What is the point in modern art

almoststew1990 · 30 Dec 2018 at 15:02

I spent Christmas in Finland and Estonia. On one day I visited the Helsinki Museum of Modern Art. One of the exhibits was "the artist has thrown a bucket of glitter where it has landed, at random, on the floor". It was cordoned off and you could look at it from about 1 metre away. Another exhibit was aluminium bicycles to be ridden by visitors whilst other visitors walk around with mirrors. Here is a picture of the bicycles:

"The artist wants to offer the cyclists and other viewers a completely new experience of the space, drawing attention to the transparent materiality of the light and air around us". (From the website)

(The large image on the end wall is an artist exploring making lights appear in your eyes when you press down on your eyelids with your fingers.)

Anyway as I walked around looking at these various pieces of art I didn't really get what the point of any of it was. It didn't make me think, change perspective or re-evaluate my own thoughts; It didn't make me feel, emotional or sensational; and it didn't educate me or give me an 'experience'. It does not have a purpose.

So what was the purpose of this kind of art? Is art itself a purpose, and if so, is it a worthwhile one?

I can see two options. One is that this sort of art is simply a canvas for an artist to share their thoughts or emotions or whatever, thoughts and emotions which don't appear to me to have any wider merit. They feel the world needs to see inside their mind. The other option is of course that the "point" in this art has simply flown right over my peasant mind.

I feel that the art exhibitions provided a delicious contrast with the building itself:

The building has a purpose; to keep people warm and dry, to provide safe and convenient access to a wide range of users etc. However, an architect has spent time and effect to give the building flair and character, whilst still allowing the building to fulfil it's purpose. It was not necessary to style the building like this, with large swooping curves and clashing circles, but the architect did it anyway in the interest of the user. This to me, is art. Similar things include (some) song lyrics or other prose (which often make statements or tell stories but in colourful and interesting ways), films, even games...

To be fair to the exhibition, there was one part I liked: an artist made a boat out of a little wood and lots of Estonian beer cans. They sailed it from Finland to Estonia as a metaphor of the flow of money from Finland into Estonia, from beer cruises, which indirectly funds Estonian art!

Anyway enough rambling. Am I just stupid and can't appreciate this kind of art, or has it gone over your head too?

TL;DR I went to a modern art gallery and didn't understand it. Do you like modern art!

builder22 · 30 Dec 2018 at 17:15

to me it's more about socialising/networking and selling your stuff to people with excess cash/to impress friends (with excess cash?)

although it's prob more the fact I'm just not interested in it...hard to understand how others can enjoy iy but they obviously do, for whatever reason

Diddums · 30 Dec 2018 at 17:17

It's all a scam.

This explains it fairly well:

jsmoke · 30 Dec 2018 at 17:22

We had a topic on this before, started by myself.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/do-you-understand-this-art.18606708/

It's an industry, some of the art is better than others but keep the money in the arty circles.

Same as say the financial sector. Some money will spill out hence new investors need to come in. Another Ponzi scheme.

wesimmo · 30 Dec 2018 at 17:26

I struggle with that sort of thing too.

We've got the Baltic up here in Newcastle and we used to go there quite often as some of the kids stuff and workshops were quite good fun.

The actual "art" though was a load of old testicles.

NoobCannon · 30 Dec 2018 at 17:27

Its for vegans and such people to stand and stare at and go “ooo ahh darling thats so fantastical”

Basically idiots

Chojin · 30 Dec 2018 at 17:30

I enjoy a lot of art created in modern times but I've found modern art galleries disappointing. I view things like glitter and baked bean tins hanging off the ceiling as the work of charlatans. Then you have Yoko Ono doing this:

dowie · 30 Dec 2018 at 17:31

Diddums said:
It's all a scam.

This explains it fairly well:

Ah, came into the thread to post the same video!

Should also add in these gems:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...n-by-cleaners-who-thought-it-was-rubbish.html

An avant-garde art exhibition at a museum in Italy ended up being thrown in the bin after overzealous cleaners decided that it must be rubbish.

happened more than once too:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26270260

It is not the first time artwork has been accidentally thrown away by a cleaner.

In 2001, a Damien Hirst installation at London's Eyestorm Gallery consisting of a collection of beer bottles, coffee cups and overflowing ashtrays was cleared away.

Later, in 2004, a bag of paper and cardboard by German artist Gustav Metzger was also thrown out while on a display at Tate Britain.

And of course:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ses-left-on-us-gallery-floor-mistaken-for-art

The feeling of slight dissatisfaction that can come with visiting a modern art gallery is a universal one, best articulated as “I could have done that”.

A pair of US teenagers have beaten artists at their own game, pulling off a successful prank at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art earlier this week.

While Kevin Nguyen, 16, and TJ Khayatan, 17, were impressed with much of the art on display on their visit on Saturday, they questioned the artistic merits of some exhibits.

Could they do better?

