Modern Art
Modern art is a lie. I admit that I've never been someone who could walk into an art museum and appreciate art the way I'm supposed to. I like portraits, pretty pieces complicated pieces, and unconventional pieces.The definition of art is rather like Potter Stewart's approach to hard-core porn: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . " Nevertheless, I expect some sort of effort to go into it, something brought to it that another artist couldn't bring. I may not be able to analyze Picasso's "Guernica" the way my mother wishes I could, I still know when something is bullshit. And modern art is bullshit.
There was a woman who came to my school and presented some slides of modern art. They were interesting, but they weren't what I would consider art. For example, one was entitled "Love," and it was just two wall clocks set next to each other, perfectly in time with each other. It's a nice idea, but not something that I couldn't replicate exactly in my house or would want to purchase. I'm equally baffled by the paintings that simply involve canvas painted all one color. I'm of the belief that a painting should be able to function independent of its clever title.
We all laugh and joke that some trash strewn on the sidewalk is modern art. Only it's not so funny because somewhere out there, someone's probably done something like it and had someone purchase it or treat is seriously for critical review. With all the creativity in the world, there must be somewhere better to go.
I also resent the junk that is filed under "modern" art. The implication is that this is the representation of our current society. If the best we can do it set clocks next to each other, then we're in trouble. Where's the craftsmanship in that? Crap is still crap, even if it's expensive and is labeled with the misleading word "modern."
I'm not fooled, modern art. I'm on to your game.
There was a woman who came to my school and presented some slides of modern art. They were interesting, but they weren't what I would consider art. For example, one was entitled "Love," and it was just two wall clocks set next to each other, perfectly in time with each other. It's a nice idea, but not something that I couldn't replicate exactly in my house or would want to purchase. I'm equally baffled by the paintings that simply involve canvas painted all one color. I'm of the belief that a painting should be able to function independent of its clever title.
We all laugh and joke that some trash strewn on the sidewalk is modern art. Only it's not so funny because somewhere out there, someone's probably done something like it and had someone purchase it or treat is seriously for critical review. With all the creativity in the world, there must be somewhere better to go.
I also resent the junk that is filed under "modern" art. The implication is that this is the representation of our current society. If the best we can do it set clocks next to each other, then we're in trouble. Where's the craftsmanship in that? Crap is still crap, even if it's expensive and is labeled with the misleading word "modern."
I'm not fooled, modern art. I'm on to your game.
posted by Meredith at 9:00 PM
3 Comments:
I'd have to agree with you on all that...I KNOW art is supposed to be self-expression, but it's supposed to be creative and skillful self-expression. If I want to show my anger by painting a canvas red, I don't need a professional artist to do it for me. I can do it myself. Real art, in my opinion, should be a tad bit more elaborate.
Didn't we (all 19 of us) have this discussion (in some depth) in seminar at TASP?
Probably. I don't recall.
Post a Comment
<< Home