Why Is Modern Art So Bad?

I enjoyed two things. 1. I really love his apron test question to his class. That was classic. Some of my drop cloths seem like masterpieces now. 2. I really enjoyed the all white painting behind him. That is top shelf art in our time.

So, basically, this fellow wants to be the authority of what is art?

The apron example was interesting, but it had little to do with art. It was an example of people following authority. (Could have been an engineering class where the question was" why was the Edsel the greatest car ever made?)

Was just basically discussing this in another thread in which someone was told not to learn figurative drawing if they wanted to do abstract. I agree that you should have at least a passing understanding of the "rules" in order to break them. It gives direction and feeds the creativity. But most of what passes as "art" now is, to me, comic relief.

How is this artistic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso#mediaviewer/File:Pablo_Picasso,_1913-14,_Head_%28T%C3%AAte%29,_cut_and_pasted_colored_paper,_gouache_and_charcoal_on_paperboard,_43.5_x_33_cm,_Scottish_National_Gallery_of_Modern_Art,_Edinburgh.jpg

I really don't know. I'd say it depends if it conveys something to you.

No I don't think so. He's agitating against modern elitist perceptions of art - in which anything goes and if you don't understand and/or appreciate it you are uneducated or a barbarian - versus art that is made according to certain (classical) standards that involve skill, dedication and determination.

I do appreciate modern art but also feel there is a lot of hot air and just plain rubbish. Not just in painting, but also photography (that Rhine landscape that sold for millions?).

Take this, displayed in a museum http://www.themarysue.com/peanut-butter-platform/ The museum payed 30,000 euros for this.


I would love to see JC, Abbie, Sean and Jeffrey lined up in a row holding up score cards for each new work that is paraded in front of them :)

You'll have to C&P, but it's something Picasso did that is a head scratcher.

Thanks Louise. I did finally get it. I thought it looked like a cross between a KKK hat and a cheese slicer.

(but what do I know?)

A section of floor covered in peanut butter...wow Are there warnings for the users of service dogs?

I've read that folks buy the artist and not the art. SO, if you convince people of your credentials as an artist, the work becomes somewhat secondary... I've seen examples of this imo.

We live in an interesting world.

actually the floor was damaged a couple of times by unsuspecting visitors and they were made to pay for the damages (no idea how much). And the artist (Dutch) is also the voice of Ernie on Dutch Sesame Street - an unrelated but interesting tidbit.

HUmmm... So, if we drop something in the grocery store, I think we immediately need to declare it art.

And here, our last piece "cleanup in aisle 7", inspired by the artists shock at the price of pickled pigs feet.

You're right Bert - and why is there a banana in your ear?

The peanutbutter platform is an extreme example but does illustrate the point of the vid. Naked emperor, shock value, an artistic interpretation of our consumer society or perhaps meant to raise awareness of the horrible fate of the millions of peanuts which are crushed everyday and sacrifice their lives to make that lovely edible brown gold. I'll take a Mona Lisa every day of the week.

Sorry can't talk now. I have a rotting head of lettuce in the fridge and an inspiration...

Thought provoking...hmm. I'm not sure what I think. I definitely see truth echoed here.

At the same time, I think the freedom of expression has been all over freeing in the world of art.
It's not just about throwing rules away...but exploring everything that comes to artists...is that worthy of art? I think so.

But...as he pointed out at the end, the blank white canvas with three lines on it...an expensive painting? Ya...I call BS on that...even for it being minimalism.
Just the same when I look in a gallery and see a sold colored canvas, that's it...it's just one sold color. I don't think that's good art.

He is wrong about the Jackson Pollack, clearly his students have never seen one in real life, it's a lot more complicated than that messy apron.

But today, I think technique is held above substance. Is that good? Maybe not.

When I see a small square canvas painted with a coat of black paint hanging in a grand museum gallery I have a tendency to think that someone has been telling the naked emperor his clothes are quite fine indeed.

