Modern art

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Nomic
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Gibbering in the corner

Re: Modern art

Postby Nomic » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:43 pm UTC

I generally consider modern art as some kind of elaborate scam intendet to waste taxpayers money. I don't think all art should be "classic" art and there are pretty good modern works of art, but throwing you'r crap at a canvas and calling it art is not right. And somebody paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for what is literally a piece of crap is just insane. Some of the terrible modern art I've seen is a toilet door from a Russian bar (that's not art! You didn't even make it! You just stole some guy's door!), and a swearing dummy (Woo. It says "fuck you". How artistic). And often there isn't even any deeper meaning, the "artist" just does something completely random and sells it for some idiot who assumes it's intellectual. Like once I saw an exhibit with a white stone covered with milk. I wondered if the whiteness of the whole thing symbolised purity or something, but when I asked the museum guide he just said "That thing? It's juts a stone with milk on it. It costed 5 000€ and we have to change the milk every day or it starts to stink". Quess he didn't like modern art eighter.
Not to mention thta if you want to display modern art you must construct a suitably modern museum that will invariably be ridiculously expensive and ridicoulously ugly (or even if it's designed to be in some way aesthetically pleasing, it will be designed to be so when viewed from above, and from ground level it will still look terrible).

User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby German Sausage » Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:18 pm UTC

LoopQuantumGravity wrote:
Khonsu wrote:Why is everyone being an ass about this? Seriously.

Because my tax money / tuition pays for million dollar monstrosities that assault my eyes every day.

as a student, how much tax do you even pay? if you're advocating that tax money in general not be spent attempting to beautify public spaces, then i am sad.

LoopQuantumGravity wrote:
German Sausage wrote:sure, it is perhaps harder to find crappy examples of 17th century art, but that doesn't mean that the 17th century had better art

Actually, by definition, it would mean that on average it is better...
most of the poor-average art of that period hasn't survived.

Millions of years in the future, this will survive, aliens archeologists will see it and then kill themselves, knowing finally that their alien gods do not exist.

nothing we do will be around in a million years. hell, a few thousand and it'll probably be dust. what do we care about the opinions of alien archaologists? besides which, you are sidestepping my point that the best of one period will surely be better than the norm of another (at least with something as subjective as art), so holding up run-of-the-mill contemporary art to caravaggio is like mike tyson and the schoolyard bully having a punch-on.

Incidentally, I also find it moronic that the same people who make this crap try to cut science funding because it can go to better things, like feeding the homeless.... Which, incidentally, are two reasons I am not getting paid for the research** I'm doing right now! So, no, I'm not at all bitter.

edit:
$300 million dollars - That money couldn't have gone to anything good, like cancer research, no...

you realise that the 300mil didn't go to the artist/architect's pocket? nearly all of that money goes into feasibility studies and construction/materials? your complaint here is one against beauracracy, the minimum wage and the sale of goods and services, not art or the artist. also, arts funding really isn't cutting into your sciences, if (i presume) american universities are anything like australian ones.
<bakemaster> Only German Sausage can prevent forest fires
<felstaff> Hype is like a giant disappointment ray aimed squarely at the finished article.
<watson> Treat me like a criminal, Holmes!
TMT4L

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Modern art

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:44 pm UTC

Hint: The same people (in this country at least) who advocate cutting science funding ALSO advocate cutting arts funding. The only thing they want to fund is the military. (So I guess if you're a physicist who wants to work with missiles or something, you're alright.)

sure, it is perhaps harder to find crappy examples of 17th century art, but that doesn't mean that the 17th century had better art

Actually, by definition, it would mean that on average it is better...

Nope. In three hundred years, you'll be able to find as much crappy Modern art as you can find crappy 17th century art today. People don't save crappy art.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Modern art

Postby Dream » Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:50 pm UTC

To everyone harping on about the kindergartner thing:

Picasso wrote:It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.


