What is the point in modern art

[h4rm0ny]

I was in Barcelona, I forgot what gallery and there were 3 canvases on the wall, very large actually, about 2 metres high and about 4 metres wide each. On it is a single line drawn across with a pencil. Reading the description apparently the artist had thought for like 2 years to make that from what i recall.

2 years? for a pencil line? that's weird and WTF comes to mind, still does.

But you can read it literally as it is, a pencil line on a cloth or you can read into the artist's "journey" in order to come-up-with that.

I have to say though, it got my attention and I still remember it 15 years later and I remember nothing else from that gallery.

You seem to assign equal value to something that you remember because it was great as something dumb, your assessment being merely 'it made an impression'. This is not a positive criteria for a society to base value on. Although valuing attention above all else, does seem in keeping with how many today think.

 

[Raymond Lin]

But for the majority of people do they remember it for the artists proclaimed concept or just as "that twaddle they saw at the museum" because I used to visit Tate Britain and modern regularly for exhibitions and then see part of the regular collection and most of the installations I remember as twaddle not for any value in the artists proclaimed idea. And if by chance they are only trying to make memorable twaddle I despair.

One can argue that you are not trying to please the majority, the aim is even if you make an impression to a tiny minority, that is done its job. Like when you write a song, the best song isn't always the most generic, middle of the road, inoffensive song, some people love the off the rail, strange ones. like Heavy metal, thrash metal, lots of screaming single note is all I hear but a minority loves it. To me, they are just twaddle.

 

[PlacidCasual]

That's a fair point but the music you dislike will often irrespective of it's aesthetic value to you have an undeniable aspect of craft that you could not replicate. Much like an Dutch master painting it may not be a subject or style to my taste but has undeniable craft and skill. Sometimes with modern Art you find only concept and no craft there is no difficulty of replication, no evidence of journey in order to create your conception. I accept that modern art connoisseurs accept and embrace this, and having seen the artists previous X shows understand there journey but to me I see an craftless and obscure delivery of an opaque concept with no evidence of the journey to arrive at it.

I think this puts me in the meat and two veg school of art, but I'll enjoy my Mackintoh, Morris, Moore, Klimt, Turner, Lowry et al

 

[cheesyboy]

Just as a point of fact, 'Modern Art' is not actually what everyone is talking about.

'Modern art' is a period ending about 50 years ago covering Van Gogh, Picasso and suchlike.

We're talking 'Contemporary Art' and, more specifically, mostly talking 'Conceptual Art'

And 'Conceptual Art' isn't really about the end result, more the process of arriving there. If you look at it and just see a load of objects or words or lines on a page or whatever and write it off, then you haven't really looked at it. I'm not into it, to be honest, but it's worth trying to at least understand the principle.

Conceptual art gets people talking about galleries, which is why they like to have these installations. But it's worth visiting contemporary art galleries to see the stuff that is actually about a bit more than marketing.

 

[dowie]

Since Humans have lived in caves we have created art to tell stories, understand the world around us and attempt to understand ourselves. I think that with technological advances in photography and video, certain artists moved away from representing the literal world around them and started to use more abstract methods of exploration. We see this across most disciplines including painting, sculpture, ceramics and textiles. Modern art is just an extension of this process, abstracting the abstract. The goal of 'art' hasn't changed, artists are still telling stories, trying to understand the world around them and trying to understand the human condition, Modern artists are just doing it differently. It's not really that 'modern' any more though; Marcel Duchamp was creating 'Modern art' 100 years ago.

Well not necessarily, in some cases yes though that doesn't really explain or counter the previous points made. IF the goal is to simply seek attention and that attention is given as default just because an artist has a famous name (which can come about as a result of some insider promoting them) and some galleries are happy to display their "art" then they'll have that attention regardless of what they chose to create... that doesn't really say much about the art itself though.

In part, yes. Without the attention it wouldn’t be noticed and shared.

It’s made to be shared with the world, a physical expression of an idea or emotion.