"blank white canvas with three lines on it...an expensive painting? Ya...I call BS on that...even for it being minimalism."

Those are special. You have to see them in person in the right environment. The environment plays a huge role. Hanging them in a cluttered, dimly-lit den, for instance, won't work.

I've seen several blank/color canvases in galleries over the years. They are always a surprise, and always stunning. I wouldn't think so, but they always are. The presentation has always been exquisite; they are given plenty of expensive wall space and generous lighting.

I can't pass them by. I linger. They involve me, they affect me. They are luxurious and interesting.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

interesting..

Non-accredited just says it all, like a science lecture from an American Bible College.

I think the first piece of "modern art" I ever saw - way back in the sixties - in person, was at the American Museum of American History - in the basement outside the little restaurant (back then) - a huge red canvas with a black diagonal at the bottom. I was "impressed" and remember going back several times just to 'look' at it again.

Wow -- I 100% agree with him!

No -- I 100% disagree with him!

http://museumofnonvisibleart.com/

Of course you need to know the rules before you can break them! How could you possibly ignore what you don't know in the first place???......i've been screaming this from mountain tops for years.

BTW, I listen to Dennis Prager daily. His 'university' is a group of lectures, available online on topics that share his conservative views. There would be no reason fr it to be accredited.

I had issues with this presenter...for starters, any grad student in art, should have known that an artist's apron is not a Pollock.
I do, however, agree with his disdain for the outrageous statements made to shock being called art.....it has gone far beyond my conservative sensibilities...and, as a side note, I have morphed into an abstract expressionist, from my formal education and portrait/landscape roots.

I am reminded yet again of the 'outing' that Tom Wolfe gave modern art in his brilliant treatise, 'The Painted Word;' and this links to a discussion about Con Art: http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2030739

To me, the argument over what is art, is very much like arguments of religion. Art to one is a drop cloth to someone else. To come up with a workable framework for discussion you first have to define the term "art"

I have seen this video now several times in different threads, I think we have here the two extremes presented of "what art is" and we clearly see the speakers view. I can agree with as much of what he said as I can disagree with the rest. If one has to know the rules to be able to break them and then all you can come up with is a rock and call it a sculpture or a blank canvas and call it a painting, I have no desire in wasting my time learning the rules because the guy that knows the rules and the guy that doesn't can both create this non-art thing they wish to call art. If art school is teaching the skill of appreciation of this thing called conceptual art I want no part of it.

Robert, there is no question that baroque painting takes a great deal of skill. I'm just saying that with modern photography, there is little reason to develop a baroque painting skill.

If you had that skill today, your best bet is to create forgeries. That is an extremely lucrative field. Starting from nothing, in less than a decade you could be financially set for life.

http://www.amazon.com/Caveat-Emptor-Secret-American-Forger-ebook/dp/B008DR6ROK/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1410644133&sr=1-1&keywords=caveat+emptor


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Hi Dan

I cant disagree more.Only the human hand can play the piano with real emotion,no one or nothing can play the violin like a gifted individual.It's not the same ,what is lost with the baroque art is lost and will never come back and cant be replaced with photo.I think photo has it's place in the world of art,but it's not the same and never will be painting and cant replace it,ever.

I think the world can need a form of baroque art that develop the human soul and mind,and tells a story of human emotion and that the elegant way of painting will result in a spiritual form of art that can give a light to all of us.Like classical music has done for so many years. A forger is impressive if he works with a classical painting because its so elegant and so much skill,but to copy a Picasso,I think everyone can.

My only real problem with modern art and contemporary Art is:They have all the Galleries.If you want to make a great painting ,you also can forget the great galleries.

And! I dont think we are moving up in art!Just moving in an other direction.

Motherwell said something like the hand is an extension of the nervous system.

The premise.... Why Is Modern Art So Bad? .... is presumptuous.

Who decides "bad" ?

