Modern Art: Love it or loathe it?

Ficheall · 05-08-2019 02:22PM

Cornelius Crow wrote: »

In terms of contemporary, accessible art in Dublin, SUBSET have been doing some amazing work lately. Their most recent piece was completed this week in Bushy Park, Terenure. It’s called “Please Stand By”, they describe it as

“A collaboration with Bushy Park in Terenure on new anamorphic mural reviving the old bandstand.

“Please Stand By” is inspired by the unfortunate fact it has been unused for decades. Using the medium of painted artwork we will create a site-specific, anamorphic installation informed by the historical and physical characteristics of the landmark.

There is huge potential for improving the visual environment within our congregative spaces through utilising canvases for large scale artworks. This provides a platform to express and cultivate Irish creativity in conjunction with nature, heritage and culture.

The artwork will be finished on the 03/08, please feel free to spread the word and drop down to take a look. We intend this project to be a catalyst for a wider public art initiative within local communities.”

I thought this was a bus shelter when I saw the pic first. Seemed fitting.

05-08-2019 02:39PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

And that's the problem with a lot of modern and contemporary art for me. It asks the viewer to fill in the gaps without necessarily giving you reason to.

Contemporary art often requires a leap of faith, certainly -- in the sense that you have to assume that the artist is attempting to convey something, even if that is to annoy you, or to puzzle you, or to cause you to ask 'if this is art, what is art?'

I don't see the problem with the observer having to 'fill in the gaps'. Macbeth can be summed up with the words 'Power corrupts'. The Count of Monte Cristo can be summed up with 'Redemption and Revenge'. It is the way the story is told that is so compelling, the underlying theme (the bottom line) isn't where the beauty lies.

It's the same with art. If you just want to get to the bottom line, you're going to miss the fun of getting there, which is the best part of all.

?format=750w

Take the above painting by Sean Keating (An Allegory, 1924). He gives the observer, if they are acquainted with the history of the Civil War, an obvious allegory. Chaos reigns, the Church is conspiring with industrial interests, and a man -- in this case, the artist himself -- is sitting under a tree that might well have been planted during the Plantation of Ireland, not even watching the two men (one a Free State Soldier, the other presumably an irregular) working against one another to bury the past.

Predictably, Ireland is depicted as a breastfeeding woman. Hope for the future, bla bla bla.

Some people like this stuff. Others find it incredibly dull. The artist is telling you something, and giving you no latitude in which you can disagree or see things from another perspective. Even the straight-on, ground level perspective, and the realist approach seems to say 'This is How Things Are. This is a fact'.

Well, that's a bit obstinate, and it really bugs me anytime I see this painting in the National Gallery. I hate that painting. I find this kind of painting far more lazy, and less engaging, than some really provocative contemporary art.

Greyfox · 05-08-2019 03:05PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Contemporary art often requires a leap of faith, certainly -- in the sense that you have to assume that the artist is attempting to convey something...

Personally I think only an eejit would pay more than a euro for the picture in the op. It could literally be someone with zero artistic ability dropping paint on a white board and he could get arty friends to pretend there's some deep meaning in there. Art is one of the most overratted things in the world. If you can't understand what the artist was trying to convey it could be that the artist was lacking talent. If something is great someone should be able to explain what they think is great about it

FrancieBrady · 05-08-2019 03:14PM

Greyfox wrote: »

Personally I think only an eejit would pay more than a euro for the picture in the op. It could literally be someone with zero artistic ability dropping paint on a white board and he could get arty friends to pretend there's some deep meaning in there. Art is one of the most overratted things in the world. If you can't understand what the artist was trying to convey it could be that the artist was lacking talent. If something is great someone should be able to explain what they think is great about it

That's patent nonsense. Art doesn't owe you a thing if you are not prepared to make an effort.

The more you know the more you can figure out what the artist is trying to say or not say, as the case may be.

'Art is one of the most overrated things in the world'

Yeh right!