Well of course it is made to be shared with the world, that's why it has been put in a gallery and/or promoted for the press etc... but if attention is the goal then literally anyone can do that given the same platform.

A streaker at a football match gets attention, a mass murderer gets attention... I'm not sure it is necessarily a good measure of anything.

I have to say though, it got my attention and I still remember it 15 years later and I remember nothing else from that gallery.

You'd probably remember something random that had shock value to it too... I could collect all my turds for an entire year and dump them all in the entrance, festering away... you'd likely remember that too 15 years later. Getting your attention would be quite a trivial thing to achieve.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Well of course it is made to be shared with the world, that's why it has been put in a gallery and/or promoted for the press etc... but if attention is the goal then literally anyone can do that given the same platform.

A streaker at a football match gets attention, a mass murderer gets attention... I'm not sure it is necessarily a good measure of anything.



You'd probably remember something random that had shock value to it too... I could collect all my turds for an entire year and dump them all in the entrance, festering away... you'd likely remember that too 15 years later. Getting your attention would be quite a trivial thing to achieve.

I did say in part, I never said in whole.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I think this has been covered, although perhaps not explicitly in relation to this question. It doesn't apply to all art because for the most part, art is assigned value by the observer. We see a painting we like and think it has value to us therefore. Now marketing may make us like it more or less because humans are like that. But we still have assigned it value ourselves. For Modern Art, very often (predominantly I would say), the value is entirely the result of marketing. As Angillion says: there are a million unmade beds in this country. Marketing is what made Emin's one suddenly saleable for a fortune. We can deplore the outsourcing of what we like to the appointed arbiters of taste and personally, I think that's worth deploring. But whether you do or not, it marks Modern Art as different. We're not talking about people who might look at a Monet and not like it - that's again a person setting their own tastes. We're talking about something where the liking or disliking is determined by the marketing wholly.

If art is assigned its value by the observer, and an observer deems it valuable, then who is anyone else to say that it has no value? The liking or disliking is determined by the observer, not the marketing wholly. They may be informed by the marketing, but ultimately they still have to make the decision as to whether they believe it's valuable. You deem the marketing to be BS, so you deem the artwork worthless but as long as there are enough people that decide it is valuable, then it will be worth something. Call it a con, call it 'the emperor's new clothes', but that's just an opinion.

It's exactly like looking at a Monet and deciding whether you like it or not. Art is subjective; whether it's Michaelangelo's David, or Turner's 'The Fighting Temeraire', or Piet Mondrian's 'Composition with Yellow, Blue and Red' or Damien Hirst's 'The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living' (the shark). In every case, the piece is valuable because enough people have deemed it valuable, even though some people like it and some don't.

I'm again going to emphasise my point from earlier that Abstract Art =/= Modern Art. I like a lot of abstract art. These are abstract but I like them: They'd look quite nice on my bookshelf.

A bicycle against a wall? Noooooot so much.

I know there's overlap between Abstract and Modern Art, but the distinction is worth maintaining or this discussion will get very messy.

I think @cheesyboy's definitions are quite useful here in order to avoid confusion. My point earlier was that 'Modern Art' (let's now refer to it as 'Conceptual Art') is a progression and/or abstraction of 'Abstract Art', in terms of the linear development of Art History.

You may not want a bicycle against your wall, but there are people who do — again it's all subjective.

See, I don't see this clear lineage to Modern Art that you do. I see a fracture and a subversion of art. I think we've been able to give clear arguments on that which don't depend on our subjective "I like it / don't like it" personal tastes. And I think we all know we're saying Modern as in the school rather than contemporary. There is beautiful art produced every day. It just doesn't get the coverage Damien Hirst does.

The lineage comes from progressive schools of artists building on the work of those who came before them and trying to do new things and push boundaries, it's just an evolution of the medium rather than a subversion. I'm sure there were traditionalists who labelled Picasso 'fractious and subversive' in the early 20th Century.

