"modern Art"

He dont know art also dont know what is modern art , also dont know what is conceptual art , and if hes students can alanything pollock its mean they dont know art ....

youll see nothing if you have no educated at modern art
artists need education as athechnical side and general side

Interesting concepts are delineated in the video you shared, Duane. Thank you for sharing it.

I specially like the examples given by, Robert Florczak regarding his studio apron, the figure skater, and the ten million dollar rock.

I look forward to others commenting on this thread. It should prove to be interesting to say the least.

Thank you Walter for your constructive comment -- and yes, this thread should prove interesting. The comments under the youtube video are interesting -- less a few rude ones that are not constructive.

I enjoyed the video. Sums up a lot of my feelings when I visit a modern art museum these days. You buy your ticket only to have an inside joke played on you, the unsuspecting public. Its about time someone said what they are feeling - the emperor has no clothes. Everything is played for shock value from Molly Cyrus to Hirst.

I pretty much reject everything said in the video. The man set up a premise by the use of the word "bad" then went on to cherry pick examples to "prove" his theory. I call big BS. My question is: as artists do we develop a committee of judges to make sure that everything that is done is at least at the level of say a Norman Rockwell? Seriously, to reject ALL modern art is as short sighted as his own premise.

“Everything is played for shock value from Molly Cyrus to Hirst.”

Thank you, Edward.

By the way, I heard Justin Bieber has been arrested once more. One may wonder if that will hurt or help his career.

What intrigued me about the video was the story about how the impressionist artist of the late eighteen hundreds rebelled against the standard norms of "good art" of the times by simplifying images of nature on canvas with unique brush techniques -- which produced some great works of art.

However -- as the video implies, that over time, the image revolution of the impressionists morphed into "bad art" because of certain players in the art world that ignore the "aesthetic standards" that determine quality artwork over inferior artwork.

One aspect of the video that was not covered regarding the science of judging good or bad art was perhaps the idea that modern art should not be confused with abstract art.

Unlike some modern artwork, the origin of abstract artwork dates to ancient cave drawings where the artist is at least trying to create an image or images that reveals a useful and practical story relative to an important event.

Personally, I try not to quickly judge art as good or bad because sometimes I can't always see the image value hidden within the art -- but I can usually spot whether the artwork is positive or negative. And I try to avoid the negative when possible.

"Personally, I try not to quickly judge art as good or bad because sometimes I can't always see the image value hidden within the art -- but I can usually spot whether the artwork is positive or negative. And I try to avoid the negative when possible."

Well said, Duane. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

That just goes to prove that everyone has an audience we just have to get out and find it.

Poignant video! It sums up my feelings better than I ever could.

Not sure if the Impressionist's were rebelling so much or making do with failing eye sight. They just painted what the saw.

I use to teach a class called "Modern Art in a Nutshell', and a "Humorous Approach to Modern Art" . What one discovers in "Modern Art" is first the vast majority of these artist are serious and not trying to pull a fast one and that many of these artist get inspiration from other non European cultures. Seems as if all the artist this dude mentioned worked in a realistic or semi realistic mode in the European tradition. The history of art goes well beyond that. The purpose and function of art is not solely to uplift ones spirit to a higher level. (Not that this is what happens when I look at these artist ). Magic, control over ones environment, sharing the human experience and stimulating thought, creativity must also come into play in the consideration of the value and significance of art. On the occasions where I have had the honor of serving as a juror of a show the words of an artist I knew who was running a critique come into my head. "That is a beautiful, well done ordinary painting." Toss this thought into your head, and this is where Modern Art gets itself into trouble at times. To be Modern, it must be new. So an artist takes an idea from an earlier artist and pushes it to the next logical extreme. The next group of artist do the same. The hope here is that each time the work is pushed idea wise, it opens venues to new ideas. There are times where an extreme might lead to a dead end. I always recommend don't be so fast to jump on the easy, "Modern Art is Crap" wagon. Study the art, what the artist is trying to do and did they do this or at least come close.

I hope he is not teaching art history. If so, he's a lousy teacher. Anyone with even a little knowledge about Jackson Pollock's technique would be able recognize that apron as not being one of his works. I saw that instantly and I don't even like Jackson Pollok's works.

