feeling that a museum can give to the emotional expressions of those who want to change the world (and make it better).

That, I think, is what modern art is all about.

 

[Ghost]

When I saw the thread title, I was going to link the video in the OP. It demonstrates what I don't like about the current art establishment.

As someone outside of that culture, I feel like they don't care about doing anything that requires beauty, skill, or thought. I went to a local museum of art for an exhibition of Goya illustrations. Before the room where Goya's work was displayed, there was all this contemporary stuff. One piece was literally scribbled from top to bottom in black crayon or pastel. It looked like an art project done by a first grader. It actually made me mad. Then across from that was a selection of "art" done on loose-leaf paper.

It comes across as sloppy and self-indulgent. I hate it so much I want to punch the artists. No, that's not fair. I want to punch the curator. That they felt this was what should be highlighted and exposed to the public... Ugh. In my opinion, those pieces weren't worthy of being in the same building as the Goya illustrations. Fortunately, there was interesting photography upstairs.

It extends beyond visual art. Poetry is like this, too. You get stuff like this work of genius.

I think the artist's desire to do things this way has a negative correlation with that artist's skill.

The public's interest in art has declined with the increase of other media, but the modes of contemporary art have contributed. It used to be that people would recite poems from memory. Who does that anymore? Who'd want to? Art has become so niche because artists create work for each other. They'd rather impress their MFA professor or some critic than do something that will mean something to a lot of people. It's like doing something that has mass appeal would mean it isn't art. I'm tired of the question "What is art?" when it's used to justify nonsense. There are people doing thought-provoking things without resorting to gimmicks.

Honestly, when this sort of thing happens, I feel vindicated.

 

[Kullervo]

Do you like modern art?

This is a rhetorical question: your are not allowed to not like modern art.

By the way at this point I should clarify by "modern" art I mean I turn my nose up at postmodernist art, which reflects my distaste for postmodern ideals in general. I am specifically offended by the lack of form and order - it isn't even chaos in art, which is something I can also totally relate to - but just a total rejection of these concepts, of objectivity itself. When you can arrange a pile of rubbish, take a photo of it, make a fancy title and call it art, the creative process pretty much becomes obsolete. (We have the exact same problem with music.) What is considered art has therefore changed as well. Two gay guys losing their virginity in public? That is art too.

There is a lot of artwork being produced today which I do enjoy, but there is an academic snobbery around postmodernism precisely because nobody except them likes it. The world has collapsed into itself, as somehow this has become a virtue instead of a sign of weakness.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

Honestly, I think it's kinda stupid. Most of it, anyway. Symbolism annoys me in general, but modern art takes it to a whole new level. It just seems so, I don't know, snowflakey. "This collection of shapes symbolizes oppression and hatred in our society." I just don't feel that. If you want to make a point, use arguments to back it up, not an iffy metaphor.

 

[ayoitsStepho]

Some modern art is fun to look at while others frustrate me as an artist. It becomes frustrating when the description plaque reveals the whole story when the art piece doesn't give any of that away. I have to ask myself why it was important to even make said Art. Can the piece stand alone without a description?
It's difficult to have a definite answer of what art should be, but (personally speaking) I believe it should add something to people's lives, show technique, be visually stimulating, evoke emotion, make people think outside their box or challenge action. There's many ways art can be used! Having someone shit on a stand and calling it Art, I believe, does none of what I mentioned above.

 

[1487610420]

I don't

 

[Beorn]

Most of it sucks.

 

[Yama]

If I like it, I like it. If I don't, I don't. Same with all art of all eras.

 

[magpie]

I love modern art. Here are some examples of modern art:

 

[CitizenErased]

I tend to divide modern art from contemporary art. I study art history and I like French Academicism, meaning that I can be considered on the "conservative side" of art. Modern art, like saying Monet, is something I really appreciate (I can talk hours about his art, but that's for another time). I think the whole "problem" starts with the conception that art has to be the idea behind the product, regardless of the appearance of such product. Simple examples: Andy Warhol, pop art. He reproduces endlessly a can of soup. He wants to reduce the idea of advertisements, the consumerism in society, even if all he did were a couple copies of a can of soup. Perfect! Now, when he does the same with a dozen more objects, the idea is kind of "dead", in my opinion. He was smart, though, making his own art an object to be consumed and make people consume artworks that talk about stupidity of consumerism. Another example: Lucio Fontana. He took a canvas, made a cut in the middle and said: "this represents the violence of war". Yeah, it might. It's a powerful symbol, if you like. But I'm against art that can be reproduced just watching Art Attack. It also happens that given a certain time frame, it's something "revolutionary" but when it's out of that time, it makes no sense. Like Le Corbusier houses (what I call shoe boxes). Yes, in 1920, when concrete was just in its beginning and all houses were robust, his houses were the revolution, now it makes no sense doing something similar and call it "avant garde".

About the Yoko-Ono-like artists, I think it may be due to thinking: "if I say it's art, it is, because you don't do that as a necessity" (like saying buttoning your shirt). Do you drink water with food colouring and then puke rainbows at home? No? Well, if home it's not the place to do that, maybe an art gallery is. Also because they are not creative enough to make something that can engage people in an aesthetic level, so they have to catch them by provoking.

I once had a sketch professor in college who was criticizing a girl's work because it was "distorted" according to perspective laws. And he said "if X artist (don't remember the name) had done this, I'd have said it was awesome, but you did it, you don't know perspective well, so it's just wrong"... and I felt it was the stupidest statement ever.

I don't know how I came here, but summing up, my answer is that I like modern art, given that the artist has an interesting idea AND the product of this idea is appealing (either by being beautiful or causing terror like Goya's paintings, not just "meh, this is bullshit").

 

[Amargith]

I find that art - regardless of what timeframe it's from - is more relatable for me when I get to know the artist. We ve had a special Munch exhibit here in Oslo when they celebrated the artist's 100 years or something like that, and getting the details on who he was, why he did what he did and what kind of life he lead made me absolutely enjoy his art though I would never feel inclined to hang any of it on my wall.

I tend to prefer art that invokes a sense of romance and nostalgia for on my walls - in the end, I'm just not that...arty, I suppose.

Meanwhile, most religious art annoys me. The Middle ages and renaissance have produced a serious amount of this stuff and even the Flemish painters with their Lam God's in Ghent, which is a technical masterpiece is just not something that speaks to me. Granted, I do marvel at their technique allowing them to actually paint an imperfect pearl with a clear piece out of it when you put it under a magnifying lens, but the piece itself just doesn't speak to me.

The same is true for most modern art, though there are pieces that I can absolutely appreciate just for their utter beauty - without even any hidden meaning. I recently saw a piece here in a museum that was made off of all kinds of glass balls, different sizes, that were put on the floor under a spot. The glimmer and shine that just radiated through the room...
And some pieces speak to me because they do have that hidden message that tugs at my heart, but those are exceedingly rare.
I will admit that having a guide along who is passionate about his job and the pieces makes you think and contemplate the pieces a lot more in depth which then results in more appreciation, I find.

 

[Cellmold]

I fart on art as it farts on me.

It asks for license when it's already free.

To be judged in plain views of what you convey,

That was the art of a better day.

 

[Noll]

I do not mind modernistic art, especially not the literature - some works of it I do love. Post-modernistic literature and philosophy however is pointless, immoral crap.