Hirst and Emin went to Goldsmiths and The Royal College of Art respectively, where they will have been emersed in art history and culture, and combined that with their own experiences. This will also have introduced them to other people (like Saatchi) who helped them progress in their career, but this kind of thing isn't a phenomenon specific to the art world. There are no doubt tens or even hundreds of better artists for every Hirst or Emin that won't get the same recognition, but success in life often comes down to 'right place, right time' and 'who you know'.

You can disapprove of that (especially if you don't like the artwork) but I don't believe you've given a 'clear argument on that which doesn't depend on your subjective "I like it / don't like it" personal tastes' — it's all subjective and you clearly don't like it, but you can't seem to accept that other people do.

 

[Angilion]

The fact that this unmade bed is so divisive (which I think is a pile of dirty sheets), it makes its existence worthwhile. I've said before, the worst thing that can happen to a piece of art, any piece of art is that it is forgotten. The fact that so many people remembers is, for whatever the reason, must make the artist soooooo happy. It was worth making it in the first place.

What you haven't said is what you think makes that unmade bed different to the millions of other unmade beds. You know it's just marketing, don't you? You have absolutely no other answer, so you repeatedly ignore the question. You admire the emperor's new clothes.

 

[Lakeland]

To the people who are for modern art, would you like to counter the video that was posted on the first page?

 

[Raymond Lin]

What you haven't said is what you think makes that unmade bed different to the millions of other unmade beds. You know it's just marketing, don't you? You have absolutely no other answer, so you repeatedly ignore the question. You admire the emperor's new clothes.

The difference is that she had an idea to put it forward as art in a gallery.

I didn't, millions didn't, nor did you.

p.s. I don't admire the bed, I have said it's just a bunch of dirty sheets, but I admire the fact that she had the idea.

 

[gronf]

I found a pic of @Raymond Lin at an 'art' exhibition.

 

[Angilion]

The difference is that she had an idea to put it forward as art in a gallery.

I didn't, millions didn't, nor did you.

p.s. I don't admire the bed, I have said it's just a bunch of dirty sheets, but I admire the fact that she had the idea.

OK...I have just cleaned my face with a wet wipe and thrown it in a bin. I have the idea to put the bin forward as art in a gallery. Does that make it art? Why isn't the other wet wipe in the bin, one I used yesterday, equally art? Does it matter that nobody will consider it art because I don't have anyone with enough power marketing it?

Also, now that many people are aware of the idea of putting an unmade bed in an art gallery and claiming it's art, does that mean that all those unmade beds are now art?

More importantly, will you pay me £100,000 for my bin because, according to you, it's now art? That's very cheap for such an awesome piece of art. Maybe I should be asking £1M.

 

[Raymond Lin]

OK...I have just cleaned my face with a wet wipe and thrown it in a bin. I have the idea to put the bin forward as art in a gallery. Does that make it art? Why isn't the other wet wipe in the bin, one I used yesterday, equally art? Does it matter that nobody will consider it art because I don't have anyone with enough power marketing it?

Also, now that many people are aware of the idea of putting an unmade bed in an art gallery and claiming it's art, does that mean that all those unmade beds are now art?

More importantly, will you pay me £100,000 for my bin because, according to you, it's now art? That's very cheap for such an awesome piece of art. Maybe I should be asking £1M.

Question - What are you trying to get from me to say exactly?

As you asking whether some material is worth X amount? Is that really the question? Because I can tell you there are a million things in the world isn't worth what they are retailed for in materials or man hours, it is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, from diamonds to watches to art to toys to houses.

 

[itchy]

Modern art is a abstract perspective point of view.

I could do it no problem, that's my issue with it as classical paintings and sculptures are art but to me modern art is BS.

 

[Angilion]

Question - What are you trying to get from me to say exactly?

As you asking whether some material is worth X amount? Is that really the question? Because I can tell you there are a million things in the world isn't worth what they are retailed for in materials or man hours, it is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, from diamonds to watches to art to toys to houses.