Daniel, good point I thought that as well! I was also wondering about his students at that point!

@Daniel agree, he dont know art history.... and dont know what is modern art and why it is what it is :)

Yes, and keep in mind as one watches such a diatribe, that those artists held up to be praised and reviled are a select group. Our museums are filled with Great Masters sure, but in say Rembrandt's time there would have been many successful (or not) artists whose work was absolute crap. He is cherry picking his facts, such as they are. He is another who has attacked Olfili's Virgin Mary without even seeming to have a shred of idea what it is about. BTW I have seen it up close and I very much like it..

Very interesting video, I think the truth is some where in the middle. I certainly wouldn't want to take out the freedom of individual expression from the artist for the sake of following traditional excepted norms the early masters were bound by to a certain extent , but I agree a blank white canvas, a dot on a canvas, and a big rock is not art to me. But I do believe beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

@Mario how can be this video interesting if who talk dont know subject

That's part of the problem. The general public is left out of the conversation and left to wonder "why?".

Saba, I don't believe he does not know his subject,quite the contrary it's obvious to me he knows it very well, I just don't agree with every thing that he suggest, like I said I feel the real truth about modern art is some where in the middle of the spectrum of the masters works and the rock or empty canvas.

@Mario i thinkn when when munch paint hes scream it was modern art but if someone paint this day it will not be modern art and if someone does it will be speculation

Everyone is suddenly an expert.

It is all very simple.

Classical traditional art.Come from a time where religion and beauty had a relationship.Then came the impressionist they created a new kind of beauty,painting things like they see them not after the Greek style.

The beauty was not important because God was not important to many.Art use to tells us about God and remind us of nature,and nature was talking about the Creator God.
Impressionism style still look traditional in a way but then Cezanne came and modern art was born.The first real innovative artist.

And Picasso when he left Cubism painted from his subconscious mind "If you know what your going to do there is no reason to do it,better to do something else" Picasso.

The same did Jackson Pollock.dripping paint everywhere. There is no skill only an idea. Like Tracy Emin said "It is Art because I say it is"

Nothing to do with beauty,as E.Kant wrote and change the world by telling us that Art should be Functionalism. beauty is not Important.And Lenin love it and most of Modern art and Contemporary Art looks like Communist Art . Grey sad,stone Has nothing to do with innovation,It is Functionalism.

Everyone can think of something interesting but no one can paint like Rembrandt.

Robert and Ron and others,

Many of you have a good background in art history. There is one defining matter when comparing modern art to classical or baroque art.

For a very long period art was sold to nobles. The money was centered around the power structures of the church and the kings.

Those powers thought themselves to be empowered at the peasants'(that would be you and me) expense because they were divine.

So they bought art that clarified in their minds their relationships to god and power. If they had water boarding they would have used it, but
they had better tortures at their disposal. It is amazing what happens in the name of power.

Modern art is for the artist himself. Modern art is for freedom of expression for the artist. Modern artists often look
for or evoke an audience response.

Abstract expressionist painters evoke the response, "that is crap". They plan for it. It is a universal.

While kings wanted divinity for their patronage, modern arts want emotion from their audiences.

Not all artists are fully cognizant of this, but as far as academic differences, that is it in a nutshell.

Picasso's work intellectually was the bridge between modern abstraction and full awareness of how the audience participation works.

Pollock just understood the extreme that the work could get to as a finished work of art. That extreme begs a set of questions.

My work begs a different set of questions. The big one is how much of the work is his? Or mine? What I give up in shock
value I gain at times in subtle concepts being expressed.

Dave

Pierre Brassau anyone?

Dean,

He was never as good as Jackson Pollock.

All kidding aside, would you expect any less from Pierre?

Dave

I find the video interesting. I don't completely agree with him, but I will say that I don't care much for "shock art."

I like a lot of abstract expressionism work and I like a lot of the classical art and artists. My favorite artist is, and always will be, Da Vinci. But I also have a fondness for Marc and Kandinsky.

When I have something specific to illustrate, I do so. When all I want to do is express emotions or a state of mind that I don't feel realism can do, I work in abstract. No deities involved.