Modern Art Sucks

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 25 Oct 2006 19:05

Why does modern art suck so bad? Fine art's been going down hill since Impressionism.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 25 Oct 2006 19:11

I think it really depends on what individuals get out of it -- for me, impressionism does nothing. I appreciate its craftsmanship, but it doesn't speak to me any further.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 10 Nov 2006 08:45

Why does modern art suck so bad?

Do you want to elaborate a little? What stuff don't you like? What is it you don't you like about it?

I just saw a display of Anselm Keifer's work, and I thought it was incredible. I was also pleased to see a fairly sizable collection of Clyfford Still at the same museum. They don't make pretty pictures. What is it you want out of art? Maybe you are expecting too much (or too little).

Are you simply looking for art to provide an endless stream of pretty pictures for your viewing pleasure? If that is so, I think that rather than ask artists to change what they're producing you should re-examine what it is you're trying to get out of art.

Oroza · Post by **Oroza** » 12 Nov 2006 12:59

why?, well, for one, "modern" sucks as a term for describing art. too many things get stuck under that term. its like puting both rock and hiphop under "modern music", diculous

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 13 Nov 2006 07:23

why?, well, for one, "modern" sucks as a term for describing art. too many things get stuck under that term. its like puting both rock and hiphop under "modern music", diculous

I think rock and hip-hop are actually often grouped together under the broader catagory "Popular Music". I don't think the difference between them is really that great given hip-hop's tendancy to sample rock n' roll and other kinds of popular music. I know the example is pretty dated, but consider Run DMC's Walk This Way (they even did their music video with Aerosmith, the rock band originaly responsible for the song).

But anyway, all the above is merely arguing about semantics. Saying you don't like modern art because modern art is a misnomer is just dodging the real issues (its a blatant cop-out). You might as well say you don't like football (American football) because its not an appropriate name for the game, since kicking the ball is such a small part of the game (and does that strangely shaped thing even qualify as a "ball"). My point is: that isn't really a good reason to de-legitimize football, and its not a good enough reason to trash a variety of art either.

Anyway, lets get a little more specific about some modern art. Do you like or dislike:

Alexander Calder?

Marc Chagall?

Wassily Kandinsky?

Roy Lichtenstein?

I happen to like all of them (Calder in particular - he's original, unique, and often imitated). All are "modern" artists. None are impressionists. Impressionism, by the way, falls under the broad category of modern art. Do you really dislike Calder that much? (he invented the mobile, by the way [you know, those hanging, moving-but-not-motorized sculptures])Why?

edit: it occurs to me that Lichtenstein might fall under the category of "post-modern" rather then "modern", I can't be sure without doing a little more research. Its probably debateable, and not very important to me.

Consider Calder for a minute more: who here hasn't made a mobile or two when they were in school? Consider the influence of that man and his one beautifully realized artistic idea: every child in this country and several others knows what a mobile is and has probably been asked to make some as part of their education, even if they (sadly) don't know where that idea came from or even that the idea is so "modern".

One more addition to the list:

Picasso. I'm not really that big of an fan, but I think "Guernica" alone could justify his whole existence.

Last example (for now):

Edvard Munch. Again, I'm not really that big of a fan, and his most famous painting is such a cliche already. That doesn't make it bad though. I'm pretty sure it doesn't qualify as "impressionism". Its still a good painting. I mean, its overly famous, but probably deservedly so (does this sentence really make sense?).

I think art has changed alot since the impressionists, but it hasn't all been going downhill from there, as Bainbridge has said. Quite the contrary, impressionism was just one of the first steps in freeing art from its centuries-long mandate to look ever more realistic, and its made some terrific advances from there.

smokefree · Post by **smokefree** » 14 Nov 2006 17:33

Modern art sucks, no reasons are even needed. Out of 2 art classes I haven't seen a single modern art piece I liked. Sitting through the chapter on modern art is like *click bang brains on the floor*

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 15 Nov 2006 07:09

Why does modern art suck so bad

Modern art sucks, no reasons are even needed

This from a couple of guys who probably have posters on their walls with paintings by Salvador Dali and T-shirts with pictures drawn by M.C. Escher...

But anyway...

Okay, so lets just concede the matter for now: modern art sucks.

Is there any art that you DO like (besides the impressionists) ? Is there any other art that you'd like to spend a few hours looking at in a museum? Renaissance art (you know, like da Vinci, Michelangelo, Giotto) ? The paintings of the Dutch Golden Age ? (you know, Rembrant and Vermeer?) Perhaps you like sculpture of the Greek Classical period (the Venus De Milo?)
How do you feel about album-cover art?

Personally, I'm partial to Hieronymus Bosch and Pieter Brueghel. And though I totally didn't expect it, I was totally stunned by a collection of Russian religious iconography that I saw last spring in San Diego (I know, it was a total surprise to me too, I mean, Christian religious art? But it was just so damn good when seen up close...)

So, again, I ask you: If you don't like modern art, is there any art you DO like? Are you basically just hung-up on the impressionists and thats about it? Or do you actually hate almost all art and just figured that Modern Art was the easiest to baselessly attack?

Oroza · Post by **Oroza** » 15 Nov 2006 12:15

easy, I wasnt say 'I' hate modern art, just pointing out judgment was being passed on a broad category of things. I meant the term, just like I wouldnt say I dislike popular music, much of which i DO dislike.

smokefree · Post by **smokefree** » 30 Nov 2006 22:36

the only impressionist type art i like were a few asian influenced pieces. Theres art i can look at for hours but for a different reason. Im more interested in the history behind art pieces so modern art is boring to me of course. i dont stare at art because i think it so beautiful, im just imagining the human beings being portrayed and the people portraying. what i reaaaaaaaalllllly dislike is pop art. Andy warhol just made a bunch of everything. 30 mona lisas in black and white. 100 cans of soup.