Why Is Modern Art So Bad?

Sigh, not sure I am going to waste my time with such drivel. I personal think modern art KB's over anything that came before.

Maybe it started when people started buying art not for the art itself, but because the artist is interesting? I can see how the cult of personality would also include how many shocking stories someone could collect to entertain their friends. So something like Art Basel becomes less about the art as it is about a place in which to be seen.

But surely your art isn't traditional enough to be affected? It doesn't have to be ugly, just set apart from the ordinary, right?

Ronald, your art isn't ugly either. Hmmm…Op statement disproven :)

I am suddenly over come by a feeling of deja vu.

Lol. Yep.

I can't disagree with anything in that video, even though I'm sure many here will. Well, except for being able to judge art objectively, while you can recognize skill and craft that alone doesn't make a work of art good. I have to acknowledge though, while impressionism is my favorite kind of art it is also what started us down this road.

There is a lot of truth in this and I enjoy this modern art documentary every time I watch it. It's very brutal to folks like me who sometimes spend as little time as fifteen minutes on a painting, but true. It's important for us to realize that in today's art culture, bad taste rules... but it also allows all of us to dabble in the art world, so I'm a bit thrilled with bad taste at times.

Ronald,

The prof is an absolutist, but he does have grains of truth in what he is saying. If only because there are philosophical matters
in how art is defined in his comments.

That said how the prof frames all of this stuff is full of pejoratives, misbeliefs, and misleading statements....among a bunch of generalities.
If you take a course with him, he can immediately skip over all of the history involved and give you his vacuous opinions.

Dave

Much rehashed over time. Here is my take, art made in the past concerned itself with the society and culture of the past. People, from whatever era the art was made,would logically have the best connection to that work. In many ways artist merely reflect the time in which they existed. If you view art today as being out of control garbage,so be it,but it is as I said just a reflection of our times. Anyone who thinks they can change the course of art must first change the direction we are headed as a society. Best of luck!

Ronald,

I can not change the direction of art, but we know the digital world is here to stay, so I can make the most of it.

I agree.

Ironically I can use all the prior history in my works. Echoing time.

Dave

Mario,

Does that top image need to be there?

Dave

Wow…I have to check my connection speed since the embedded video took so long to show up. I beg your pardon, Patrick.

So Ron, you believe artists can only be reactionary and can't influence the course of society? That really surprises me.

Dear David:

Philosophy is dead.

Thanks for your patronage.

The Management

I don't view modern art as "out of control garbage" but some of it isn't all that great either...it's all in the eye of the beholder and if the artist can sell it, that is fantastic!

Ronald, excellent points!

David B, that question about the top image must be for my twin brother Patrick. lol

Many of today's so-called, 'artists,' simply lack the technical skills, the enduring patience, and the acquired discipline to create that which the Old Masters so magnificently brought into being.

When you challenge today's artists to do what the Old Masters did, they simply shrink from the challenge and default to art being about feeling and expression.

What happened to technical skill and virtuosity?

In the words of C.S. Lewis:

“Many modern novels, poems, and pictures which we are brow-beaten into ‘appreciating,’ are not good work because they are not work at all. They are mere puddles of spilled sensibility or reflection. When an artist is in the strict sense working, he of course takes into account the existing taste, interests, and capacity of his audience. These, no less than the language, the marble, or the paint, are part of his raw material; to be used, tamed, sublimated, not ignored nor defied. Haughty indifference to them is not genius nor integrity; it is laziness and incompetence.”

I suppose we can, without much effort, determine the capacity for appreciation of today's audiences by the modern rubbish that most slavishly hail as art.

DK,

Just speaking for myself answering your question. Artists on the edge can lead, but they lead from within their times.

Dave

Actually David King, far worse than that. All art no mater what style or approach is taken is contempory. If you are a stylized realist trying to paint like Leonardo unless you live under a rock, you are reacting to or rejecting against what you believe to be modern art. Your reaction against a current movement or trend in art is about as modern as you can get. You belong to your era for better or for worse!

Patrick.....??? Mario??? communication break down always the same......

Patrick,

Could you slow down and name the famous artists with no skills one by one?

It is lazy to generalize.

BTW I see your work as modern art. And yes you have plenty of craft in your work.

I have far less craft in my work. I aim for theory.

Dave

So Ron, you are saying an artist can be reactionary and be a force for change at the same time. However, you can say that about anything that influences society, nothing exists in a vacuum.

True

I'll sight another symptom of the cultural damage wrought by a society in decline as I quote myself, from a description of a painting in my FAA gallery:

"The noteworthy shift toward the undeniable commodification of art and art packaged for mass consumption took place at the Met in February of 1963 when the John F. Kennedy family attended the first public showing of the Mona Lisa in the US.