Modern Art is.....misunderstood! Not only by some photographers who are satisfied by electronic images as "expressive" art, but other, also uninformed
art-makers, who have no background/knowledge about hands-on art making.....history of Art.....theory......

Dan, truce for a moment,please, because....you, being the consummate modern music musician, do know what you're talking about, IMHO.
Music's language is the same as art-speak....the essences of each discipline are the same, for...tone,clarity,rhythm,colour,texture,on and on!
Modern Art speaks that language ! Visually.

All above are derived from....the Classical!......


@Ronald....I vouch for Motherwell's assumption....now experiencing major nervous system problems defined medically, affecting all extremities,btw., and all outcomes.

I am not up to longer attention here, but will try to keep up....so great this thread!

Motherwell was right!

I thought combining Art and Philosophy was bad enough, I see now we have added yet another element to it, music. And just when I was buying into the theory that modern art was a protest and a rejection of traditional standards, anti-art, a transition from art for religion or State to an introspective switch to reject both religion and state and focus the attention on self.

You thought wrong, I guess.

If "bad" is presumptuous, "wrong" must be equally presumptuous.

Bad, wrong......semantics!
Too busy to continue here now.....

I don't think it was so much semantics, as maybe you just misunderstood what I meant which follows a sort of theme from previous comments I made earlier in the discussion, but since your to busy, never mind.Lol

I am in his camp, but then again I have no formal artistic training, but I feel that galleries buy utter rubbish, tins of faeces
for example.I went to the MOMA in New York, and apart from Andrew Wyeth, I just didn't get it. In the exhibition was a pile of broken glass on the floor with a video of a chandelier dropping and smashing. How on earth is that art?

When I listen to Rachmaninov I dont think about to much.I'm not looking for an answer and I cant play an instrument,I don't care how they made I't sound so beautiful.But I stil am sure It's genius work.I know some about painting but I'm not thinking to much when I see a good Rembrandt,I'm just impressed (not all Rembrandt's are master work).I would recommend everyone to listen to Jazz music when your looking at Pollocks "Autumne rythm"

You know how to enjoy art, Robert!

Hi Robert, I like your thoughts so much. You reminded me of a comment received about my artwork.........

..I quote.............."visual jazz - excellent work as always Viv, F/L"............


What more on earth could one want as an artist than to be understood by those one respects,admires..........thank you to my visitor for the comment...affirmation is bliss.

.

Why Is Modern Art So Bad? Not all of it is, but that's been covered. The short answer is: Photography. People don't require Rembrandt when they have access to many pin-ups of the babe du jour for a fraction of the cost. No, they're not Rembrandt, but they're good enough.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

You right, Dan,some gentlemen prefer photography. It's all about classic.

Not sure if Odd Nerdrum will be looked at as the greatest artist of this day but he is interesting.

Ronald,

Odd Nerdrum's artistic take is interesting. His figures seem to be in existential crisis.

As Einstein wrote his papers on Relativity early in the 1900s, the intellectuals
all began to realize western culture would cave in on its self because of relativism.
Things would never again be simple black and white matters of fact. Everything was partial
truths and gray areas.

http://www.npg.org.uk/freudsite/

Lucian Freud's work seems to find his subjects to have lived to the other side of existential crisis.

Modernity means a society that caves in on itself. Paradoxically our societies have kept up a faster pace of
building for the future.

Dave

I was going to study with Nerdrum in 2011 a student of him was going to recommend me. But in 2011 Nerdrum moved to France.Nerdrum lives now 2hour drive from my house.The modern and contemporary artists in Norway don't like him,but the figurative classical artists think he is a genius. I remember in the 80s Nerdrum want all high schools to talk more about the antique culture,Plato and so on,then they can understand different mindset and end the horror of students hurting each other and stop talking about it,as he said. They where all laughing.
Nerdrum did enter a abstract expressionism contest at the National art academy when he was a student,He did win! But he wrote another name on the canvas , but when they did see that it was him they kicked him out in the snow. The modern artist hated him.But they cant ignore him because he is just to talented as a painter.

