How come there arent any posts about Modern Art?

o Fiac

This post has been deleted.

Shrimp

Well, what aspects of modern art would you like? I mean, you could just post them int he Art forum.. Right?

Monkey

well its because most people on the forum aren't very well up on contemporary art.

o Fiac

This post has been deleted.

o Fiac

This post has been deleted.

Shrimp

Personally myself, I don’t really like modern art. And it's not because I'm an old one, not wanting to know. I'm new to art (I'd consider my 17 years on this planet new) and I just don’t see anything in it. In saying that, there are some modern art exhibitions I've seen which were good. I may not have liked the actual piece but I may have liked something about the way it was made, or in the instance of a film I seen once, the shots, lighting, music, etc.

I sometimes ask it to be explained to me, but I'm just some rig-marole about the artists feelings, and the like. I can follow this most of the time, but it still wouldn't explain why an artist could call a slide show of the same two photos repeating, over and over art. In that case it could be lined to anything with a repetitive motion.. Life? or Work? Or anything really.

But that’s just one case. I really could see myself having an interest in Modern art, but if only it was presented to me in a "customer friendly" way.

It's a thumbs up for me, I think there should be a section about modern art.

Thank you for reading.

DadaKopf

Strangely enough, people in this forum don't like discussing art. People prefer to talk about digital cameras. Any time art discussions were started, they ended just as quickly.

Saying you don't like "Modern Art" is kind of like saying "I don't like food", or "I don't like time".

I'd love if people would discuss art here more, but people just don't seem interested, or maybe they just think they're not allowed to discuss art because they don't know anything about it.

Anywho, I don't like the term "modern art", it carries certain troublesome assumptions with it. I prefer either "art" or "contemporary art".

o Fiac

This post has been deleted.

Benster

ó Fíach - You're dead right, people do not give modern/contemporary art a chance. And usually it's because they just don't "get it", in my opinion (and experience).

Traditionally, art has been presented to the masses via works by the Old Masters and more mainstream artists of the last century. The scenes presented are fairly straightforward and the average person can appreciate them with such feelings as:

"I like the colour of the flowers in that field"
"Those ballerina dresses are so life-like"
"He's really captured the compassion on Christ's face in that one"
...and so on.

Put one of Picasso's more off-the-wall creations in front of the same average person and their reaction might be more like:

"??"
"What is it?"
...then..."I could've done that"
I would include myself in this category most of the time

Modern art is mistaken (wrong word maybe) for abstract art by most people, I think. They can't immediately grasp what the artist is trying to portray, therefore it must be "modern" and "beyond me". Unfortunate, but true, in my mind.

And also, another reason "arty" threads don't go too far in this forum is because there's always some up-his-own-arse know-it-all who "simply must disagree. You're talking such piffle and obviously don't know a thing about Art".

Anyway, these are my own opinions and I'm open to be educated to others'...

Cheers,

B.

DadaKopf

Most people just don't 'get' that art has to be read. It's not a good idea to expect to go see a work of art and instantly 'get it' because the whole idea is, often but not necessarily, for the art piece to be a vehicle for the imagination. Usually artists try to say something, but what that is has to be decoded by the viewer. Instant gratification doesn't work. People also shouldn't expect to have their values validated by art. Sometimes older contemporary art does that, art can do that, but contemporary art usually does the opposite. That's the artist's job. To upset your unthinking habitual lifestyle and to get viewers to ask questions.

I always think it's a shame that when people adorn their walls with Monet paintings, no, Courbet or Manet or other 'nice' paintings, like Klimts, they forget how anti-establishment, f**k the system, revolutionary and philosophically and technologically advanced they were, on top of looking pretty.

o Fiac

This post has been deleted.

r@t

the thing about contempary art is people who dont have a art background dont know what there looking for in a piece- most ppl judge art on techniqual skill, which is a factor but unfortunatly is last on the priority list which is:
1. content- what the work is about, the idea- if the subjuct is weak or empty all the realism in the world cant save you.
2. aestechic- visually art is also ment to be pleasing- however this can be forgone if it interferes with priority one. by visually pleasing i dont mean realistic, but that the composition is good and the the picture visually balanced.
3. techniqual skill- things like application of paint and shading technique. the word realism pops up here as everone knows what it is. this can be forgone if it interferes with priority one and two.

because of the way we are taught in school most ppl never even consider the fist two more important priorities and they consequently never look for those things in art. i will point out that i am not just talking about non artists here- there are alot of so called artists out there that dont understand art either.

