Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I Don't Get Modern Art

PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 4:54:48 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
(Fourth topic ever; first in this particular board)

I don't get modern art. Sometimes, I think modern artists are weird just for they sake of being weird. Anyone agree? Anyone care to explain?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2008 8:59:41 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
(Are you going to do this all the time? It is pretty annoying)

You are correct. The Hollywood elite certainly are a strange bunch, but they would probably tell you that it is for "art's sake."
Don't I take care of them all?
Im_always_right
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 5:00:32 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
(this is about as weird as modern art.)

I think Modern Artists are a bunch of 5-6 year olds who got a hold of some paint.....then disguised themselves with the help of their parents, as adults to see if anyone was stupid enough to like it.

IDK....
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2008 6:22:38 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Yes alot of this sort of stuff is purposefully odd and indecipherable, so people that don't get it will pretend that they do get it, or at least imagine that it must have some sort of depth (when in fact it doesn't) even though it is just meant to look like it is hiding depth, with none really.

The emperor's new clothes.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 8:26:45 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 9/30/2008 4:54:48 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
I don't get modern art. Sometimes, I think modern artists are weird just for they sake of being weird. Anyone agree? Anyone care to explain?

I am an artist (not a modern artist but an artist) so i can help you here Poe.
First of all there is a huge difference between modern art and contemporary art. But i won't even get into that.

To understand anything about modern art you must understand one concept; media specificity. Media refers to the material the art is made out of. So media specificity questions the reason why an artist chose to make art out of the specific material they did. So lets say you paint a realistic painting. The question is why did you just paint a painting when we now have photography. If you want to represent something real you should use the best technology available. Long ago the best tech was paint now it is photography.

This is why abstract art was born. I'm not a big fan but to each his own.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 8:37:52 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I will say that a lot of modern art is designed to be difficult to enjoy so that people who aren't very good at anything else can pride themselves on being able to 'understand' or 'appreciate' this art. However.... once you do start enjoying it you will find that there really is something there to enjoy. It is a strange acquired taste. Its kind of like enjoying the feeling of cutting your gums with your toothbrush. Most of it appeals to the aesthetic that beauty itself is repugnant, or tacky.

http://www.ted.com...
s0m31john
Posts: 1,879
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 8:42:32 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I dislike any art that relies on symbolism.

"Oh a picture of a vase, you say it represents the struggles of the India's lower class to overcome the chains of the caste system."

But that's just my personality, I like things when they are straight to the point. I guess that's why I don't like poetry or most classic literature.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 2:33:48 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/5/2008 8:42:32 AM, s0m31john wrote:
I dislike any art that relies on symbolism.

"Oh a picture of a vase, you say it represents the struggles of the India's lower class to overcome the chains of the caste system."

But that's just my personality, I like things when they are straight to the point. I guess that's why I don't like poetry or most classic literature.

Seriously? You don't like symbols? All written english is is a bunch of random symbols and lines.

In fact to communicate the idea that you don't like symbols, you transmitted some digital information indirectly to my computer, where I interpreted the light coming out of my computer screen to understand your message. That's symbolism.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 3:08:45 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/5/2008 2:33:48 PM, Harlan wrote:
Seriously? You don't like symbols? All written english is is a bunch of random symbols and lines.

There really is no reason for you to get semantical about it. Obviously John was objecting to the pseudo-symbolism used by these modern artists. As English speakers, we accept these symbols called "words"; it's hard to accept a vase as much other than a vase.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 7:12:44 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/5/2008 7:09:29 PM, s0m31john wrote:
Now, this is modern art I can get behind.
http://www.toxel.com...

not to give you a hard time but that isn't modern art... its contemporary. :P :D
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 3:15:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/5/2008 7:14:07 PM, s0m31john wrote:
This is why we can't have nice things.

My step father says that or a variation constantly, it's like his catchphrase. I don't think I have ever heard anyone else ever say that, though.
s0m31john
Posts: 1,879
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 3:26:18 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 3:15:16 PM, Harlan wrote:
At 10/5/2008 7:14:07 PM, s0m31john wrote:
This is why we can't have nice things.

My step father says that or a variation constantly, it's like his catchphrase. I don't think I have ever heard anyone else ever say that, though.

Are you sure your step father isn't a /b/tard and surfs 4chan?

http://lubosz.de...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 4:34:40 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Um... he doesn't have to be a b/tard to know that phrase. Someone's mom invented it somewhere and a bunch of other ones picked it up.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2008 12:51:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/5/2008 3:08:45 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 10/5/2008 2:33:48 PM, Harlan wrote:
Seriously? You don't like symbols? All written english is is a bunch of random symbols and lines.