In europe there was a war,modern against classical,the modern did win,they have all the galleries.

Robert,

I went to the MoMA in January. I sussed out if I could hang my art on their walls.

My art does not fit on their walls. Their floor space is not nearly big enough.

MoMA is a backward museum.

They are using UVA/UVB bulbs so they turn them down so as to not
damage their collection of art. Now there are non UVA/UVB bulbs, but no luck.
I saw MoMA in low levels of light.

They have lousy floor plans. The square modern bird cage building with wings off the show
areas for the stored parts of the collection and offices is very boring. The partitioned rooms
are awful.

The better paintings in the collection are often in storage. What did we see on that visit? Generally
not much.

My art...too big.....????

I am not talking about the wall space. I am talking about the floor space.
My friends I went up the sixth floor first thing to see the main attraction, the Magritte
show. I learned to disrespect Magritte quickly. But at first we could not see the show.
As we entered the gallery area a group of tourists were looking at the first painting. Perhaps
8 people were standing there. We could not get into the gallery. When people in a small
group stop to see an art work the floor begins to back up with people.

MoMA attracts something on the order of 2.9 million visitors per year.
2,900,000/360 days.....8055 people per day......

If MoMa in a prime location hung a monitor with my images being shown as a
slideshow hundreds of people would back up on the floor space. And almost no one would
know why.

I called MoMA to ask how I could submit my work. There are six different
departments. There is no department for my application. My work is new.

The 2.9 million visitors per year each only see a fraction of what is presented in
reality. It is a long day just running around through galleries.

Successful artists of any age capture eyeballs to sell art. That is not what the MoMA is about
for a living artist.

Dave

I think a parallel can be drawn with music. Jimi Hendrix set a new standard for guitar playing. Hearing Hendrix bend, break and slap notes into submission, be it behind his back, with his teeth or simply with his right-handed guitar whilst he was a leftie is unique and ground-breaking. Here's the thing though: Hendrix played false notes, but mixed them with accurate notes. If Hendrix had only played false notes he would have never been considered the guitar god he still is today. He knew the rules, but more importantly he knew how and when to break them.

That to me is what bothers me about all-white paintings and some - NOT ALL!!! - modern art: it's all about false notes. It's saying playing melodies is for saps, saying nothing is the new something. Pair that with the astronomical prices and ridiculous praise from critics these works receive and I am left scratching my head. Especially if monkeys and toddlers can produce work that fools these so-called experts.

If you say that all art has validation, couldn't you just as easily say that no art has validation? If everyone is a winner, then no one is a winner. I think that's more or less the point the lecturer is trying to make - with his own agenda in mind. I've stated before I would rather have a Pollock or Pierre Brassau on my walls then one of his works. But once again: hands up who of us here noticed he was standing in front of a modern masterpiece for five minutes. No one?

In photography, there was recently the case of the monkey-selfie, in which a monkey took a camera off a photographer and shot a selfie of himself and was subsequently recognized as the artist. Same as Pierre Brassau really: if a monkey can do it, it stops being art. I don't consider what I do art; I just like to take pictures of things that intrigue me or that I find purdy. To compare what I do with Rembrandt, Vermeer or Michaelangelo would be the same as comparing a plain white canvas to a Rembrandt, Vermeer or Michaelangelo. Their work is simply in a completely different league.

MoMA but I guess you must be invited?

I agree much with what you are saying Dean
and thank you for this conversation.

Robert,

Anyone can submit work to probably any museum.

Very little of it will ever be taken and hung.

The work of dead artists monopolize the walls.

Dave

Well here in Europe the museum buy the work if they want it.Just in local galleries you can submit you work and if you have not been to a great art academy they wont show your work.

Aim is not to break the rules just for the heck of it , its not caring about them and concentrating about what needs to be done.