Modern Art: Powerful or Pretentious?

So.. I ws just thinking about modern art and how it divides people. Some claim it's unique, others that it's crap.

As a conversation starter:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phoebe-dodds/modern-art_b_3481141.html

So what do you think about modern art?

EDIT: For the lulz

QUIZ: Can You Tell The Difference Between Modern Art And Paintings By Toddlers?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/quiz-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-modern-art-and-art#.xgOlAVN2L

I've got only 4 out of 11 right.... Touch one.

My take: Some is good, some is bad...

Originally posted by Bardock42
My take: Some is good, some is bad...

But yeah modern art is a loose term. I probably should have rephrased the question.

Let's use this definition of modern art:

"aesthetically speaking, modern art is characterized by the artist's intent to portray a subject as it exists in the world, according to his or her unique perspective and is typified by a rejection of accepted or traditional styles and values."

http://www.theartstory.org/definition-modern-art.htm

That style of modern art--good or crap?

Modern art is completely valid as a means to stay from absurd realistic expectations, but frankly I wouldn't pile all kinds of abstract arts into the same piles, they tend to be truly niche as far as their "enjoyment" factor but most are rarely as confusing as popular culture suggests.

Hey, I don't get it either.

Why does something that looks like red construction paper with a line along the side sell for millions?

Personally, I think adds a little more evidence to the theory "there's a sucker born every minute", but maybe I just don't have a mind for art..

Originally posted by Bentley
Modern art is completely valid as a means to stay from absurd realistic expectations, but frankly I wouldn't pile all kinds of abstract arts into the same piles, they tend to be truly niche as far as their "enjoyment" factor but most are rarely as confusing as popular culture suggests.

I'd appreciate recommendations of good modern artists, if you happen to know some.

I think Modern Art is too vast to say whether the style in general is good or bad. On one hand, you have a new perspective that often comes from someone with real skill, but on the other hand there are paintings that my daughter could have replicated when she was 4.

My personal opinion is that if you have to explain to me why it's art (emotional content, artist vision, etc.), then it sucks. I should be able to look at it and tell immediately why it's good and that a professional did it.

Originally posted by socool8520

My personal opinion is that if you have to explain to me why it's art (emotional content, artist vision, etc.), then it sucks. I should be able to look at it and tell immediately why it's good and that a professional did it.

Too many modern artists seem to use the pretense of "unique perspective" to pass chaotic lines or splashes of paint as art.

Who decides what's art, anyways?

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/12/arts/art-is-it-art-is-it-good-and-who-says-so.html?pagewanted=all

If the Duchamp urinal is art, then anything is. But there has to be consensus about good art among informed people -- artists, dealers, curators, collectors. Somebody has to be the first to say something is good, but if you put it up the flagpole and nobody salutes it, then there's nothing there.

So, art is art if, and only if, the "establishment" says so?

Sounds pretty corrupt to me. Rich guys start bidding wars over this crap, so the motivation of "art for arts sake" becomes suspect, at least at the highest levels.

Anything anyone creates can be art, however like Duchamp said, there are the "informed" that dictate the art's value. This sucks because there are very talented artists who get no recognition while a Campbell's soup can is considered a masterpiece. lol

Originally posted by socool8520
My personal opinion is that if you have to explain to me why it's art (emotional content, artist vision, etc.), then it sucks. I should be able to look at it and tell immediately why it's good and that a professional did it.

I don't think you need to ask for "Professional" level skills, though it certainly helps to notice technique, because it improves the experience and you mostly want to define art as the best of all possible worlds. That said, it could still be "less impressive" but valid art as long as it's powerful.

As for decent modern use of art, I just went to a few muséums and went to an gallery about Anselm Kiefer which actually holds up pretty well, though you could make an argument that the guy works using really "classic" painting strategies. I'm listing it mostly because I found some of the pièces pretty powerful. Simon Evans is at Palais de Tokyo right now and his work also holds up well (and it's not classic at all).

For the record, there was also one gallery being presented that I found to be self-indulging shit 😛

Professional may have been too strong a word. It just has too look good enough that most people couldn't recreate it imo. I have seen modern art that was not realism, but still looked incredible. My beef is mostly with throwing a bunch of colors around on a canvas and calling it art.

l'm not really going to defend throwing colors into canvas, but you can make a point about it making the painting impossible to copy, revitalizing the unique aura of actually seeing each piece and evaluating artistic intervention as purely mechanical patterns.

Throwing stuff around has it's place in art. I don't believe that's enough to "make" art, but at least it has some uses.

I was also going to ask what defines art. It seems anyone can do anything and call it art. I could take a bunch of beer cans and put them in the shape of a dick and call it art.

In the words of Keith Richards: As far as I am concerned, Art is short for Arthur.

Art is a combination of awe and representation, the first being the sentiment of contradicting things, the second the implementation of a conventional meaning.

Believe it or not, this piece of shit sold for US$87 million.

I blame speculators for such cartoonish prices.

At least that one has vibrant tones and some shading here and there... I've seen fairly worse. Still, I hope it looks way better in real life.

Eighty-seven million? Shit, I need to get in on this stuff. What if I like, paint a pair of stick figures ****ing? I could say it represents the brittleness of modern relationships.

Yeah, so modern art is bullshit. It all went downhill when Monet's eyes went to shit. His paintings started looking like shit, but people were like "ooh" and "aah." He's going blind, so he can explore different ways of expressing himself.

No dumbass, Monet was going blind, and so he couldn't see what he was doing, which is why all of his later paintings look like garbage.