|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Omnipotent Uncertainties Captain
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:56 pm
Personally, I'm a little conflicted about modern art. I hate to group art into such a catagory, as I believe all art must be considered and appraised on an individual basis, not mass cataloged and rated accordingly to its respective "genre".
Simply put, I find that some modern art is attrocious, and an insult to actual art. I have a reference to back this up. One particular modern artist was selling a piece at around 1000 euros in Dublin. This work consisted of an open ended box, containing a loaf of sliced bread. It did not sell. A few weeks later, I saw this piece once more, still not sold, only now, it was priced at 2000 euros. Apparently, the fact that the bread now played host to several colonies of mould increased its artistic worth. Imagine that, evolving art, that becomes more costly with each "evolution". Sorry, call me a philistine, but I'm far from convinced by that...
So, what is your position on modern art? Do you, like me, consider only some of this art to be bad? Or do you feel that all works of modern art are cut from the same proverbial cloth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:21 pm
I find a lot of modern art to be faked creativity. I still have yet to find a piece that I find beyond exceptional, but the only one that stands out in my mind is The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living by Damien Hirst. Preservation is information science, not art.
Next to that, I also highly dislike modern art in the abstract category. I'm fond of Wassily Kandinsky but what I see today--what in the world are those things? I understand that sometimes art isn't meant to be interpreted, and perhaps I'm just hiding under a safeguard that requires shapes and definition, but to me, art is supposed to be an association to an idea, not something "made" by a two-year old that art critics feel embarrassed for praising.
If modern art is going to confuse me instead of rewire my way of viewing the world, I just can't see it in a good light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:57 pm
In short, I've never considered anything that looks like it was painted by my three-year-old nephew "art"...but that is just me. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:17 pm
All I know is that I hate the type of modern art you are talking about. There is nothing creative about thing like that.
As much as I myself love blending in colours on a page- I would absolutely not call these masterpieces and sell them to the highest bidder.
For modern art to be good it has to look like the person actually took time to create it- not just slopped something on a paper and called it art.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:53 pm
What you discuss is not modern art, but conceptual art.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:50 pm
When you open your heart a little, and pull someone close to you,
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
I love art in any form or style.
But I find what some people consider "art" to be rather insulting.
Most of what I've seen which can be considered modern art I've appreciated and enjoyed greatly.
One of my favorite works of modern art
And another good example of modern art
I suppose the beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder but the example you gave is truly laughable.
┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
Your feelings will surely reach them deeper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:01 pm
Let's redefine Modern art first.
Definition: a genre of the fine arts created from the mid-19th century which strayed from traditional techniques and styles. Example Pollock
Modern art is not the art of now. We are in a new era of art. Most of it foolish and boring. Hitler would not have issue getting one of his pieces into art gallery today.
As for this new unnamed era people are taking to much from still life in dull and lifeless since. Nothing is eye catching. People are not creating Pollocks or The soup can guy... that his name just left me. Nothing is popping in color or a sea of wild paint colors mixed in patternized rage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:44 pm
Shana OHara Let's redefine Modern art first. Definition: a genre of the fine arts created from the mid-19th century which strayed from traditional techniques and styles. Example Pollock Modern art is not the art of now. We are in a new era of art. Most of it foolish and boring. Hitler would not have issue getting one of his pieces into art gallery today. As for this new unnamed era people are taking to much from still life in dull and lifeless since. Nothing is eye catching. People are not creating Pollocks or The soup can guy... that his name just left me. Nothing is popping in color or a sea of wild paint colors mixed in patternized rage. If only I'd thought of the right words
I could have held on to your heart
If only I'd thought of the right words
I wouldn't be breaking apart
All my pictures of you
Did you mean Andy Warhol? =D
Looking so long at these pictures of you
But I never could hold on to your heart
Looking so long for the words to be true
But always just breaking apart
My pictures of you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:58 pm
I'm indifferent to modern art, since some of it is complete crap, and some of it is cool as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
