A friend of mine once said, "Modern art is a conspiracy between rich people and artists to make the rest of us feel stupid."

Discuss.

:D

The Rev

Indeed. Modern art looks like a 5 year old could do it. In fact, I think most modern art comes right out of kindergarten art factories where kids are forced to splatter paint all day. Then, the "masterpieces" are sold at auctions for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the money goes into the coffers of the privileged and the government as well. It's sort of like The Emperor's New Clothes, but with art instead of clothing.

Modern art looks like a 5 year old could do it.

Oh we've never seen anyone say that before! By "modern art" I'm figuring you're talking about art after the middle of the last century. Or do you mean even earlier?

Indeed. Modern art looks like a 5 year old could do it.

Actually, what is this "modern art" you're talking about? How something that heterogeneous be classified that easily, that bombastically, and that snippily?

Oh, I'm sorry, was I bombastic, snippy, and classifying art too simply? I just trying to be funny, I really don't know much about modern art. However, I really dislike Charles Darwin, not for his theories, but because he was an avid hunter. Nothing personal on either count!

A friend of mine once said, "Modern art is a conspiracy between rich people and artists to make the rest of us feel stupid."

Discuss.

:D

The Rev

I have a fantastic piece of modern art in my home, waiting to be reframed and hung on a wall. Although the pattern was purely placed at random on the paper, it has an extraordinary sense of color and design. Looking at it, I gets a good visceral idea of the playfulness and exuberance that the artist was feeling when she painted it. Everybody who sees it gets the same reaction. I have never heard a negative comment regarding this painting. This work of modern art has raw power that cannot be denied.

It was painted by my niece when she was three years old. :yes:

A friend of mine once said, "Modern art is a conspiracy between rich people and artists to make the rest of us feel stupid."
What have rich people to do with it? Not all modern art is shown in galleries and sold for ridiculous prices.

Anyway, one of the attitudes that can be associated with critical discussion of modern art is that good art somehow requires that it's "difficult to make" (i.e. it requires a lot of technical skill), and I disagree with that.

Oh, I'm sorry, was I bombastic, snippy, and classifying art too simply? I just trying to be funny, I really don't know much about modern art. However, I really dislike Charles Darwin, not for his theories, but because he was an avid hunter. Nothing personal on either count!

:think: Hm. Ok.

I'm still interested to hear what you percieve as modern art.

You spell perceive correctly in your signature, but you spelled it incorrectly in your post. I don't really know what modern art is, but I've seen some modern art that is just vague colors that seem randomly placed on a canvas. I just don't see any meaning in the works that I have seen. Once again, however, I haven't seen all modern art, so there may be some that I would like. I'm more of a music fan than an art fan anyway.

Anyway, one of the attitudes that can be associated with critical discussion of modern art is that good art somehow requires that it's "difficult to make" (i.e. it requires a lot of technical skill), and I disagree with that.

Hrm, wouldn't you agree that technical precision is one of the dimensions on which we judge art?

You spell perceive correctly in your signature, but you spelled it incorrectly in your post. I don't really know what modern art is, but I've seen some modern art that is just vague colors that seem randomly placed on a canvas. I just don't see any meaning in the works that I have seen. Once again, however, I haven't seen all modern art, so there may be some that I would like. I'm more of a music fan than an art fan anyway.

It's impossible to walk down the street in just about any city that has had economic development in the last 20 years without seeing "modern art."

Which is a bit of a problem. "Modern art" can mean everything from late Impressionism, Art Nuveau, to Abstract Expressionism and Dada. The same people who point to a Pollack and say "my three year old can do than" (if you really think so, then you are not seeing very deeply into it) will go ape**** over an O'Keefe, Khalo, or Tiffany.

Hmmm, I see. Well then, I guess my opinion of modern art varies based on what type of modern art it is. Thanks for the info, Kirk!

You spell perceive correctly in your signature, but you spelled it incorrectly in your post. I don't really know what modern art is, but I've seen some modern art that is just vague colors that seem randomly placed on a canvas. I just don't see any meaning in the works that I have seen. Once again, however, I haven't seen all modern art, so there may be some that I would like. I'm more of a music fan than an art fan anyway.