as for reading art- anyone can do it. in society we are bombarded with symbols, what do you think of when someone says, for example "pig" - it is a universal symbol for greed , ignorance, anger, the unclean, yet also fertility.
even ppl with out an art education will come to this conclusion. art is full of symbols like this, you just have to take the time to decypher them(which isnt as hard as it sounds as we come across alot of these in every day life). having said that, there art artist who use "random" symbols trying to make it look like their trying to say something when in fact there not. so if you cant see anything in a work of art there is a chance it is because there is in fact nothing to see. indeed some artists are "chancers" and any old joe could come up with the sh*t they do but remember the priority list, the idea is primary- it was their idea and that is the point(that is if the idea is a good one in the first place) and like dadakopf said they may be trying to get the viewer to think (though imo if it is to vague then no conclusion will be drawn)
i myself am an artist and getting the viewer to think is my main concern check out my work at www.rat-tsang.deviantart.com and see for your self
well thats my two cents

DadaKopf

Interesting post. Systematic! As regards looking at an art work, I think it can be characterised by the difference between graphic design and contemporary art in your typical art space.

I agree that we all know how to read signs. But it's the attitude of the viewer and the position of the piece (graphic or art or whatever) within a, uh, form of life. I mean, graphic design is something where people can derive meaning very intuitively and quickly - graphic design is in the business of communicating ideas or values non-verbally. But it rarely if ever encourages viewers to step back further from that encounter to consider the context in which the piece was made. Art, alternatively, is strategically placed to do that - it communicates ideas non-verbally as well, but they require time and a certain attitude of the viewer to understand. OK, I mean like, a graphic designer makes a poster that says "Fly to London for €1" with a picture of a plane on it. An artist gets all these posters and puts them somwhere and weaves some metanarrative through them and we're supposed to stand back and consider what these posters actually mean in a grander way than to purely catch our attention to facilitate profit, or whatever.

1. content- what the work is about, the idea- if the subjuct is weak or empty all the realism in the world cant save you.
2. aestechic- visually art is also ment to be pleasing- however this can be forgone if it interferes with priority one. by visually pleasing i dont mean realistic, but that the composition is good and the the picture visually balanced.
3. techniqual skill- things like application of paint and shading technique. the word realism pops up here as everone knows what it is. this can be forgone if it interferes with priority one and two.

1. What's the source of the content, or the origin of the subject matter? What do you consider conceptually weak?
2. Why does art have to look pleasing? In any case, how can some things look ugly in one era and pleasing in another (early Impressionism being an example)? Are these judgements individual and personal or structured by broader, profuse social relations?
3. Theory and practise must fit snugly. This is different to saying form must fit function - what's the function of art, as opposed to design? Kant reckoned art is useless, which gives it its power - art for art's sake. I was never really convinced by this.

having said that, there art artist who use "random" symbols trying to make it look like their trying to say something when in fact there not. so if you cant see anything in a work of art there is a chance it is because there is in fact nothing to see.

You have to look at 'levels' of communication. A work of art can operate on many levels, communicationally. The signs may be random and meaningless. But the over-arching narrative of the piece may not - for example, getting the viewer to confront the multidimensional nature of communication.

At the same time, I don't think there's anything wrong with vagueness. And I don't think there are limits to art, except for the limits of human activity. The boundary of art is the human condition.

r@t

DadaKopf wrote:

I
I mean, graphic design is something where people can derive meaning very intuitively and quickly - graphic design is in the business of communicating ideas or values non-verbally. But it rarely if ever encourages viewers to step back further from that encounter to consider the context in which the piece was made. Art, alternatively, is strategically placed to do that

indeed this is true- there is such a thing as no concept. whereas pieces aren't about anything and what a viewer see in it is unintenional of the artist- you may think the is nothing wrong with this but imo the unintentional provokation of thought and emotion is not as affective because it lacks any direction or control (control of perception being the function of an artist)

DadaKopf wrote:

- it communicates ideas non-verbally as well, but they require time and a certain attitude of the viewer to understand. OK, I mean like, a graphic designer makes a poster that says "Fly to London for €1" with a picture of a plane on it. An artist gets all these posters and puts them somwhere and weaves some metanarrative through them and we're supposed to stand back and consider what these posters actually mean in a grander way than to purely catch our attention to facilitate profit, or whatever.

i also agree here but with time and research if you cannot come up with a semi-solid explaination for the concept of a piece it has imo failed.

DadaKopf wrote:

1. What's the source of the content, or the origin of the subject matter? What do you consider conceptually weak?

let me se a plain still life a straight on portrait, a sunset- anything that does not provok thought of the human condition or politicts ect.

DadaKopf wrote:

2. Why does art have to look pleasing? In any case, how can some things look ugly in one era and pleasing in another (early Impressionism being an example)? Are these judgements individual and personal or structured by broader, profuse social relations?

perhaps you misread my post, i said the second and third points could be forgone in order to fullfill the first correctly(if nessecary). on ugly ect- i dissagree with you- i never mentioned ugly or beautiful. i referred to composition and balance- this will never change from phohorealism to completely abstract work. composition is:
the arrangement of two dimensional shape motifs on the picture surface.
the balance of light and dark
balance of colour
shape of the picture surface
balance of interest

ppl do not decide what is good composition- it is what is naturally pleasing to the eye. it excludes detail and content, which would be a basis for ppl "liking" or "disliking" a piece.