And on top of that, every single parent in the world [/hyperbole] sticks up their kids' paintings on the fridge. The child drew a picture. It created art. The parents know this, and Pablo fucking Picasso knows this. The only people who don't appear to know this seem to know nothing about children's art or art theory in either.

German Sausage wrote:holding up run-of-the-mill contemporary art to caravaggio is like mike tyson and the schoolyard bully having a punch-on.


Actually, a dissertation on this exact subject was part of my final exams in Art History. Except it wasn't limited to either crap art or contemporary art, but to the entire scope of modern art, from the late C19th on. It turns out that for me, Caravaggio compares favourably to modern artists. I compared him directly to Lucian Freud, and found great similarities. Caravaggio had Freud beat, though.

An aside: Hands up anyone who, when using the term "modern art" actually means "conceptual art"? A great deal of the thread has hinged on something like "that's not art it's just a door" or some such, but with no discussion whatsoever of the conceptual basis of the work. Some people have made me wonder if they are even aware of the distinction.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26518
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:39 pm UTC

I know I'm not aware of the distinction. I'm pretty much using it as a blanket term for Art created since roughly 1970ish that doesn't fit into earlier styles, and may include things like a guy standing in a room barking like a dog for exactly 32 minutes, forty three seconds.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

darwinwins
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: the bible belt (of death)
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby darwinwins » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:42 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:I know I'm not aware of the distinction. I'm pretty much using it as a blanket term for Art created since roughly 1970ish that doesn't fit into earlier styles, and may include things like a guy standing in a room barking like a dog for exactly 32 minutes, forty three seconds.

what, you DON'T think that's a particularly fond work of pure genius? you asshole!
"if you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking. that's the world of hicks and slobs. " - haruki murakami

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26518
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:43 pm UTC

.... I didn't express my opinion one way or another on it. If he's wearing a business suit, then I kinda like it.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

darwinwins
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: the bible belt (of death)
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby darwinwins » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:48 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:.... I didn't express my opinion one way or another on it. If he's wearing a business suit, then I kinda like it.

that's so bourgeois.
"if you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking. that's the world of hicks and slobs. " - haruki murakami

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Modern art

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:49 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:I know I'm not aware of the distinction. I'm pretty much using it as a blanket term for Art created since roughly 1970ish that doesn't fit into earlier styles, and may include things like a guy standing in a room barking like a dog for exactly 32 minutes, forty three seconds.


Isn't that post-modern? I don't care; I'm an absurdist (Theatre of the Absurd).
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby william » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:20 pm UTC

He should be coming any minute now.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Modern art

Postby Azrael » Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:37 pm UTC

LoopQuantumGravity wrote:
Khonsu wrote:Why is everyone being an ass about this? Seriously.
Because my tax money / tuition pays for million dollar monstrosities that assault my eyes every day.
And it pays for a war that I don't like and energy subsidies that pollute the air I breathe.

So what's your point? That you can be an ass about anything you don't like in society, because some of your money might have filtered down to it? Sure, be an ass. Enjoy yourself. But realize that doing so only hurts the validity of any real point you might have had.

As for the Stata Center:

Image

It was paid for with private funds. Private funds that would never have been spent on cancer research, regardless of how indignant you are. Yes, it leaks. Buildings do that with a frequency that the publicity surrounding Gheary doesn't mention. And yes, the rainwater recycling system was installed improperly resulting in damage to the amphitheater. If you'd like a thread about idiot contractors, I'll be happy to participate.

Beyond that, it's an absolutely fascinating building - from both the artistic and construction view points. It's interior spaces are simply astounding. Sure, it's a leap from traditional research/lab facilities which tend to be, at the very best, shoe boxes.

User avatar
Adalwolf
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:05 pm UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby Adalwolf » Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:11 pm UTC

I don't consider modern art to be art. It looks like people just throw paint on a canvas and expect to be famous. It takes no talent.
Live with passion. Die with passion.

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby william » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:29 pm UTC

Adalwolf wrote:I don't consider modern art to be art. It looks like people just throw paint on a canvas and expect to be famous. It takes no talent.

