Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is the appeal of modern art. It's really up to the viewer to get something out of it. If you put aside all conventional notions of what art should be and look at it with an open mind, then it can be highly enjoyable - and even a lot of fun.
But despite how long modern art has been with us, and despite all the attempts to explain it, I still hear all the familiar criticisms:
- But what does it mean?
- My six year old could have done that
- She's just pulling our leg
- How can that be worth half a million?
- It looks like something out of a dumpster
- It's a grotesque version of the human body
- Why can't she just do a normal painting?
- He's just trying to shock us
But they're the infamous exceptions. The majority of modern artists are producing genuine artwork that challenges traditional ideas of what art consists of and is exciting and thought-provoking.
When Andy Warhol said "Art is what you can get away with", I think that quote in itself was tongue in cheek. Warhol produced some highly original artwork that was much more than a practical joke.
Of course all the controversy just pushes up the price of modern art so that Warhol's paintings of Campbell Soup Tins have been sold for anything up to £15 million. That's some very expensive soup.
Pic: Spider by Louise Bourgeois
"My six year old could have done it". Well, as it happens, and how it amusing it was, my then three year old did it. His father had four of the resident artist's works (same period) framed. Hung it on the wall. Unsigned. Guests were musing over whether they were looking at Jackson Pollock or, more refined, Kandinsky. Fast forward nearly three decades and those works still elicit gasps. Not least how on earth I can afford such treasure. Well, I say, you know, I was given them for free - from the artist's goodness of his heart.
ReplyDeleteLeaving pickled cows and sheep aside, and to chime in with your thinking, I was thrown for six by Tracey Emin's "Unmade Bed". What the eff? It was disgusting (well, all the paraphernalia around it). And yet, in the end, to me the "art" was, and movingly so, that she let herself been seen in the raw. A snapshot in time. I am not given to exhibitionism of that kind so I find it still hard to stomach. Nevertheless, credit where it's due. I too am working at "installation art" - you know, books and papers flying all over the place. The washing up waiting patiently is another fine piece of realism - not to be preserved for eternity.
And then there are artists who have no compunction to cut their ear off; not even with an eye on prices going up.
U
Ursula: "My Bed" has certainly been controversial, as you say because of its realism. But is a realistic dishevelled bed surrounded by personal mess a work of art or just a dishevelled bed?
DeleteI love visiting modern art museums or galleries. It’s not always my taste (same as any other form of art) but I can find pieces that amaze or enchant me.
ReplyDeleteBijoux: There's always something intriguing or astonishing, because modern art is so varied.
DeleteI'm not an art lover. I find museums boring. But I do like seeing what people can make at times. Abstract art is not my thing though.
ReplyDeleteMary: Abstract art can be highly ingenious. I've appreciated it since I was a teenager but I can't remember what first led me to like it.
DeleteI love art, modern and ancient or anywecan imagine. You can get lost when looking at art and enter another universe. I love above all G. O'Keeffe, M. Caravaggio, Hieronymus Bosch and Gerhard Richter to mention only four of an endless list. Art is like literature (which is of course also art). We need it to survive.
ReplyDeleteHannah
Hannah: I love Richter, O'Keeffe and Bosch. Caravaggio not so much but he's a fine artist. Indeed, we need art to survive - and culture of every description.
DeleteMy late wife was firmly of the latter variety and her works are in many notable Indian collections.
ReplyDeleteRamana: That's interesting, I didn't know your wife was an artist.
DeleteArt was once literary and realistic. People could immediately understand it, and judge it on the artist's technical ability. Modern art is not literary. One only understands it if they look for and appreciate composition, patterns, shapes, colors, and not look for literary meaning. But if it isn't your cup of tea, it isn't. That's okay.
ReplyDeleteColette: I'm not sure about the "realistic". What about all the work with a religious theme, with its angels, Last Suppers, birth of Jesus etc?
DeleteRealistic as in representational. The subject matter being painted in a realistic manner.
DeleteArt has never been literary and realistic. It would be too long to explain . Modern art has nothing to do with what you explain. Sorry you're really wrong.
ReplyDeleteHannah
Hannah: I assume you're replying to Colette?
DeleteYes , because I do not really understand what she wants to say. Her patterns, shapes and colours sounds to me like Patchwork.
DeleteBy the way it's "literally" or "literary" you mean ?? It's not the same.
ReplyDeleteHannah
humans seem to have to inject a snobbery (or is it snobbism) into every blessed thing they do. whether Food or Art or Music or Wine... the list is Endless. and ripe with all the Experts ~ because. why? another instance (as if we need yet another) of "I know more than you do about it." or "I can afford the best."
ReplyDeleteso of course the "best" has to be pointed out to the rest of the world as Worthy of your interest or even more ... your MONEY. and how odd. even in their own time the likes of Van Gogh traded their paintings for Food. to survive and keep making their exquisite Art!
Tammy: Indeed, who is to say whether an artist is brilliant or mediocre? The only question is whether we are enjoying what we see or not. And yes, plenty of artists like Van Gogh have scrabbled to make ends meet in their lifetime, only to be adored long after they died.
DeleteTo appreciate modern art, I think there is an inherent patience some have to examine the work. For people like me, some appeals to me in the shapes, textures, colors or technique. Unfortunately, the really poor pieces is what affects peoples opinions for the entire group. Then add to that people like me who really do not care for some of the art work which may be outstanding work in the art world.
ReplyDeleteAnn: I know, it's a shame that the laughable pieces of so-called art (like the pile of bricks) are taken as typical examples of modern art and stop people appreciating the genuinely interesting work.
DeleteSadly, I never had an art appreciation class in any of my school courses including college. perhaps, if I had, it would be easier to understand modern art. That said, I still admire the works of the "masters" because at least I can more clearly see the subject matter.
ReplyDeleteBeatrice: Ah, I don't think modern art is about the subject matter. It's about engaging your emotions and your imagination and your thought processes.
Delete