3. Theory and practise must fit snugly. This is different to saying form must fit function - what's the function of art, as opposed to design? Kant reckoned art is useless, which gives it its power - art for art's sake. I was never really convinced by this.

art for art sake is a contradiction- look up art in a dictionary the purpose of art is to provoke thought(intentionally) or create comething beatiful(composion before detail) not to draw a random squiggle and slap some intersting name on it. do it for a rason amn- not to make money.

DadaKopf wrote:

You have to look at 'levels' of communication. A work of art can operate on many levels, communicationally. The signs may be random and meaningless. But the over-arching narrative of the piece may not - for example, getting the viewer to confront the multidimensional nature of communication.

i agree with you. i do not talk about all art of course when i say if you cant see it its not there- but there are pieces like this.

DadaKopf wrote:

At the same time, I don't think there's anything wrong with vagueness. And I don't think there are limits to art, except for the limits of human activity. The boundary of art is the human condition.

vagueness it important, however ppl then to do work without thinking then sticking a title on it implying deep and rational thought- which is total ridiculous and cannot be seen in the work- then ppl baffel trying to make the conection that isnt there. i realise this provoks though but it could be thoughs on anything at all really. so it undermines point one the concept- as the concept isnt clear.

o Fiac

This post has been deleted.

r@t

ó F&#237 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

being total direct and leaving nothing to the imagination will cause the viewer to lose interest quickly as they will not have to think about whats going on. they will see the point regester it and move on. whereas as if there is an intruiging subject and it is vague (not totally random) the viewer may ponder the suituation. having said the being too vague or totally random may lead to viewer frustration. they may also come to the conclusion that modern art is bullsh1t. then again most artists never consider the audience.

DadaKopf

ó F&#237 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Vagueness mightn't be the best word. Ambiguity would be more accurate.

then again most artists never consider the audience.

Not sure I'd agree with this.

r@t

DadaKopf wrote:

Vagueness mightn't be the best word. Ambiguity would be more accurate.

yep you be right- think it needs a bit of both though

r@t

DadaKopf wrote:

Not sure I'd agree with this.

sure they consider a defined type of "buyer"- ie there sole aim is to profit. but i don't think they consider the audiences involement in the piece. by this i mean giving them something to think about istead of just something that is nice to look at or just plain minimal (which has been done to death and can't be pushed any further). if someone doesn't stop, look at and think about a painting they may as well have not looked at it at all. btw when i say audience i mean evryone not just buyers and ppl who go to galleries. everyone is the potential audience.

Monkey

I don't think you can apply a series of rules to the analysis of an artwork and come up with definitive format for looking at a work. You use a very different set of criteria when looking at a painting by Francis bacon than you do when looking at a sculpture by Sol le Wit.

I believe the idea to be the most important thing. Ilike work that shows the aritsts way of thinking. My work is conceptual almost to the point of eliminating all conventional art skills.

You can see some of my work here: www.p-art-icles.com/niall

People will probably call me a chancer but if i wanted to make money i wouldn't be doing what I'm doing.

In response to your last point about the audience including people who don't go to galleries: why would the artist take into consideration people who aren't interested in and who won't see his/her work .

r@t

why consider outsiders? come on art is a way of expressing your self and it will affect ppl even if they don't want it to (or know it does). art can be political and thefefore sould address everyone.

Monkey

sorry but i think that is absurd.

r@t

Monkey wrote:

sorry but i think that is absurd.

your entitled to your opinion.

DadaKopf

Monkey: I think you're right about multiple criteria - hence me saying the limits of art is the human condition..

But why do you think r@t's statement is absurd?

I'm not saying I agree with it either. Maybe I'd take the middle-way opinion. On one hand, artists may not always consider an audience, but art is a form of expression and therefore of communication. How can you have communication without the intention to connect with an audience (of any size)? Is an art piece successful because it communicates something? Then you have to ask where the locus of meaning is? Do people viewing art intuit the artist's meaning, or do they give the pieces their own interpretation? Or can it be both? That art can affect an audience unintended by the artist is interesting in the sense that once the piece is 'out there', it's able to be picked up in different contexts in different ways. It seems necessary and inevitable.

The will to communicate anything - making the leap of faith to be understood in the face of overwhelming chances of miscommunication - is the most important part of art, to me, anyway. But once those signs are out there, they enter multiple life worlds and take on multiple meanings unintended by the artist.

But I also don't think art has to affect people profoundly like r@t suggests. It's very easy not to be affected at all. Especially now. How often is someone 'affected' by a word?