Do you like modern Art ?
whiteoxe
Posts: 794
Last week i watched a Tv show on Australian abc about our greatest living painter, in his 80's. A very nice fellow, but i don't know what to think about the whole modern art thing. It struck me that i could produce something great myself. so as a joke /experiment i bought a canvass for $4,99(they must come from china) and a few cheap water based paints, two water pistols. then i diluted the paint just enough so the paint would squirt.
I was just having fun but i really liked the end result, not enough that id ever buy it but i bet a modern art lover woud , hee, hee
I was just having fun but i really liked the end result, not enough that id ever buy it but i bet a modern art lover woud , hee, hee
Comments
I'm a fan of these space scenes.. Most are generated by street artists with a few cans of spray paint and a few caps/lids...
It an abuse of the word "art" to even call it "modern art".
In order for something to be art, it has to require talent to make it. Some crappy welds, some randomly splashed on paint, some random pieces of steel do not make something artistic. When some rich idiot buys a piece of scrap metal for $1,000,000 the joke is on him.
I once went to a shop to get some sand-blasting done on a table top. I saw what looked like scrap metal sitting around, and I asked the owner of the shop what in the heck was that thing. It looked like some pieces of expanded-metal flooring welded together at impossible angles, and then left out in a field to rust for a few years. He said that someone thought it was "art" and he was going to sand-blast it. Total s**t.
I once went to the Detroit Institute of the Arts to look at some art. I took a seat on a bench to enjoy something very beautiful. Well, the security guard told me to stand up, and I didn't know why until someone told me that the "bench" was actually a piece of modern "art". It was perfect to sit down on, btw. Modern "art" really is that bad. You can't tell it apart from just an ordinary bench.
@ ellipser , your going to love my video, ive got a cold so my voice is bad,but my painting is worse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpT55H2glsM&list=UURDxAp_6ekyP5gVLrhCJYog
It's an example of "modern art" the same as an eclair is an example of "food." I think it's a pretty cool painting.
Before one dares lump more than a century's worth of artistic endeavor together to like or dislike as a whole, he might do well to learn more about the subject. Then he can pick and choose which styles or which artists he prefers or doesn't prefer. There's much to discover in the vast field of "modern art." It's a fascinating journey if you just make the effort.
-Phil
Having had three years of consecutive studies in art history and history of architecture in university, I have to contribute "no comment" other than I suspect this is going to morph into a philosophical debate about what art is and what are good aesthetics.
you sound like my brother, but not as annoyed !! but i needed a reminder.
But to finish what i started i was referring to the most simplistic looking art as my least favourite. It could even be described as mob mentality (those really connected to the industry, flowing down to the man in the street) or like the tulip bubble /stockmarket in Scandinavia, when tulips made millionairs out of people before sending many broke when over night folks started to realise they were just flowers
There is probably no real right or wrong answer , just opinions, and probably best left for a dinner party for the sake of a fun argument !
The tulip mania was in Holland. Scandinavian countries are not famous for their tulip growing.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/10/economic-history
I think making the question mark central to your painting is a brilliant expression of you questioning of modern art. As you focus from the edges of your canvas to the central question mark, the viewer can travel with you on your journey of seeking and discovering the true meaning of appreciation for one modern art style.
Well done!!
What Phil said so well (again).
And then what you said here,
The trick with art is that personal interpretation thing. It's both a personal expression from the artist and also a personal interpretation/acceptance from the viewer. It's hard to say something is good or bad art. If it evokes emotion or reaction from a viewer, it has done it's job. (It really doesn't even need to be a pleasant reaction or emotion - some "art" is downright disturbing and can reflect the horror, torment or despair in the artist's soul). Can you empathize with their vision as you possibly could empathize with an authors written words?
To me, the more it looks like a picture of the subject, the better the artist!
Where is the line drawn?
OK, this is pretty darn realistic....except your eye will never see this due to the shallow depth of field of the photographic lens. Should I have matched the depth of field (and focal length) of the human eye? Would that have made this a better photograph? Would it make me a better photographer? (Trust me, it wouldn't!).
(Just in case anyone is concerned, these shots are mine, so I owe no attribution to the photographer or any other copyright holders.)