your thoughts on modern 'art'

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Anomandaris, Oct 29, 2005.

  1. Anomandaris

    Anomandaris New Member

    well I just wasted 2 hours of my life yesterday.

    I was dragged around the tate modern 'because I needed a dose of culture'

    I have to ask how is any of that actually real art, a dot on a piece of paper? a latrine? a vase of rocks represents some crap? a messed up bed? a shed!

    as you can probably tell I am not impressed by so called modern 'art' but what do you think about it?
     
  2. Sankaku-jime

    Sankaku-jime Banned Banned

    I like some of it, i went to the Tate years ago to see the Cow in Formaldahyde etc, and it was actualy quite moving,

    but i reckon most of so called modern art is a con, made by con artists rather real artists, the sad thing is that some are actually convinced by some of this garbage that is passed of as art,
     
  3. Martial Alex

    Martial Alex Valued Member

    lol, i think we all know what your talking about, there are a couple of pieces in there that annoy me, firstly is like a large square of blue material with like a big cut in the middle (that is seriously it !!), and there is a video of like some fruit just going mouldy, and i think in the main hall there is like piles of boxes meant to look like snowy hills or something :confused: , but i do art so i am meant to appreciate this crap, but it annoys me when i see stuff people haven't put any effort into and people can call it a work of art :bang:
     
  4. Anomandaris

    Anomandaris New Member

    the worst i saw was a sheet of white paper with a single blue dot about the size of a 1 penny piece in the middle.

    its supposedly represents the simplicity of life...or a lazy artist to you and me.
     
  5. Wax

    Wax Valued Member

    In defence of Post-Modernism.

    The Modernist movement of the early 20th century was driven by the idea of perfection, especially in how to deliver meaning. This drove a lot of siemology in art.

    Now as art is reflective of the culture in which it is created, and at that time there were many clashing political interests in the world. People beliveing that they had the perfect system, or the perfect god.

    As this period of gross political unrest in the world began to settle a piece of art was made, I can't remember who by (tried seraching, no luck), which was a simple white chair, next to it was an acurate picture of the chair then lastly there was a dictionary open to the word 'chair'. The message was that there is no single perfect way to deliver a message. I interpret this piece to be that the chair is experience, the picture is sense and the definition being description. To understand an idea you can either experiece it, gain sense of it or have it described.

    Where to go from here? It appeard to be the end of history so artists did what all good people will do, they had a party on the ashes. Post-modernism was born as a rejection of the ideal. Art became fun and accessable again.

    Andy Warhol produced screen prints as a way to say 'everyone can own it'. Those who still searched for meaning looked at their exiences, such as Kerouac with 'On the Road. Some, such as T.S. Eliot in The Wasteland (a poem written from the fragments of poems he had in his mind), felt lost without an ideal and looked back at the past to question the artist. Amoung many other people and reactions.

    Eliots group gave rise to deconstruction, where a text was broken down to it's elements in an attempt to discern the ideas of the artist, which some argued was more reflective of the reader. Now with the rise of mass art we are bombarded with so many messages we can only think 'what can I say that hasn't already been said?'

    So people still try and find their idea, they still try and deliver a message, but a lot of these messages are best presented as a direct reference to something that someone else has said.

    But being the crazy non-conformists that artists are they reject the references and their work falls into meaninglessness, be it on the artists or the viewers behalf.

    But is post-modernism the end of history or just another phase?
     
  6. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    It may not be fair to judge modern art by these standards.... but..
    coming from a background in product/industrial design and illustration I find that most modern is relatively interesting in concept... but much of it hardly merit's execution.

    Many of the pieces or installations I see wouldn't ever make it out of my sketchbook. It's an interesting footnote...a doodle... but there are so many sham artists out there catering to the 'art scene' and so full of their own BS that it makes me want to vomit.

    Read Art Forum or Art Today and you can hardly get through the first paragraph without having to reach for the dictionary and the thesaurus. The reviews and the descriptions are written with an over inflated sense of grandiosity. Classic psuedo intellectualism.

    ok... that being said... there are some absolutely fascinating modern pieces by Japanese artist's working in natural fibers and with wood. I'll come up with some and post some images or links.

    Anywho... my 2 cents. :D
     
  7. Vexed

    Vexed New Member

    Got that right STJ,

    I have been to the Tate and seen some so called art, that really shouldn't have been there, and on the other side I have also seen some very beautiful pieces of art. I suppose it could be reflected back onto our own MAs, some are good and some are not so.
     
  8. Martial Alex

    Martial Alex Valued Member

    yah !! those japanese artists sound quite interesting, love to see their stuff, i went to an exhibition last monday showing chinese video and photography, and one of the videos was just some hidden camera video taping what chinese women were doing infront of the mirrors in a rude "adult entertainment" club.
     
  9. Vexed

    Vexed New Member

    Please tell us more.
     
  10. Martial Alex

    Martial Alex Valued Member

    thats honestly all that was happening, it was just showing about 15 minutes of footage showing different things they do infront of the mirror in the toilets, tucking money into their bras, etc.
     
  11. MajesticB

    MajesticB New Member

    Couple years ago I went to the Museum of Modern Arts in San Francisco. Let me tell you this. I could have crapped out a better piece of art than what i saw there. Since when is the front of a car painted 80 different colors art? To be honest, I dont have much appreciation for many kinds of art in the first place, but I do know why others do have an appreciation for it. But this modern art? I have no clue.