I'm pretty sure there isn't an Adalwolf statement I've agreed with, and this is no exception.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

User avatar
Adalwolf
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:05 pm UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby Adalwolf » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:33 pm UTC

william wrote:
Adalwolf wrote:I don't consider modern art to be art. It looks like people just throw paint on a canvas and expect to be famous. It takes no talent.

I'm pretty sure there isn't an Adalwolf statement I've agreed with, and this is no exception.


Haha! Fair enough my friend, fair enough!

Now, I'm sure there is some modern art that is great, but from what I've seen, it looks...bad. I'm not fond of it. But there are exceptions to everything. I'm just not in any hurry to explore modern art.
Live with passion. Die with passion.

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Berengal » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:14 am UTC

william wrote:He should be coming any minute now.

I actually performed part of that piece in a drama group last year. At first I found the whole thing rather weird and nonsensical ("WTF?! How are we supposed to act this?"), but after two days of deciding on the roles, rehearsing and discussing the piece I grew quite fond of it. (We split into small groups, and each group performed a part of the piece and each group with their own interpretation. It was really quite interesting to see how the same part became so incredibly different, despite the lines and directions being identical).
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

Khonsu
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:55 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby Khonsu » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:23 am UTC

If any of you guys start ripping on modernist literature, I will unleash the fucking fury. Beckett and his ilk are still amazingly fun to read, if you know why and how it works, and just relenquish your preconceived notions of what literature, stories, and language "should be" and just enjoy the mental exercise.

Oh my GOD I love Waiting for Godot. I adored seeing the looks on my fellow students' faces when Prof. Minar started explaining the erection/mandrake/gallows joke. That was PRICELESS. I love the whole mandrake root mythology--it's scary and awesome.

I prefer Godot's kissing cousin, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead much more, however. The movie wasn't half bad, either.

However, I don't know anyone who has ever finished Gravity's Rainbow. I'm ashamed to say I haven't been able to finish it because of time and the fact that it's an unformatted .txt file on my PC, which is makes it even harder to read. If I ever met a girl who had finished, understood, and at least respected Gravity's Rainbow, I'd fucking Canada-marry her in a HEART BEAT. A FUCKING HEART BEAT.

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Berengal » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:32 am UTC

Khonsu wrote:Beckett and his ilk are still amazingly fun to read, if you know why and how it works, and just relenquish your preconceived notions of what literature, stories, and language "should be" and just enjoy the mental exercise.

And what an exercise if you're not used to his way of using the language. I had to read it twice. One time to dismantle all preconceived notions, and another to actually get the contents. I found it to be great in the end, even though I usually don't find plays to be very good reads (I much prefer to watch them).
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

Khonsu
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:55 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby Khonsu » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:05 am UTC

Everyone much prefers to watch them! It's what they're for! :P

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Modern art

Postby Dream » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:37 am UTC

Khonsu wrote:However, I don't know anyone who has ever finished Gravity's Rainbow.


Four times I've failed to go the distance. But every word was absolutely wonderful. I have a real copy, maybe I'll try it again...

SecondTalon wrote:I know I'm not aware of the distinction. I'm pretty much using it as a blanket term for Art created since roughly 1970ish that doesn't fit into earlier styles, and may include things like a guy standing in a room barking like a dog for exactly 32 minutes, forty three seconds.


I always hesitate to tell people they don't know what they are talking about, but you appear not to. Very generally, conceptual art is art in which the "concept", i.e. the theory behind the art, is what the artist defines as the "art" in the piece, as opposed to the visual component of it. Art where though is the subject, rather than the representation that provokes the thought. There is a work at a gallery near me that consists of a wall painted with the names of everyone the artist has ever met, which he add to every few months. This is conceptual art. So is your dog barking. (Unless you want to think of it as a live music performance...)