What happened afterward that would change the way art is perceived has more to do with big money than with learning to appreciate fine art, to wit: People came to the Met, not to look at the Mona Lisa, but to say that they’d seen it...just as the Kennedy family had.

The entanglement of big money with art had forever tainted the way art is produced, controlled, and most notably, the way art is seen and appreciated. Da Vinci's little painting had taken a quantum leap from artwork to icon for mass consumption practically overnight."

Big money and art can be a problem but not one I have. I am so lucky!

If you copy and paste any part of my above-mentioned quote into your browser, you'll learn the identity of the painting to which I alluded.

Lest I be accused of being a hypocrite, I will admit that, in a broader sense, both Ronald and David are correct: I do modern art.

But, both Ronald and David are guilty of the same thing they accuse me of: Generalizing.

You both know very well what the author means by 'Modern Art.'

not liking modern art is no different then liking any other art category. The only way I might be disappointed with someones art would be if the craftsmanship is of poor quality. I would also consider that most all artist are students, so none of that would bother me.

There is a sad trend with all modern artwork as being of "bad attitude or shock". I would not say that of many past artists work. I suppose we always need to consider the personality that created it. The human mind may just be more tormented in modern society than in past history. We do play out our aggression in art by play acting violent movies and T.V. all forms of modern art, rather then real social violent contact.

Frank

Yes, Vincent you did, and I did. As for fakes Rembrandt and all the other "masters" have been faked This from Art Info: A 1935 catalog of Rembrandt's work listed 611 paintings, but experts believe the true number is probably half that. Some work may still be waiting to be discovered in the basements of museums or galleries.

Anyone setting out to fake a work by an Old Master will learn about and know both how to paint and the physics behind doing a period fake. It's just that most of us have neither the talent to paint that well, the knowledge of the materials, nor the larcenous heart required.

Drew your point about camera Obscura, is probably correct, but I think the reference was that many who we previously thought used no camera, or other type references did in fact use whatever it took to get their drawing on canvas. Even Michelangelo talks about using other artists sculptures to draw the 3D look he required for the Sistine. he would rope off a sculpture in squares, and stand on a ladder for perspective while drawing on huge papers using the same copying technique many of us learned in college. Once his "cartoon", which is how they referred to their drawing, was complete, an assistant would use a sharp wheel to make a dotted line pattern following his drawings. Then the cartoon was affixed to the ceiling and pounded with a bag filled with blue chalk. Once the cartoon was pulled away, Michelangelo (and his assistants) had a line drawing to follow. A paint by numbers if you will.

Forgery, never crossed my mind...........

Drew, confused about your point?

Ron, you said, The sad fact is if there is money to be made forging someone's work, it will be done sooner or latter.

My comment was purposely ambiguous in reference to your statement

Kevin,

When you talked about how the Sistine Chapel's ceiling was painted, it reminded me of the time I checked out the art in the ancient Egyptian tombs.

There has always been a mystique about the Art Work

What is normally observable is beautifully done



But if one looks at the backside of the columns, or in the minor rooms, one can see a whole different world.

A world of frenzy, when time is of the essence.. Rushing before the tomb is "forever" shut. and sealed

Sloppiness everywhere....And areas where work was started but never finished.

It is interesting to see how many worked at different phases of the work.

One would draw in the guidelines...The second would draw in the figure outlines....The next would fill in the basic colors.....And the last would paint the details


What impressed me most, was the fact that these Ancient Egyptians were just Human Beings

Thank you Roger, we all learn something new all the time. The Met in NYC has a huge Egyptian exhibit. One of their small sculptures is a nude woman. I personally feel it is the finest work of art in many many years of art history. But I suppose I could be convinced of a few other works as well.

Kevin;

You have presented an interesting point on DaVince but he may have invented a pounce wheel rather than the individual punching method shown in the film at the exhibition.The aboriginal cave painters spit between their fingers.

The "Pounce" method of transferring a drawing is still the standard method used by mural painters and sign painters. It is necessary in all gold leaf lettering and was on all vehicle lettering where more than one door is done unless a silk screen in employed which cancels out the need for the chalk transfer. For dark backgrounds white starch or talcum is used and for light backgrounds usually crushed charcoal powder is employed. Line chalk carpenters use sometimes I have used.

We use a "pounce wheel" which is an elaboration of the sewing wheel used by seamstresses.