There really is no reason for you to get semantical about it. Obviously John was objecting to the pseudo-symbolism used by these modern artists. As English speakers, we accept these symbols called "words"; it's hard to accept a vase as much other than a vase.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

The whole purpose of art is to exist as a form of self-expression. If someone is upset or inspired by, say, India's caste system, and they choose to represent that emotion or that struggle through a picture of a vase, it doesn't make it any less 'art' simply because some people may not understand or accept it, or they prefer that someone get "straight to the point" as John pointed out.

Poetry is not always or even usually direct; it is an artistic expression using words to create imagery or patterns to express a certain sentiment or idea. The same way debate in itself is an art -- it's about proving your case through making points and dismantling your opponent's. Except poetry isn't about what's logical or correct (and a lot of times debate isn't either) -- it's about what sounds good or about what the artists feels. People don't HAVE to buy into it. Many people just do for the sake of appreciation.

Modern art has a lot to do with experimentation and abstraction, i.e. a new form of expression. While it can be a bit much to grasp (or even like - I know I don't like some of it), I think it's sad that people are so hesitant to embrace new ways of doing or seeing things.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the phrase "It's hard to see a vase as just a vase" really bugged me. It honestly upset me lol... perhaps we need more philosophers up in these forums (where's Vi_Veri?!).
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2008 4:49:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Btw...

I've heard the main reason for the rise of modern art was the CIA funding it, as a contrast to the "Social realist" school predominant among communists... and apparently did it quietly enough that the socialites never caught on.

Lol.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2008 4:50:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.ratical.org...
Specifically, it funded the "Abstract expressionist" school.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2008 10:17:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"The CIA covertly supported the Abstract Expressionist movement by funding exhibits all over the world in promotion of the idea that the culture of freedom was superior to the culture of slavery, and by covertly promoting the purchasing of works by various private collections. Indeed, the CIA named its biggest front in Europe the Congress for Cultural Freedom. It worked. Soviet art became a laughing stock, and New York became the center of the art world, not Paris, where Picasso, a long-time member of the Communist party and winner of the Stalin Peace Prize (who can forget his doves of peace?), still reigned supreme... Nelson Rockefeller, whose family created the MoMA, actually referred to Abstract Expressionism as "free enterprise painting." But like so many Rockefeller ventures, it was state supported, so that his own collection of Abstract Expressionist works ended up being worth a considerable fortune."

So what?

That doesn't make the art any less valid at all whatsoever so long as its meaning remains true (and it does - people DO buy into it and its theme). This is no different than people promoting certain other things to get them rich, i.e. Bill Gates endorsing Microsofts products. Even if he DOES benefit from consumer buys, it doesn't make his product any less worthy of the cost or his new idea any less innovative and useful. It's not like people wanting to make a buck off the public is something new. Don't be so quick to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2008 2:31:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The problem is that "capitalism" was being "defended" by socialist means, conceding the game to the Soviets.

That's one problem anyway.

Another is that it assumes subjectivism-- conceding the domain of objectivity to the Soviets, an important part of the game.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2008 9:34:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/24/2008 2:31:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The problem is that "capitalism" was being "defended" by socialist means, conceding the game to the Soviets.

That's one problem anyway.

Another is that it assumes subjectivism-- conceding the domain of objectivity to the Soviets, an important part of the game.

That's not true.

Capitalism was being "defended" by Capitalism -- people bought into what the CIA wanted them to. So what. Nobody forced anyone to buy into the frenzy - people did that on their own. Supply and demand, even if it's rooted in propaganda, is still capitalism.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2009 1:20:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 12:13:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Would shaping my moustache into a elephant be modern art?

If it impacts you (or anyone) emotionally, then yes.
President of DDO
StyleAndGrace10
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 11:10:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I believe modern art was brought to the the horizon by thinking outside the box. I think its good to use your imagination. Thats why you cant understand it. To look at it, you have to be really in the mood to read between the lines.
I am my own temple.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2009 3:56:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/8/2009 1:20:34 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/13/2009 12:13:53 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Would shaping my moustache into a elephant be modern art?

If it impacts you (or anyone) emotionally, then yes.

So, my Mother's death was "Modern Art"?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2009 6:03:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Technically, yes.

I see where you're going with this, Panda, and be forewarned that you are not being original here: naming random things and questioning their artisticness is commonplace and done by critics or nay-sayers all the time. I get the point, but that doesn't change the definition of art. Remember that it's subjective. People get off on thinking they're cool by saying stuff like "Sadness is beautiful" all the time. It makes me want to barf, but it's still art.
President of DDO