Modern art is a very difficult definition, but it stretches back to at least the late C19th, with Cezanne being a good starting point. It pretty much includes everything that isn't a direct continuation of academic traditions from the past. Some (I think) artistically unimpeachable examples include Picasso's Les Demoiselles D'Avignon and Francis Bacon's Screaming Pope series. Some more debatable pieces would be Rauschenberg's Erased de Kooning Drawing, or Pollock's drip paintings.

If I'm right that you're thinking mainly of conceptual work, I think that even then the net you've cast is too wide form the basis of a useful discussion. It would include everything from your dog barking, to Joseph Beuys' performances with wolves, to Matthew Barney's Cremaster cycle.

Khonsu wrote:The message isn't IN the medium, it IS the medium.


Just re-read this. Yes! I agree.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

Khonsu
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:55 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby Khonsu » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:18 am UTC

If you like the sprawling connections among media, messages, and sociology, pick up Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. It was published in 1985, and is a jeremiad about TV, computers, movies, and the American need to be entertained, and how it affects politics, societal trends, et al. It's fascinating, if kinda dated--still relevant, though. Actually, it's more relevant now!

I've read it about five times, and every time I can't help but go "YES. YES. YOU ARE ABSOLUTLY RIGHT!" most of the time. However, I imagine the book would be even more fascinating if it were revised to be more timely--Postman would be having fucking fits if he were alive today. He died in 2003, right before "Web 2.0" stuff started up.

Anyway, conceptual art is hit or miss, but modern art is a really fucking broad umbrella. About as broad as "modern literature," and thus kind of useless for what we're discussing. I mean, "modern literature" isn't just Beloved or Lord of the Rings, which would be hard to compare and contrast, but it's ALSO the contemptable chick lit and "Koontzy" books, too.

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Marbas » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:34 am UTC

Dream wrote:
Khonsu wrote:The message isn't IN the medium, it IS the medium.


Just re-read this. Yes! I agree.


You understand this? Can you explain it to a confused bystander? Possibly with examples?
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

tylerwylie
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:23 am UTC
Location: Champaign, IL
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby tylerwylie » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:36 am UTC

I got invited to a "Contemporary" art exhibit an hour and a half away, the little postercard I got has some fucked up shit on it.
Who are you and who am I
To say we know the reason why?
Some are born; some men die
Beneath one infinite sky.
There'll be war, there'll be peace.
But everything one day will cease.
All the iron turned to rust;
All the proud men turned to dust.

Khonsu
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:55 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby Khonsu » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:50 am UTC

Marbas wrote:
Dream wrote:
Khonsu wrote:The message isn't IN the medium, it IS the medium.


Just re-read this. Yes! I agree.


You understand this? Can you explain it to a confused bystander? Possibly with examples?

Media are how you transfer messages, traditionally. TV, print, radio, paint, photograph, whatever--it's all transferring information. However, most people understand that certain media are best at transmitting certain kinds of messages; thus the message must change, subtly, whenever a message is adapted to a new medium (book to movie is the most prominent example). Thus...couldn't the medium BE the message?

eXS
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:55 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby eXS » Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:02 am UTC

thisisdavid wrote:Do you enjoy it? Or do you think it's ridiculous and stupid?


Does street art count as modern art (not necessarily graffitti, but innovative stuff like stickers, posters, installations etc)? For me its the one branch of modern art that sends a clear message (mostly). Since this is only my second post, i am not yet allowed to dish out links, but do a Google on Banksy for an example of what i mean. This kind of modern art i can relate to and enjoy.

More pretentious kinds of modern art (eg museum quality stuff) is harder for me to appreciate. Even though my mom has been an arts teacher and artist for the duration of my childhood and brought me to a lot of art museums it never became an interest of mine. however i take more interest in modern art than "old" art (classical arts) like the Louvre kind of paintings that seem mostly to be ancient advertising posters ordered by the church. This old art has no point to make in todays society, whereas the modern arts are driven by the urge to send a message relevant right now. Please note that i write this as an opinion, not some kind of fact, and i know that a lot of people do enjoy classical arts more than modern. For me however this is just trying to live in a romantic past that is nothing more than, a past.