By the way Leonardo felt that all his inventions were the way to pay his way for the freedom to paint in realism he wanted to perfect. he was the first to make the blurred illusion of light and shadow so subtle it appeared real in his portraits like the Mona Lisa. Apparently he was a humble artisan who's talents were exploited.

Back to the jist of the thread,
For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone.

Those standards are still here. It's a matter of choice.
Yes one may sacrifice accusations of doing dinosaurs art but the standards are for anyone who has the skill to go down that path.
Skills limits many so modern art offers paths that works with limited skill.

Drew, I am holding my nose at that last statement. Many of our most creative and accomplished "Modern" and current artists possess the skill set to "paint like the Old masters" but chose to make social statements and take their art well beyond the "shepherds in the field" type of paintings. Heck just hearken back a hundred plus years to Picasso. At the age of 15 he could paint on the level of almost any Renaissance painter one can name. Did he choose to? No, he was taking his art into a wholly new direction.

Kevin, I did not say those who have skills do not choose to work in a modern style.
Picasso, one of my favorite artist rebelled against the fascist Spanish Nazi sympathizers. His style represents to me this rebellion.
Don't be put off by the term skill.
I think skill is an attribute and this is the crux of the video Patrick posted.
Those who have it need not apologize for having skills. This is what I think the producer of the video is alluding to.
I actually embrace several forms of modern styles and I'm not about to apologize for using traditional standards as I expand my experience.

Also, those who have skills have greater artistic agility thus flexibility. If they choose, they are capable to smear, splat, spill and scratch as well as deploy their craft.

There is a lot of truth in here. His white painting in the background reminds me of a juried show I was in where a 12x12 canvas painted black was juried in over some very impressive figure works.

Loretta, based on that I am guessing you thought the figurative works were better?

When anything is purely subjective it is completely subject to biases. Good, bad, better, worse is meaningless.

Judgements for better or for worse are here to stay.

"Judgements for better or for worse are here to stay."
-Ron



So is murder, rape thievery.,,,,,should you embrace those things?

Drew, first of all I asked Loretta a question to try to clarify what she was thinking. Now you are all over this with judgements be bad thing. Sort of like the moderator, don't you think? FYI, I don't feel judgements are a bad thing and you make them all the time, as does everyone. "Does that food look good? Yes, I shall eat it!, No , I shall not eat it." People who buy artwork do the same. (Though they don't usually eat the art work.)

Ron, Why are you acting so angry with me?

Drew, I am not. Actually I was thinking of people on this site that would be fun to meet and you would be high on that list! One of the problems with this type of communication is it's hard to read emotions.

Ron, this video represent sentiments of many. I do not seek the company of like minded people. I love diversity and don't think for a minute that I take away nothing from these conversations cuz I take away a lot. Way more than if I was just going with the flow.

@Ron. Yes, I do.

As Drew has pointed out judgements have their down sides. When I have juried large shows there is a tendency to get bored by the numbers of like work. The black painting may have been a bit different for that grouping. Also possible the judge was a hard edged abstractionist and had a leaning in that direction. I seldom participate in competitions of that sort anymore since most of the time I have no interest in what the judges think. I also don't feel most competitions do a whole lot to promote your carrier.

We all have our opinion. As I said I feel there is a lot of truth in the video. I also think that strong technical skills are the foundation for all good art regardless of chosen style of the artist. As far as the 12" black painted canvas - my grandaughter at 8yrs could have done it. Some folks think it's great, some pondered the 'meaning' (lol) at the reception. I've sold in my last two juried shows so no complaints there, Ron.

I would likely to attempt to answer Patrick's seconds question
"How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated?"
This is over generalizing but I get where the question is coming from.

To me, the modern art activist are obsessed with movements, who is doing something different, and art academics are looking to either found movements, writing about movements, or being linked to a movement. The actually work is lost in the story of the movement .

Loretta, you art is beautiful!

Drew,

To me,

Generally, artists and their art, are only recognized in their lifetime, if they are part of a movement

Loretta, awesome to hear you sold in the last couple of shows. I took a quick look at your work and it is very nice. When I was working on my MFA I had a professor who was a hard edged abstractionist. I did not like that type of work as it left me cold. However as I studied with him I learned a great deal more about that type of work and grew to respect it. Please understand I still do not like it and it still leaves me cold in many ways but it is very interesting on some levels. You have me at two disadvantages here, first of all I did not see the work you are talking about and secondly I don't have any idea as to the skill level of your eight year old granddaughter.

Roger, When I was very young and nieve I thought I'd would join in the super-real ism movement. I got so bored that I swore to myself id never let any movement, or body define who I'm was.
Movements are the definition of what modern art is about. That crafted art is secondary.