    As a side note, at the local fairgrounds, someone sold a piece of their "art" for like, $100. What was it? A toaster with half melted army men inside.
     
  12. Anomandaris

    Anomandaris New Member

    some things I suppose are ok but hardly what I would call art.

    its when a piece has some hidden message that you wont work out even by looking at it that I get annoyed. The shed for example, without reading the caption there is no way I could know that it was built, taken apart, rebuilt as a boat, sailed down some german river, and rebuilt as a shed.

    what does that tell me? sheds can be used to make river worthy boats.

    now as for what I consider art let me show you one of my favourites:-

    first

    this image is art, clearly the artist is skilled and creates an atmosphere of solitude but watched from all around
     
  13. TheCount

    TheCount Happiness is a mindset

    Anom the only reason you think its rubbish is because you haven't the skill, knowledge or ability in art to understand it or comprehend it. Yes I agree some modern art is just a hack but some pieces are really pretty fantastic to be honest.
     
  14. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    The question that always interests me is "If the skill in being an artist isn't in the execution of the product itself, then what is the skill of an artist?". Is being an artist a socially acceptible form of being a confidence trickster, but conning willing victims?

    What I mean is, it's become the case that a modern artist need not be skilled in the media they choose - they don't need to be a tchnically able painter, sculptor etc as the physical skill needed to (e.g.) paint a blue square in the centre of a canvas is minimal. So what is the value that separates an award-winning, millionaire modern artist from a penniless art-college student?

    Some might say it's the ability to justify the meaning of your work, but in an art gallery the impact is mostly made by the piece itself, with critics deciding what interpretation they infer from the piece. If we remove the idea that a picture (for example) needs to be detailed and a genuine likeness of an object, then the value of that picture is entirely subjective to the viewer. This makes the art world something of an "emperor's new clothes" situation - people are told "if you are cultured you will apprecate this". In the absence of any benchmark to decide whether a form of art is of high quality or not, you need to either accept that "if you are cultured you will like this" or accept that you are not one of the "true appreciators of art".

    I'm kinda of the opinion that modern art is designed to create an exclusive, self-sustaining community which trades in some imaginary currency of "culturedness" amongst itself. People are told at art school that skilled draughtsmanship is worthless and some abstract idea of "boldness" or "modernity" is the holy grail. Since what is worthwhile is decided by the community, and the art itself is created by the community, this creates a small exclusive clique to which people can only be admitted upon proving that they're the "right kind of person" - i.e. already indoctrinated. What is valued by the "elite" is not what is valued by the public as a whole because the role of the art isn't to be liked or appreciated, its job is to exclude the wrong kind of people from the community. As a piece of social engineering it's genius!
     
  15. Topher

    Topher allo!

    A lot of art from the last few decades is more about the concept behind it rather than the actual piece itself. The fact people are discussing it's worth show it is having an effect on society, hence it is doing exactly what it is designed to do.

    For people who are against it, why? Another question.... define art.

    Answer, you can’t. Because art it's the expression of the individual. It's like saying define religion.
     
  16. Jesh

    Jesh Dutch Side Of The Force

    Moosey, that was a real eloquent put post and I totally agree...

    Damn, I never knew that moose were so interested in art... :D
     
  17. Topher

    Topher allo!

    One thing i find interesting is traditional art and design from other cultures becoming “modern” the west. A lot of the simplicity you see in today’s art comes from traditional Japanese design which we only saw when they opened their boarders. Same with South African art. The traditional art and design of the “Ndebele Women” has greatly influenced European/western artists, note Mondrian.
     
  18. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    Thank you! It's actually quite similar to a lot of academic work - academic work being done by academics, for the benefit of other academics and often analysing the work of other academics - the need to provide anything of benefit to mankind sometimes seems secondary to the need to sustain the academic community. Not that I'm entirely complaining (since that's where my pocket money comes from :D)
     
  19. Jesh

    Jesh Dutch Side Of The Force

    *Grabbing the hunting rifle to shoot the most intelligent moose ever witnessed by mankind*

    :D
     
  20. Eddie Dean

    Eddie Dean Valued Member


    I completely agree :)

    personally I've been to the tate modern and the tate (or, if you prefer, 'New Tate' and 'Tate Classic') and I found the trip to the Tate gallery so much more rewarding experience.

    I've always been facinated by the things I cannot do - I love listening to Mathmatics or Phisics students talk because they know so much about subjects I bearly understand - it's this sort of 'Window to a new world' that I love about art - I cannot draw, I cannot paint, I cannot sculpt - but to see and experience the art that others can create amazes me.

    In that way I dislike modern or 'contemporary' art because it shows a lack of 'skill' in my opinion - I don't get the same amazment or sence of wonder from looking at things which I honestly believe I could create myself.

    I agree with Mooses post because I think that modern art has fallen into the relms of psuedo intellectualism as Slipthejab said - because it seems to me that people can pass anything off.

    As a sub question to the thread (if you don't mind me asking as I didn't create it :) ) To what extent do you believe that the people who create Modern Art believe what they justify their art to be? How many of them believe that the dot on the paper represents the Intranssient nature of existance?
     

Share This Page