:D

Wibbs · 05-08-2019 03:14PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What are you expecting from art? Surely, much of postmodern art is intended more to offend or to provoke than to please and pacify. It's supposed to make you tut, or raise your eyebrows, just like Duchamp's pissoti (FOUNTAIN), where he exhibited a urinal as a piece of art. It annoys people as much as it amuses or impresses them, it raises all kinds of questions about art and the role of the artist in it.

THat's a lot of the problem with so called "'postmodernist" art, it channelled Duchamp almost to a fault, but only one aspect of his output and unlike much contemporary art Duchamp wasn't a one trick pony. Never mind for all its postmodernism the majority of it is rehashing the ideas of modernism(and about a third of the time Picasso).

Installation art and large scales is about the biggest trend of contemporary art, though with a history going back to the 1970's at the tail end of modernism. The art of the small scale the personal has largely fallen away replaced by the large scale corporate, the new church of patronage. One reason I do like Banksy and similar of his school, it is public yes, but personal too and often small scale and people like it. It doesn't need dealers and galleries and critics(mostly dealers) to tell people it's good.

I never quite bought into the whole "oh you have to have an understanding going in, you have to meet the artist halfway" stuff. The carvings at Newgrange and Knowth still hold power and we have no clue what the artist meant. Even much more recently, the impressionists were hated by most of the critics(the name of the movement even started out as a slag), yet when their stuff got out into the wider public domain people loved it. Ditto for the postimpressionists. Picasso was popular, as was Dali(but that went to his head).

Earthhorse · 05-08-2019 03:17PM

Replying to ATNM...

That sort of art holds little appeal for me either. But of course there’s a lot of art like that through the ages where specific colours, objects, animals or mythical beings were proxies for concepts. That’s partly due to the limitations of art (painting, in this case as a medium). A canvas, unlike a play, can only be so big and you can only put so much in it.

So, yeah, you can sum up Macbeth with a two word phrase but the great thing is there are multiple themes in play; appearance vs reality, the folly of ambition, the virtues of a righteous king. It might be fairer to compare a whole exhibit to a play because there’s no way an individual work could cover as much ground. And yes, the beauty is in "how it’s written" (equivalently the beauty in art would be how it’s painted, sculpted etc. but much contemporary art tends to be dismissive of that) but the themes are what you reflect on and explore after; they are not just some bottom line you must accept or that when you understand them will mean you like the piece (play, painting, song etc.).

FrancieBrady · 05-08-2019 03:22PM

Wibbs wrote: »

THat's a lot of the problem with so called "'postmodernist" art, it channelled Duchamp almost to a fault, but only one aspect of his output and unlike much contemporary art Duchamp wasn't a one trick pony. Never mind for all its postmodernism the majority of it is rehashing the ideas of modernism(and about a third of the time Picasso).

Installation art and large scales is about the biggest trend of contemporary art, though with a history going back to the 1970's at the tail end of modernism. The art of the small scale the personal has largely fallen away replaced by the large scale corporate, the new church of patronage. One reason I do like Banksy and similar of his school, it is public yes, but personal too and often small scale and people like it. It doesn't need dealers and galleries and critics(mostly dealers) to tell people it's good.

I never quite bought into the whole "oh you have to have an understanding going in, you have to meet the artist halfway" stuff. The carvings at Newgrange and Knowth still hold power and we have no clue what the artist meant. Even much more recently, the impressionists were hated by most of the critics(the name of the movement even started out as a slag), yet when their stuff got out into the wider public domain people loved it. Ditto for the postimpressionists. Picasso was popular, as was Dali(but that went to his head).

The carvings at Knowth and Newgrange would fall into the craft range surely.

And the critics hated impressionism because it broke the rules, which were very confined and rigid. It doesn't and never did take a lot to figure out what the impressionists were doing really.

My problem is with people who say they 'don't understand it, therefore it is rubbish or over-rated and who won't take the time to try and learn what they artist/stlye is all about. Because in most cases there is something of note going on.