When speaking now about arts i refer to paintings and sculptures. Music (as has been quite discussed in this thread already) and litterature from times past can still speak to me in another way. I do mostly listen to "modern" music, not sure if its considered modern art though, since its not atonal or consisting only of silence.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Modern art

Postby Dream » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:09 pm UTC

Khonsu wrote:
Marbas wrote:
Dream wrote:
Khonsu wrote:The message isn't IN the medium, it IS the medium.


Just re-read this. Yes! I agree.


You understand this? Can you explain it to a confused bystander? Possibly with examples?

Media are how you transfer messages, traditionally. TV, print, radio, paint, photograph, whatever--it's all transferring information. However, most people understand that certain media are best at transmitting certain kinds of messages; thus the message must change, subtly, whenever a message is adapted to a new medium (book to movie is the most prominent example). Thus...couldn't the medium BE the message?


Marbas, here's a good example:

For "Erased de Kooning Drawing", Robert Rauschenberg took an existing drawing by de Kooning, who was an abstract expressionist. Rauschenberg then (with the artists permission) erased the canvas, retitled it, and exhibited it under his own name. In this case the medium was another artist's preexisting work, and the message was about the mutability and inconstancy of that work. So the message and the medium are almost interchangable, and are certainly inseperable.

Khonsu, you will clearly love This!
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
bbctol
Super Deluxe Forum Title of DESTINYâ„¢
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: The Twilight Zone
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby bbctol » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:08 pm UTC

If it looks good, it's art. If it doesn't, it's not. Art that exists to make a point, but doesn't look good, is not art. There's a difference between Nicolas de Stael and Jackson Pollock, and a white canvas with a black square. Although even that can look good, if done right.

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Modern art

Postby Antimatter Spork » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:26 pm UTC

eXS wrote:When speaking now about arts i refer to paintings and sculptures. Music (as has been quite discussed in this thread already) and litterature from times past can still speak to me in another way. I do mostly listen to "modern" music, not sure if its considered modern art though, since its not atonal or consisting only of silence.

Atonal and "experimental" music are somewhat extreme examples. My favorite type of modern music is some of the newer stuff being written for larger ensembles by people like Whitacre, Kernis, Gandolfi, Hartke, etc. It's not really atonal in the Schoenberg sense, but it's certainly post-tonal music. It's cool stuff, and much more accessible than something like Wozzeck (which is an amazingly cool opera, for all of its insanity).

Calling music "modern" or "contemporary" pretty much just means that it was written recently. (If we're talking about the academic/"classical" music world, the definition of recently can be extended as far back as "anyone after Wagner")


bbctol: some of the most powerful art that I've ever seen is deliberately ugly/looking "bad". I disagree with your comment.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Modern art

Postby bigglesworth » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:27 pm UTC

If something is seen as art, it is. Whether it is good or not is a matter of taste.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26518
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:40 pm UTC

Dream wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:I know I'm not aware of the distinction. I'm pretty much using it as a blanket term for Art created since roughly 1970ish that doesn't fit into earlier styles, and may include things like a guy standing in a room barking like a dog for exactly 32 minutes, forty three seconds.


I always hesitate to tell people they don't know what they are talking about, but you appear not to. Very generally, conceptual art is art in which the "concept", i.e. the theory behind the art, is what the artist defines as the "art" in the piece, as opposed to the visual component of it. Art where though is the subject, rather than the representation that provokes the thought. There is a work at a gallery near me that consists of a wall painted with the names of everyone the artist has ever met, which he add to every few months. This is conceptual art. So is your dog barking. (Unless you want to think of it as a live music performance...)


Which would be why I said that I'm not aware of the distinction. I freely admit that I have no idea what the hell is going on with Art. I think oftentimes people put it on this lunatic pedestal thing, but they also do the same thing with Love, Beauty, and Truth.... I find abstract-concept worship kinda silly, but whatever...

