|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:13 pm
I am endlessly irked that there isn't an art subforum.
Anyways.
What are your opinions of modern art?
Some people regard it as mindless garbage that shouldn't be fetching hundreds of thousands of dollars at galleries. Others view it as legitimate expression.
Modern art can go from anywhere from landscapes made from plastic milk cartons to whatever this is. xD
Go! [and try not to flame anyone, it ruins the fun]
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:08 am
Modern art is not a collective term I like, I simply prefer art and rubbish, and so though I do like some 'modern' art, there is a lot of it I would simply call rubbish.
To be honest I think anything that has some intrinsic artistic quality can be in a way classified as art but I do disagree with a lot of what some people may define as artistic quality, I was very displeased once when looking at a Monet my favourite artist to find someone to liken a modern piece of art which was very much rubbish to it.
Hmm I don't know really if it is art it is if it is not it isn't, I simply believe art doesn't have to try it simply will be and if it has to try it is not art.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:03 pm
The philosopher in me (whom has been budding of late) immediately wonders both whether art can try, and if so, whether art, thus possessing will and therefore consciousness, can really be said to be 'created' by artists at all, or if perhaps the art itself is simply a manifestation of an otherwise dormant facet of some form of collective human consciousness, thus earning it a sort of intrinsic 'soul', loosely speaking. This could possibly account for art's paradoxical nature as both a subjective value and something capable of generating psychological resonance across a span of both physical and temporal distance.
But ignore him, he tends to scare people away.
Besides, he sounds a lot like me when I was a kid. It's sort of strange, honestly, that I would backtrack like that. I mean, it's useful, and fun, dear god it's fun, but it's just odd, in a way.
My personal opinions of modern art. Well... I suppose that really, it takes just as much inspiration to turn a pile of thumbtacks into an effigial representation of such an abstract notion as 'pain', for example, as it would to paint any of the Mighty Paintings of Yore. It's simply a different skill. Sure, a painting and a milk carton landscape are entirely different physical constructs, but they both spring from and resonate with the same deep, dark psychological area of human consciousness. Like writing and music.
So, rather than mindless garbage undeserving of its monetary value, or as legitimate expression, I view it in a highly bland manner as one more, equally valid representation of some unnamed aspect of humanity as a whole.
So, I guess, 'legitimate expression' pretty much covers it...? I'm hopeless. Heh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:38 pm
Akira: Ah, yes, many people I know share the same sentiments. I don't entirely disagree with you, for I often feel it is very difficult for me to acknowledge some pieces as art.
Jack: Very interesting, because certain pieces that I have either seen or created will sometimes give me such intense vibes that I feel that they have souls. Not on a supernatural level, but on a psychological/spiritual one. The viewer's reaction is so strong that his/her mind assigns the source of the stimulation to an "equal" entity. For example, her work.
I feel that there is no way to distinguish whether or not something is or isn't art. Art is anything an artist makes. Modern art is a lot like literary fiction, because although it may not make any sense whatsoever it is probably full of symbolism and metaphors relevant to the artist's life. Art is created from past experiences and the artist's imagination (which is one of the reasons why I don't like it when artists take drugs to supplement their work, but even then there are exceptions for this), so it may not be beautiful, effective, etc. until the viewer understands the artist and the motivations that shaped the piece. Art conveys visually what cannot be said in words, and sometimes it is meant to be ugly and confusing. The one thing about modern art that I do not tolerate is when artists don't title their work. Seriously. If you give two shits about what you've just spent months/years working on, at least give it a name. Give the viewer a place to start if they decide to attempt to understand what you are saying, or else you make yourself seem distant and uncaring about your own work. Apparently many artists do this to force the viewer to decide for themselves what the piece is about, but I find it endlessly irritating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:44 pm
Urg I know the feeling, untitled pieces piss me off, I like at least know the name also if I like it, its hard to discuss a picture you like with people if you can't even name it, so they can go look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