Earthhorse · 05-08-2019 03:26PM

Wibbs wrote: »

THat's a lot of the problem with so called "'postmodernist" art, it channelled Duchamp almost to a fault, but only one aspect of his output and unlike much contemporary art Duchamp wasn't a one trick pony. Never mind for all its postmodernism the majority of it is rehashing the ideas of modernism(and about a third of the time Picasso).

Duchamp sort of emptied the well, too. He did a lot of stuff first and better than his followers but that didn’t stop people rehashing the same tricks again and again. Yes, a lot of modern art does challenge us to think about what we can define as art but honestly don’t they ever get bored of asking that question? Indeed hasn’t the art scene essentially answered by saying anything goes. This is why people roll their eyes when they’re presented with the billionth sculpture that challenges them to "think about the space".

Greyfox · 05-08-2019 03:28PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's patent nonsense. Art doesn't owe you a thing if you are not prepared to make an effort.

The more you know the more you can figure out what the artist is trying to say or not say, as the case may be.

'Art is one of the most overrated things in the world' Yeh right! :D

Well in my opinion it's very overratted. I'd be prepared to make the effort but a lot of modern art is garbage. The people who pay big money for art have more money than common sense.

05-08-2019 03:36PM

Wibbs wrote: »

THat's a lot of the problem with so called "'postmodernist" art, it channelled Duchamp almost to a fault, but only one aspect of his output and unlike much contemporary art Duchamp wasn't a one trick pony. Never mind for all its postmodernism the majority of it is rehashing the ideas of modernism(and about a third of the time Picasso).

You could call it rehashing, I'd say they're elaborating, and branching out.

We see this in every field of human endeavour. In science, Darwin was inspired by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. In music, the Swiss composer Honegger was inspired by the work and style of the poet Rimbaud, who was inspired by Baudelaire, who was inspired by the romantic artist Delacroix. Variation on a theme etc. It only becomes a rehashing when it isn't saying anything new anymore, and I don't believe we've reached that point in contemporary art.

I never quite bought into the whole "oh you have to have an understanding going in, you have to meet the artist halfway" stuff. The carvings at Newgrange and Knowth still hold power and we have no clue what the artist meant.

I think the artist is always trying to convey something, but he isn't always trying to present you with a clear statement, or presenting you with a puzzle. That's the difference between a piece of art and a crossword puzzle. There isn't a right answer, a piece of art can have artistic qualities just for having made you feel a certain way -- even if that's exasperation at its chaos or perceived arrogance.

And before anyone raises the question, yes a sudoku or a crossword could be art, if exhibited as such!

05-08-2019 03:54PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

So, yeah, you can sum up Macbeth with a two word phrase but the great thing is there are multiple themes in play; appearance vs reality, the folly of ambition, the virtues of a righteous king. It might be fairer to compare a whole exhibit to a play because there’s no way an individual work could cover as much ground. And yes, the beauty is in "how it’s written" (equivalently the beauty in art would be how it’s painted, sculpted etc. but much contemporary art tends to be dismissive of that) but the themes are what you reflect on and explore after; they are not just some bottom line you must accept or that when you understand them will mean you like the piece (play, painting, song etc.).

Are you saying that contemporary art is devoid of theme? I don't think that argument can stand up to scrutiny, because even the pulling of the leg is a theme, albeit not always an interesting one.

The problem here appears to be the form which contemporary art takes, and its lack of obviousness. This is perhaps a question of taste, but some people prefer its subjectivity and its relative opacity compared to other modes of painting. Of course there's a fine line between opacity and obscurantism, and the latter is no fun.

Earthhorse wrote: »

but honestly don’t they ever get bored of asking that question? Indeed hasn’t the art scene essentially answered by saying anything goes. This is why people roll their eyes when they’re presented with the billionth sculpture that challenges them to "think about the space".

There are a million ways to ask a good question, most of them quite interesting. Joyce asked the same question in Ulysses as Wagner did in Tristan And Isolde: "Sex? Desire? The world and our place in the world: what's it all about? Same question, asked differently.