Khayatan put Nguyen’s glasses on the floor below an official-looking piece of paper to see how it would be received by gallery-goers.

The work seemed to hit a chord with the public, striking in its simplicity, yet – probably – a challenging commentary on the limits of individual perception.

IIRC some parents submitted their toddler's art work to a college once too and got them admitted... so it isn't just members of the public getting fooled too - even experts seemingly can't tell the difference between proper "art" and some paint splashed around by a child

almoststew1990 · 30 Dec 2018 at 17:38

Thanks for posting the video, that explains a lot! I don't feel quite as much of a bonehead now

touch · 30 Dec 2018 at 17:48

I like modern art. My favourite part is the outrage it causes some people.

jsmoke · 30 Dec 2018 at 18:02

I'm not artist but I'd wage a lot in saying that even though a lot of it looks basic or childish or unskilled, I bet there is still a lot of talent in it, for example given the same tools I bet I/you couldn't create similar.

Though some is arguably fraud.

In one story in, the of the deal, an artist is in trump's office and says,

'Do you want to see me earn twenty-five thousand dollars before lunch?” “Sure,” I said, having no idea what he meant.

'He picked up a large open bucket of paint and splashed some on a piece of canvas stretched on the floor. Then he picked up another bucket, containing a different color, and splashed some of that on the canvas. He did this four times, and it took him perhaps two minutes. When he was done, he turned to me and said, “Well, that’s it. I’ve just earned twenty-five thousand dollars. Let’s go to lunch.”'

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/donald-trump-art-of-the-deal-warhol-782234/amp-page

Roland Butter · 30 Dec 2018 at 18:19

I have dificulty in accepting Art where no skill or evidence of hard work is evident.

To paint a 2 foot square of solid yellow on a 6x4ft blank canvas and call it " Massacre In Rwanda Revisited " is just utter ****, but what do I know,
being an unsophisticated prole.

MookJong · 30 Dec 2018 at 18:36

It’s just a load of baseless BS, but it’s gone on for so long nobody wants to admit it and devalue all of the work and shutdown a whole industry.

Real art is about craft, cultural history and beauty.

Housey · 30 Dec 2018 at 18:37

It’s for mentals to eat cheese to and say Yah a lot.

MookJong · 30 Dec 2018 at 18:41

Roland Butter said:
I have dificulty in accepting Art where no skill or evidence of hard work is evident.

To paint a 2 foot square of solid yellow on a 6x4ft blank canvas and call it " Massacre In Rwanda Revisited " is just utter ****, but what do I know,
being an unsophisticated prole.

You are not an unsophisticated prole, the scammers inside the industry have created a culture that makes you think this. The completely uninitiated can fawn over a Rembrandt because this is real art and it speaks for itself.

Housey · 30 Dec 2018 at 18:47

It is utter garbage and only those in on the money see it as anything more...and some mentals who think it makes them hip like Yoko Loco

beh · 30 Dec 2018 at 19:04

Worth a listen - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03dsk4d . One of Grayson Perry's Reith lectures questioning what can be considered art. Or you can find an excellent TV series by critic Matthew Collings on youtube called "This is Modern art".

Like anything, there is good and bad "Modern" art. From some people's reasoning here I could just list some examples of bad music or films and then declare that everything in a particular genre terrible?

Upside down metal plinth, inscribed "The Base of the World". The whole world is a work of art.

Raymond Lin · 30 Dec 2018 at 19:15

To create discussions.

Thread started, job done and validated its existence.

almoststew1990 · 30 Dec 2018 at 19:24

Raymond Lin said:
To create discussions.

Thread started, job done and validated its existence.

Discussions about what though?

My point was that none of the exhibitions made me think, question or feel about their message that could generate a discussion, as I couldn't even begin to find a message to discuss. I visited with an open mind and my box that I usually think inside carefully locked away back in the hotel room and even then it left me completely cold.

Instead this thread is discussing modern art in general and the point of it, not whether exhibit 5 presents "viewers a completely new experience of the space, drawing attention to the transparent materiality of the light and air around us".

Raymond Lin · 30 Dec 2018 at 19:40

almoststew1990 said:
Discussions about what though?

My point was that none of the exhibitions made me think, question or feel about their message that could generate a discussion, as I couldn't even begin to find a message to discuss. I visited with an open mind and my box that I usually think inside carefully locked away back in the hotel room and even then it left me completely cold.

Instead this thread is discussing modern art in general and the point of it, not whether exhibit 5 presents "viewers a completely new experience of the space, drawing attention to the transparent materiality of the light and air around us".

Discussion About the existence of it. That alone is enough.

You brought it up, hence you validated it.

You clearly have enough feelings/stirred something in you enough for you to start this thread, whether you love it, hate it, disgusted by it, etc, it matters not. Not every piece of art is after adoration, some merely to create discussion.

The worst thing that can happen to a piece of art isn’t that you don’t like it, it is if everyone passes it by like it never existed. If it really did nothing then this thread won’t exist.