I'm trying to get you to say what you think the difference is between an unmade bed and an unmade bed. The one answer you've come up with is obviously wrong because merely having the idea of putting it in a gallery and selling it as art doesn't make it happen.

And no, it's not about the materials or time spent making it because neither of those things is of any relevance at all to whether or not something is sold as modern art.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I'm trying to get you to say what you think the difference is between an unmade bed and an unmade bed. The one answer you've come up with is obviously wrong because merely having the idea of putting it in a gallery and selling it as art doesn't make it happen.

And no, it's not about the materials or time spent making it because neither of those things is of any relevance at all to whether or not something is sold as modern art.

What makes my answer wrong? What makes your answer right?

I'll tell you, it's all just an opinion. This is all Art is, an opinion. You call it marketing, I call it consumerism, I call it life. it's all just an opinion.

The problem here is your unwilling acceptance of people's opinion.

A piece of rock is a piece of rock, does it make a Statue of David? Is your thought just another thought?

The answer you've come up with is obviously wrong because merely having the idea of "it's not an idea" doesn't make it a solid argument.

 

[MookJong]

It's good to see so many are calling it out. I remember seeing similar threads years ago with many more people defending modern art. I think even I used to say I didn't like it but had to respect it's artistic context. I have changed my mind since then and become extremely cynical after looking at the players inside the industry and some of the stunts that have shown the critics know nothing.

The problem with post modernism is that it really muddies the water of reason and this is a plague which has seeped into many areas of society. Modernism says that anything goes and that it must be respected in the same way as something of exquisite beauty and skill. This desire to quash a high regard for skill and beauty over random and ugly shows a loss of consensus direction and the rise of rampant individualism. As was touched on recently in another thread, just look at the state of the soulless architecture in the modern age verses the character filled classical buildings.

Sir Roger Scruton has much to say on this situation, I was heartened to see that the government had brought him in as an adviser to future housing architecture.

 

[Lakeland]

What is utterly heartbreaking is that people with true artistic skill and talent, of the technical kind, are pushed aside.

I can only assume that one of the reasons is because there is now more skillful artists than the art sector can handle and it creates a supply-demand issue. I.E. too much good art means the value drops.

By having the quality of art decided by industry insiders, they can limit the supply, increase the demand and ramp up the value. The best way to cover up that scam is by removing the beauty and using the line ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’.

 

[Irish_Tom]

What is utterly heartbreaking is that people with true artistic skill and talent, of the technical kind, are pushed aside.

I can only assume that one of the reasons is because there is now more skillful artists than the art sector can handle and it creates a supply-demand issue. I.E. too much good art means the value drops.

By having the quality of art decided by industry insiders, they can limit the supply, increase the demand and ramp up the value. The best way to cover up that scam is by removing the beauty and using the line ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’.

Very true, but it’s nothing new.

Art has always had a tricky relationship with its commercial side.

Most of the famous Renaissance artists made their living by taking on commissions for the church or through patronage from wealthy individuals.

The Royal Academy was the arbiter of ‘taste’ for a long time in the UK. Turner struggled throughout his career to get the Academy to appreciate landscapes, when the fashion at the time was for ‘historical scenes’. He was always seen as a bit of an outsider, especially as he was of ‘low breeding’.

Today it’s Saatchi and his ilk. It’s just a different side of the same coin.

To become a successful artist has always been a balance between the artwork itself as much as ‘who you know’.

If you don’t have the right connections, you either pursue art as a hobby or you go mad and/or become destitute and hope your artwork becomes recognised posthumously.

 

[Angilion]

What makes my answer wrong? What makes your answer right? [..]

The fact that I have an answer is a good start.

Two identical things. Same things, same skill required in making them (none). Same things, completely the same.

One is "art" and the other is not.

The sole difference between them is that one has been successfully marketed and the other has not.

My answer is that the difference between them is marketing. Your "answer" is that it's everyone else's fault for not being able to understand the answer that you haven't given and nobody has given.