All I'm really saying is while I enjoy some of the directions it's taking, if that's what concept art is, most of it I don't enjoy that much... but I understand it's purpose. I think most art shouldn't require an art degree to understand.... but I've got no problem with there existing art that requires an art degree to understand. I view it like I view this magic trick. It's not something for people, it's for art students...

Like I said, I don't mind it existing at all, I'm just not personally fond of it. Probably because I'm not an art student.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

eXS
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:55 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby eXS » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:03 am UTC

Antimatter Spork wrote:
eXS wrote:When speaking now about arts i refer to paintings and sculptures. Music (as has been quite discussed in this thread already) and litterature from times past can still speak to me in another way. I do mostly listen to "modern" music, not sure if its considered modern art though, since its not atonal or consisting only of silence.


Calling music "modern" or "contemporary" pretty much just means that it was written recently.

But a lot of newly written music attempts to simulate the works and style of older pieces, this cannot be considered neither modern nor contemporary even it was written yesterday.

To be honest I did not recognize one of the names you mentioned, I will be sure to check it out some time. Personally i am more into electronical music, post rock and stuff that never has been considered fine arts. Yet i think it has to fit in under the label modern music, since it explores the boundaries of what is music and has even less bonds to musical history and classicism.
Insert witty signature here and i will beat you.

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Modern art

Postby Antimatter Spork » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:24 am UTC

eXS wrote:To be honest I did not recognize one of the names you mentioned

Frankly, neither had I until this year (when I've actually played some of their stuff).
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby German Sausage » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:38 pm UTC

Khonsu wrote:Everyone much prefers to watch them! It's what they're for! :P

i dunno. the only performance of waiting for godot that i can access is this terrible irish thing that was unrelentingly bleak. i read the play in a sort of cartoony way, with the characters not actually being completely shattered about the waiting, but being quite good natured about it and talking in a fairly animated way. this performance is the absolute opposite, and i can't help but feel they missed the point that while nothing happens in the play, this doesn't mean that nothing can be interesting or engaging.
this is a problem with some of the more austere modern art around, but at the same time that is a thin vein.
<bakemaster> Only German Sausage can prevent forest fires
<felstaff> Hype is like a giant disappointment ray aimed squarely at the finished article.
<watson> Treat me like a criminal, Holmes!
TMT4L

User avatar
Savoy_Truffle
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:18 am UTC
Location: The Farm

Re: Modern art

Postby Savoy_Truffle » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:39 pm UTC

Antimatter Spork wrote:
eXS wrote:To be honest I did not recognize one of the names you mentioned

Frankly, neither had I until this year (when I've actually played some of their stuff).


I dig modern music quite a bit, and I agree completely with Antimatter Spork as far as the Cage argument went (yes, I read it all ^^x). I can see, though, where people would find his music shocking, though I can't agree with anyone who would dismiss Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern as hacks (though no one has yet, I just want to pre-emptively defend them). I've just begun to listen and appreciate their work (and the work of many 12 tone composers), which I feel is a picture of composers so earnestly feeling out a "new frontier," and creating beautiful things in the process. And music like Whitacre's that is perhaps more acceptable today is still written in "C major" (at least the choral stuff is, I'm afraid I haven't seen the scores for his orchestral works) which pretty much just makes it easier to keep track of the accidentals.

I'm joining the thread late, so I'm didn't really want to make any earth-shattering statements, but I enjoy looking at most modern art (not really the toilets on pedestals and what I call "shock art," but eh, it doesn't make me angry) and finding my own meaning and taking that away. I feel it makes me a better person and helps me know myself -- I'm sure that's not what the artist had in mind, but... and I suppose here's a question for you all:

Do you think coming up with your own meanings and reactions to modern art (or any art for that matter) detract from its validity as art?

to rephrase: If an artist paints magenta blocks with white polka dots in patterns of three (or what have you) and says it's a portrait of the apocalypse but it reminds you of Aunt Sally's dress and gives you a sense of comfort and nostalgia that stays with you all day, has that art failed as a piece?