First of all, who cares about the spelling thing? Secondly, you show how little you know about Modern Art in this thread by what you are posting. vague colors??? How are colors vague to begin with? Also, because you see them as random doesn't necessarily mean that they are "randomly" placed (in some cases they might be, but that is a whole other topic really). Perhaps, you are just looking at it with too narrow a scope. It's fine that you don't see any meaning. You are entitled to your opinion. However, that doesn't mean that meaning or whatever you want to call it, doesnt exist. And lastly, music is an art.


I had to add that I agree with Kirk..( I didn't see his until after I posted.) I have heard people say that about Pollack's work too.

And lastly, music is an art.

I know, but you split hairs as much as I do. Music may be an art, but the OP's intention wasn't to discuss music, as far as I can tell. Colors can be vague, in the sense that they lack meaning to me. The artist may intend for there to be meaning, but if I see none, the colors are vague to me.

Heh, Pollack is one of those people who I don't really like, but I can see what he was trying to do. His paint splatter works chaotic, but not random. If you look at them, they are fractal with small patterns similar to large patters. The paint splatter works are all about rhythm.

But that doesn't mean I like it.

I have a fantastic piece of modern art in my home, waiting to be reframed and hung on a wall. Although the pattern was purely placed at random on the paper, it has an extraordinary sense of color and design. Looking at it, I gets a good visceral idea of the playfulness and exuberance that the artist was feeling when she painted it. Everybody who sees it gets the same reaction. I have never heard a negative comment regarding this painting. This work of modern art has raw power that cannot be denied.

It was painted by my niece when she was three years old. :yes:


haha. that's so cute. you should get a picture of it so we can see!

You spell perceive correctly in your signature, but you spelled it incorrectly in your post.

I'm assuming you feel you can make perfect posts in a language other than English.

I stopped thinking a three year old could duplicated Pollack when I saw his work in person.

http://images.google.com/images?q=modern+art&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

I typed in "modern art" in the google image search. I pretty much like everything I see on the first page.

I think it might help if some of you found pictures that you're talking about (i.e. Pasta>Cruelty - I'd like to know what pieces of art you're thinking of)

I'm assuming you feel you can make perfect posts in a language other than English.

Nope. I just found the inconsistency odd. I don't profess to know anything.

haha. that's so cute. you should get a picture of it so we can see!

When I get a real digital camera (instead of the one in my cellphone), absolutely. :vebo:

http://images.google.com/images?q=modern+art&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

I typed in "modern art" in the google image search. I pretty much like everything I see on the first page.

I think it might help if some of you found pictures that you're talking about (i.e. Pasta>Cruelty - I'd like to know what pieces of art you're thinking of)

Okay, the third one over in the second row. It doesn't mean anything to me.

Thats interesting that a google search for modern art brings up Van Gogh.

You spell perceive correctly in your signature, but you spelled it incorrectly in your post. I don't really know what modern art is, but I've seen some modern art that is just vague colors that seem randomly placed on a canvas. I just don't see any meaning in the works that I have seen. Once again, however, I haven't seen all modern art, so there may be some that I would like. I'm more of a music fan than an art fan anyway.

I don't see how my error (yes, error - not typo; I too am a grammar enthusiast, but my spelling is far from perfect) has anything to do with this discussion.

If you don't know what modern art is, then you might want to be careful about judging it too easily. And saying that you're more of a music fan than an art fan is, as SDG pointed out, somewhat self-contradictory. But then again, I guess art has come to mean plastic arts (paintings, drawings, sculptures) to a lot of people (as opposed to including music, literature, dance. theatre and movies, for instance), so I guess it depends on what definition you follow.

Apart from that, I agree with Kirk here. Modern art is so much more than what this discussion apparently intended to have as its focal point (I read it as picturing abstract splashy paintings and "incomprehensible" twisted chicken wire formations with Christmas decorations and miniature penises dangling from it... Or something along those lines :p).

I'm assuming you feel you can make perfect posts in a language other than English.

:kiss: Thank you.

But the sad truth is that I study English at the university, so I *am* actually supposed to be able to spell in English... :o