FrancieBrady · 05-08-2019 04:03PM

Greyfox wrote: »

Well in my opinion it's very overratted. I'd be prepared to make the effort but a lot of modern art is garbage. The people who pay big money for art have more money than common sense.

How do you have the slightest clue if you haven't made any effort?

Wibbs · 05-08-2019 04:04PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The carvings at Knowth and Newgrange would fall into the craft range surely.

Why? Because they're maybe of a religious significance? That would also knock out the majority of art the renaissance.

My problem is with people who say they 'don't understand it, therefore it is rubbish or over-rated and who won't take the time to try and learn what they artist/stlye is all about. Because in most cases there is something of note going on.

Sometimes, though I would take issue with the notion that most of the time there' something of not going on. We may be told there is if we're wont to listen in the first place and many may choose to believe, but that's awfuly close to telling us the emperor is wearing new clothes. Art and certainly great art starts with a feeling, not debate, not explanation and if it's great art it ends up meaning something and explaining something to the observer and the society.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You could call it rehashing, I'd say they're elaborating, and branching out.

We see this in every field of human endeavour. In science, Darwin was inspired by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. In music, the Swiss composer Honegger was inspired by the work and style of the poet Rimbaud, who was inspired by Baudelaire, who was inspired by the romantic artist Delacroix. Variation on a theme etc.

And usually they made things better or took things off in new directions.

It only becomes a rehashing when it isn't saying anything new anymore, and I don't believe we've reached that point in contemporary art.

I would say that point was largely reached by the 80's. Point us to just one new art movement of the last 40 years. Where's our rococo, cubism, radicalism, expressionism, dada?

And before anyone raises the question, yes a sudoku or a crossword could be art, if exhibited as such!

And that right there folks is the one trick pony and oft thinly veiled BS of post-which isn't really-modernism Duchampism. It's art because it's labelled as such by an artist/gallery/critic/dealer.

And that's a problem for me, because it makes us wary of describing art as good or bad, or even relevant and any who do, even the informed, are likely to suffer brickbats for suggesting ascribing an artistic value on something. When all is art because it says so, then nothing is.

Wibbs · 05-08-2019 04:05PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are a million ways to ask a good question, most of them quite interesting. Joyce asked the same question in Ulysses as Wagner did in Tristan And Isolde: "Sex? Desire? The world and our place in the world: what's it all about? Same question, asked differently.

and asked well.

FrancieBrady · 05-08-2019 04:12PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Why? Because they're maybe of a religious significance? That would also knock out the majority of art the renaissance.

No, because we don't know what they are, they are stone carvings = craft. They could be road directions.

Sometimes, though I would take issue with the notion that most of the time there' something of not going on. We may be told there is if we're wont to listen in the first place and many may choose to believe, but that's awfuly close to telling us the emperor is wearing new clothes. Art and certainly great art starts with a feeling, not debate, not explanation and if it's great art it ends up meaning something and explaining something to the observer and the society.

So why would you go to art college then. There are whole rafts of artists I had no clue of what they were doing until I studied them. Now some of them are among my favourite artists and I have a far wider range of perception and potential understanding.

You don't need to go to college, but you do need to know more than the visual tells you. Same goes for writing and poetry etc. The more you know the more you will enjoy.

Earthhorse · 05-08-2019 04:16PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Are you saying that contemporary art is devoid of theme? I don't think that argument can stand up to scrutiny, because even the pulling of the leg is a theme, albeit not always an interesting one.

No, I'm saying an individual artwork (painting, statue etc.) can only explore so much theme at once. Usually, far less than an individual book, play or movie.

The problem here appears to be the form which contemporary art takes, and its lack of obviousness. This is perhaps a question of taste, but some people prefer its subjectivity and its relative opacity compared to other modes of painting. Of course there's a fine line between opacity and obscurantism, and the latter is no fun.

As I said earlier; it appeals to those eager to fill the gaps and puts off those eager for the artist to gain our interest.

There are a million ways to ask a good question, most of them quite interesting. Joyce asked the same question in Ulysses as Wagner did in Tristan And Isolde: "Sex? Desire? The world and our place in the world: what's it all about? Same question, asked differently.

Most of them quite boring, I would say. Perhaps this is another difference in who likes or doesn't like modern art; they have different ideas about what is interesting.

05-08-2019 04:24PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Point us to just one new art movement of the last 40 years. Where's our rococo, cubism, radicalism, expressionism, dada?

Definitely the democratisation/ interactivity of art so as to include the audience, or a group of artists. Call it relational art, or participatory, that's definitely a new departure and a growing trend.

40 years is a bit of a short time-frame for a new art to sprout, develop coherently, and establish itself as a distinct school. Man Ray was probably described as both dadaist and surrealist by different people observing the very same work (and, no doubt, as a complete chancer too).

And that right there folks is the one trick pony and oft thinly veiled BS of post-which isn't really-modernism Duchampism. It's art because it's labelled as such by an artist/gallery/critic/dealer.

Wasn't it Duchamp who declared that FOUNTAIN was art because it was exhibited?

Greyfox · 05-08-2019 04:35PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

So, yeah, you can sum up Macbeth with a two word phrase but the great thing is there are multiple themes in play

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My problem is with people who say they 'don't understand it, therefore it is rubbish or over-rated and who won't take the time to try and learn what they artist/stlye is all about. Because in most cases there is something of note going on.

Yeah but with Macbeth those themes exist regardless of wheter or not you like the play. With comtempory art someone could say what themes and feeling they got from a piece of art and the next person could say they didnt get them and to them they dont exist. People could be using there imagination to see things that are not there. If you don't initially like a painting you might still think the painting is rubbish even after you read what the artist was trying to do. If someone who doesn't understand the painting doesnt get a desire to try to understand it then its the artist who has failed. Give me a good book, film, game, song, tv show, play or even a poem over a piece of art any day

ILoveYourVibes · 05-08-2019 04:38PM

Just post art you love and art you loathe.

FrancieBrady · 05-08-2019 04:46PM

Greyfox wrote: »

Yeah but with Macbeth those themes exist regardless of wheter or not you like the play. With comtempory art someone could say what themes and feeling they got from a piece of art and the next person could say they didnt get them and to them they dont exist. People could be using there imagination to see things that are not there. If you don't initially like a painting you might still think the painting is rubbish even after you read what the artist was trying to do. If someone who doesn't understand the painting doesnt get a desire to try to understand it then its the artist who has failed. Give me a good book, film, game, song, tv show, play or even a poem over a piece of art any day

This. You don't have a 'right' to understand it. It is no fault of the artist's if you come to the piece without the tools to understand it.

It's like saying the writer has failed because he wrote the book in Spanish.

05-08-2019 04:51PM

Greyfox wrote: »

Yeah but with Macbeth those themes exist regardless of wheter or not you like the play. With comtempory art someone could say what themes and feeling they got from a piece of art and the next person could say they didnt get them and to them they dont exist. People could be using there imagination to see things that are not there. If you don't initially like a painting you might still think the painting is rubbish even after you read what the artist was trying to do. If someone who doesn't understand the painting doesnt get a desire to try to understand it then its the artist who has failed. Give me a good book, film, game, song, tv show, play or even a poem over a piece of art any day

Isn't that just another way of saying that you want to be told what the artist is saying, with a clear bottom-line without having to investigate it or engage with it.

I really don't mean this to sound flippant, but in that case you might as well just sign up to an email subscription, where the artist sends his followers a paragraph of his thoughts every couple of months.

Duchamp has been referenced many times in this thread, and in trying to find a quote he said about art being art just because it is exhibited, I came across a different quote (also Duchamp) which is actually much less contentious (hopefully)

The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualification and thus adds his contribution.

Wibbs · 05-08-2019 04:57PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So why would you go to art college then.

Good question. If it's for the academic study of art cool, of it's to become an artist these days, that's less clear. In the past it was for the most part a place to hone with practice technique and the craft and to be exposed to technique itself in an era before mass media. These days I'm not so sure. One could become an internationally renowned - at least to galleries and dealers - artist with little or no technique.

You don't need to go to college, but you do need to know more than the visual tells you. Same goes for writing and poetry etc. The more you know the more you will enjoy.

It can certainly enhance the experience, but for me it shouldn't entirely replace it and that's more in play of late. IE This is ART(tm), it's in a gallery and you need an explanation as to why this is ART(tm) in the first place.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Definitely the democratisation/ interactivity of art so as to include the audience, or a group of artists. Call it relational art, or participatory, that's definitely a new departure and a growing trend.

well, new of a sort as again it goes back to before my arbitrary 1980's line.

40 years is a bit of a short time-frame for a new art to sprout, develop coherently, and establish itself as a distinct school.

Tell that to the aforementioned expressionism and cubism, surrealism, fauvism. Abstract expressionism was pretty much born, matured and died within a decade. Cubism was a teenager and fauvism died when it was barely a toddler.

Wasn't it Duchamp who declared that FOUNTAIN was art because it was exhibited?

Indeed, which was his point. He chose it specifically to get a reaction and people thinking and to demystify artistic taste and the artist as spiritual creator and all that. He was also taking the piss(no pun) in many ways, especially at critics and dealers and said so at the time and afterwards. I think he'd break his sides laughing at the notion that that one statement of his has had such legs today and would be puzzled at the large missing hole of something else, something new way of looking.

Warholism along with Duchamp is what seems to inform the majority of art today. Warhol because of studio produced pop art by any other name, which gave us chancers like Koons and the likes of Hirst(who I liked actually). That and corporate scale.

FrancieBrady · 05-08-2019 05:04PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Good question. If it's for the academic study of art cool, of it's to become an artist these days, that's less clear. In the past it was for the most part a place to hone with practice technique and the craft and to be exposed to technique itself in an era before mass media. These days I'm not so sure. One could become an internationally renowned - at least to galleries and dealers - artist with little or no technique.

I was actually talking about studying art movements and history at college. The problem of 'what is art' never weighs too heavily on the head of the practitioners in my experience.

It can certainly enhance the experience, but for me it shouldn't entirely replace it and that's more in play of late. IE This is ART(tm), it's in a gallery and you need an explanation as to why this is ART(tm) in the first place.

Not meaning to be exclusive or pretentious, but an awful lot of art will pass you by if that us your approach tbh.

Greyfox · 05-08-2019 05:07PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you have the slightest clue if you haven't made any effort?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This. You don't have a 'right' to understand it. It is no fault of the artist's if you come to the piece without the tools to understand it.

It's like saying the writer has failed because he wrote the book in Spanish.

I have made the effort with some, currently trying to get my head around no 5 by Jackson pollock but can't see what the fuss is about.

If it's good I should be able to find a way to understand what the artist was trying to say otherwise it's garbage. In your eg I could learn Spanish and be able to understand it. Ullysees by Joyce if difficult to like and understand but if you read guides they'd lead you to understanding what Joyce's story is about.

FrancieBrady · 05-08-2019 05:09PM

Greyfox wrote: »

I have made the effort with some, currently trying to get my head around no 5 by Jackson pollock but can't see what the fuss is about.

If it's good I should be able to find a way to understand what the artist was trying to say otherwise it's garbage. In your eg I could learn Spanish and be able to understand it. Ullysees by Joyce if difficult to like and understand but if you read guides they'd lead you to understanding what Joyce's story is about.

Exactly. And the same goes for art.

If you understand what Pollock was trying to do in No. 5 and it does nothing for you. So what? Move on, plenty more art out there. But don't call it garbage.

Wibbs · 05-08-2019 05:26PM

I suppose for me I appreciate art that has something to say, beyond the internal self reverential sterility of "this is art, because is art". Bonus points if it's also aesthetically engaging too.

Earthhorse · 05-08-2019 05:27PM

Greyfox wrote: »

Yeah but with Macbeth those themes exist regardless of wheter or not you like the play. With comtempory art someone could say what themes and feeling they got from a piece of art and the next person could say they didnt get them and to them they dont exist. People could be using there imagination to see things that are not there. If you don't initially like a painting you might still think the painting is rubbish even after you read what the artist was trying to do. If someone who doesn't understand the painting doesnt get a desire to try to understand it then its the artist who has failed. Give me a good book, film, game, song, tv show, play or even a poem over a piece of art any day

I do think art, especially modern art, is more prone to people seeing things that aren't there than other artforms. But don't kid yourself; there is a lot of academic grist out there seeing things that aren't there in literature. To paraphrase a friend who studied English at Oxford she didn't know of any respected author about whom it wasn't speculated they were gay (and the evidence were the themes of homo-erotism in their works).

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This. You don't have a 'right' to understand it. It is no fault of the artist's if you come to the piece without the tools to understand it.

It's like saying the writer has failed because he wrote the book in Spanish.

Those tools can also be misapplied though or used by the artist to fool those who yield them clumsily.

A lot of these tools make you a good art history student (which is fine and has its place); they don't make you a good purveyor or interpreter of new art.

FrancieBrady · 05-08-2019 05:36PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Those tools can also be misapplied though or used by the artist to fool those who yield them clumsily.

A lot of these tools make you a good art history student (which is fine and has its place); they don't make you a good purveyor or interpreter of new art.

Every business, activity has it's fraudsters. Art & Art appreciation is no different.
I think the secret is knowing when to move on, put that book down or turn away from a painting/art piece.

05-08-2019 05:37PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Tell that to the aforementioned expressionism and cubism, surrealism, fauvism. Abstract expressionism was pretty much born, matured and died within a decade. Cubism was a teenager and fauvism died when it was barely a toddler.

I think you're vastly overstating the rate of change in artistic movements there, which can seem easy to delineate in retrospect, but there are plenty of debates on the margins of all artistic modes as to what belongs in which school. Is Mark Rothko's Slow Swirl At The Edge of The Sea surrealist art, or abstract expression? I don't know, maybe both. Art, like nature, does not operate along clear lines and distinctions can seem arbitrary, and organising art along fixed lines (especially chronological) is largely done for convenience.

Therefore, attempting to provide evidence of of a clear, utterly distinguishable new movement since 1980 (which I believe participatory/ interactive art is, by the way) will of course be met by the denials and dismissals like "it's really just the same as x, y" or "it's not art", much like has been said anytime a new movement emerges.

Having said all of that, it's also useful to bear in mind that a huge explosion (pardon the pun) in creativity emerged from the two world wars. Great upheavals are magnificent catalysts for innovation (from the space race to the domestic kitchen), and it's fair to say that the pace of innovation will naturally seem less dramatic in a time of relative peace and order.

This whole conversation, in fact, somewhat reminds me of people who complain that the pace of technological innovation has slowed down, and 'why are they bothering to investigate earthworms, Cheryl, they should be sending more people into Space'? Similarly : A child could draw that circle, Frank, why doesn't he paint a garden gate or a nice landscape instead?'

Well, there's good reason to believe that the pace of innovation (in science, for example) is not, in fact, slowing down. It's just that as our knowledge about the world is more refined, scientists delving into more intricate and compelex fields of new discovery.

And the same, by and large, goes for art. Art is changing, and we needn't be too precious about that. It's very exciting.

Earthhorse · 05-08-2019 05:40PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Every business, activity has it's fraudsters. Art & Art appreciation is no different.
I think the secret is knowing when to move on, put that book down or turn away from a painting/art piece.

Sure. But I'm not just talking about frauds I'm talking about fools. People who believe that because they can talk about art in a sophisticated way it means the art they're talking about is actually sophisticated. But really they just enjoy the sound of their own pretensions.

Modern Art: Love it or loathe it?

Comments