(I'm sorry if these seem like infantile or obvious questions -- I'm coming from being a visual art layman looking at pictures in a museum and have only a technical, slightly historical, and quite practical knowledge of music.)
Lux, Calida, Gravis que Pura velut aurum et canunt angeli moliter modo natum.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Modern art

Postby Dream » Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:21 pm UTC

Savoy_Truffle wrote:Do you think coming up with your own meanings and reactions to modern art (or any art for that matter) detract from its validity as art?


No. It's now generally accepted that the viewer of a work is at least as important as the artist in creating meaning.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Modern art

Postby Antimatter Spork » Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:25 pm UTC

Savoy_Truffle wrote:
Antimatter Spork wrote:
eXS wrote:To be honest I did not recognize one of the names you mentioned

Frankly, neither had I until this year (when I've actually played some of their stuff).


I dig modern music quite a bit, and I agree completely with Antimatter Spork as far as the Cage argument went (yes, I read it all ^^x). I can see, though, where people would find his music shocking, though I can't agree with anyone who would dismiss Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern as hacks (though no one has yet, I just want to pre-emptively defend them). I've just begun to listen and appreciate their work (and the work of many 12 tone composers), which I feel is a picture of composers so earnestly feeling out a "new frontier," and creating beautiful things in the process. And music like Whitacre's that is perhaps more acceptable today is still written in "C major" (at least the choral stuff is, I'm afraid I haven't seen the scores for his orchestral works) which pretty much just makes it easier to keep track of the accidentals.

Whitacre doesn't write orchestral stuff. I remember reading on his website that he thinks that composers of the last 70 years have ruined orchestral music for everyone else. He thinks (and he may be right) that wind ensemble music is the next big thing in large ensembles. I disagree with him about recent orchestral music (I actually like Berg/Webern/Shoenberg), but I have to admit that Noisy Wheels of Joy is one of the most fun pieces I've ever played. (Also, the wind ensemble version of Cloudburst is awesome, though I haven't heard the choral version)

I'm not going to get into music notation geekery (because if I do, I'll be here all day), but I do know a composer who never uses key signatures and just writes in all the accidentals (even in tonal music. Even when she arranges Bach or Mozart, there's no key signature).

Also, Wozzeck is amazing.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

darwinwins
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: the bible belt (of death)
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby darwinwins » Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:31 pm UTC

i love this thread. good to see everyone being so civil.
"if you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking. that's the world of hicks and slobs. " - haruki murakami

User avatar
Dr.Robert
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Modern art

Postby Dr.Robert » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

What an incredible discussion. So incredible that I'm going to print out this whole topic, plaster it to a canvas, and submit it to the Louvre. It shall be entitled "ExistEncE." You all, whether you like it or not, have contributed to my modern masterpiece!

But in all honesty, I like art. All art. I just like some of the older stuff better. Not only was a lot of the renaissance stuff completely original and groundbreaking, but it also required an incredible amount of talent to pull off. Man really was the measure back then.

Modern art, while cool, doesn't really have that, in my opinion.

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby william » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:33 pm UTC

"Completely original" meaning "ripped off of bible stories"?
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Modern art

Postby Dream » Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

william wrote:"Completely original" meaning "ripped off of bible stories"?


Clearly one of "painting", "renaissance" or "bible" is a foreign concept to you. Unless you think the bible was a paint by numbers book. Much of the renaissance was religious art, but far from all of it. Caravaggio comes to mind here. The subject matter of the religious paintings being centuries old stories doesn't detract from completely new art, and completely new techniques. Y'know, they invented perspective. And to my knowledge are still the only people to have done so. They were as original as it is possible to be and still be a comprehensible development from previous culture.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: Modern art

Postby Sprocket » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:03 am UTC

Dream wrote:
Savoy_Truffle wrote:Do you think coming up with your own meanings and reactions to modern art (or any art for that matter) detract from its validity as art?


No. It's now generally accepted that the viewer of a work is at least as important as the artist in creating meaning.

Yeah, I mean, the artist isn't going to always be there to explain it.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests