Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Is modern art becoming very boring?

AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 4:31:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Obviously not all modern art is bad, but some like these are just plain awful:

http://princeton.guendel.org...

http://princeton.guendel.org...

http://princeton.guendel.org...

Why do these even exist...
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
simonetta241
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 8:55:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not only boring, most pieces don't make any sense! In my opinion for an artist to be an artist he needs an idea behind his work and the technique to express it. Whereas most modern pieces of "art" lack both. I think that this lack of subject/ideas is what makes it boring. Take the 3 canvases painted red. It has no subject, there is absolutely nothing to think about. It's like looking at a wall. Or the one with the squares, it looks like gift wrapping paper. There's nothing interesting to see. I think that's the main problem.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:13:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 8:55:29 AM, simonetta241 wrote:
Not only boring, most pieces don't make any sense! In my opinion for an artist to be an artist he needs an idea behind his work and the technique to express it. Whereas most modern pieces of "art" lack both. I think that this lack of subject/ideas is what makes it boring. Take the 3 canvases painted red. It has no subject, there is absolutely nothing to think about. It's like looking at a wall. Or the one with the squares, it looks like gift wrapping paper. There's nothing interesting to see. I think that's the main problem.

Agreed.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 8:49:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 8:55:29 AM, simonetta241 wrote:
Not only boring, most pieces don't make any sense! In my opinion for an artist to be an artist he needs an idea behind his work and the technique to express it. Whereas most modern pieces of "art" lack both. I think that this lack of subject/ideas is what makes it boring. Take the 3 canvases painted red. It has no subject, there is absolutely nothing to think about. It's like looking at a wall. Or the one with the squares, it looks like gift wrapping paper. There's nothing interesting to see. I think that's the main problem.

This is a misconception. For example, in abstraction the "idea" is the work itself. There is not separation. They are one and the exact same thing. Probably the most salient source of awful art is conceptualism, which is full of ideas, often nothing but ideas. The problem is not an absence of ideas. At all.

Let's drop the anachronous "modern". Today we have contemporary art. And contemporary art is characterized by:

1. Unparalleled diversity. This applies to style, subject matter and media.

2. Unprecedented dissolution of authority. There are no artistic authorities to appeal to or which sanction this or that artistic endeavour. The roles of the critic and of academia have been largely diminished.

3. The cultural prevalence of nihilistic and ultra-subjective notions of what fine art is. This conceptions of art are not only nefarious because they are flat out wrong , they have also given birth to some of the poorest artistic endeavours in the history of mankind, notably conceptualism.
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 8:26:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The ultimate modern experience of art has not yet been reached as far as I know , but it has in music. A musical composition of twenty minutes of silence. Absolutely glorious just listen to than melody oh that harmony oh that supendous canon.
Now imagine an art exibition where you are blindfolded at the entrance.
What marvellous pictures , what colour, what brushstrokes. My my I'm speachless mute at the very miracle of such a display of genius. Catch me if I pass out with wonder.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 10:38:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Modern art ended some 40 years ago. To insist on using the term to describe contemporary art betrays quite the ignorance.

Today, art is at its most diversified state in the entire history of mankind. Therefore it is a gross overgeneralization to comment on its features as though it were the monolithic body of work it once was, namely centuries ago in Western Europe.

It is not.

The main source of sterile, void, presumptuous work is Conceptual Art. It's the declared enemy of everything that really matters in art and therefore must be relentlessly opposed. But the worst form of opposition is obfuscating, conflating things which are intrinsically different, if not antipodean.

It is because we lack not just a consensus but even a marginal majority regarding what art is that epiphenomena like Conceptualism have thrived. Not that we should harbour any hopes as to reaching a consensus. That is not the zeitgeist,. But we can make progress towards exposing Conceptualism for the sterile, yawn-inducing gibberish that it is.
a414078
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:43:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 4:31:56 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Obviously not all modern art is bad, but some like these are just plain awful:

http://princeton.guendel.org...

http://princeton.guendel.org...

http://princeton.guendel.org...

Why do these even exist...

the first pic dates back like 100 years ago lol
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 8:42:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 10:38:57 AM, Hitchian wrote:
Modern art ended some 40 years ago. To insist on using the term to describe contemporary art betrays quite the ignorance.

Today, art is at its most diversified state in the entire history of mankind. Therefore it is a gross overgeneralization to comment on its features as though it were the monolithic body of work it once was, namely centuries ago in Western Europe.

It is not.

The main source of sterile, void, presumptuous work is Conceptual Art. It's the declared enemy of everything that really matters in art and therefore must be relentlessly opposed. But the worst form of opposition is obfuscating, conflating things which are intrinsically different, if not antipodean.

It is because we lack not just a consensus but even a marginal majority regarding what art is that epiphenomena like Conceptualism have thrived. Not that we should harbour any hopes as to reaching a consensus. That is not the zeitgeist,. But we can make progress towards exposing Conceptualism for the sterile, yawn-inducing gibberish that it is.
Well sorry about that, I'm not an art guru so I very well possibly confuse different genres for art.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
shakestaffe
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 6:17:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 4:31:56 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Obviously not all modern art is bad, but some like these are just plain awful:

Why do these even exist...

The facts, as I see them, are these: you saw some paintings that you didn't like and found to be boring, and then, because you did not like these works of art, you questioned whether or not they should exist. Perhaps you were frustrated because they're acclaimed works of art even though you don't like them. It happens.

It is commonly held that aesthetic quality is subjective. You may disagree, but that does not change the fact that there are lots of people out there who have different tastes than you. Simply saying that these people are wrong for having different tastes is neither convincing nor logically sound. This is just a post in which you're saying that you think these three paintings are boring. That's fine. But, in answer to your question, "is modern art becoming very boring": maybe, but this post has nothing to do with that question.
patternist
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 10:30:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First post - let's see where this goes. :)

Indeed my first thought was whether we were talking about modern art or contemporary art which are indeed very different. Assuming we're talking about contemporary, this is something that has been debated greatly.

I thik there are two major factors that need to be considered (or maybe three).
- First off, we need to consider the effects of technology, globalisation, social media, etc on both art and the art industry. Up to about 20-odd years ago, communicating was something that required in most cases physical presence. This brought people together.. minds together... this created movements - people who had a similar opinion working on something to promote that opinion. Art was a lot about that. Even conceptualism (like all other -isms) was a movement and it did produce some interesting things.. challenges to thought, oxymorons and so on. It was probably the main movement to be highly influenced and driven by technology itself, so it has an important place in art history per se, although not everyone agrees on the value of most of the individual products themselves. Anyway, technology became a huge driving force in the production of art, mostly because I think that most of the traditional ways of creating art felt stagnant and dry (but that is how art evolves after all). The really bad thing is how technology affected the artists. As we moved into the Internet age, people (and artists, of course) became distant, isolated, reclusive to a point where there were no more movements. Everyone became their own island. This created a highly individualised artistic diversity. On the positive side, it fueled individual thought, but it also killed the power of the collective mindset, so everyone became individually competitive. I am not saying that competition is wrong or didn't exist, but in the modern age there was a direction/a goal towards competitiveness. Now we just compete with everyone in general with no aim or direction whatsoever. This creates chaos, and the result is 90% garbage with a great difficulty to identify the really good work because there is no basis for anyone to compare with and no guidelines. It has also created a certain coldness to the art which fails to inspire people, which is what art should be all about after all. I am strongly convinced that this is very much the result of our increased isolation and inability to create and maintain relationships (which is much different from our increased communication tools at our disposal).

- Secondly, and I believe this is partly related to the previous point, the art industry has changed (I would argue degraded) per se. It has become more akin to hollywood, in the sense that there are a few very powerful people who essentially control the industry in order to make money. They essentially manufacture superstars in order to then use them to generate high value work. In essence it's a little like someone buying a company (in this case the artist) at a startup phase, to then pump up their value on the stock market and start selling shares. This is not to say there aren't ANY good artists left, because in any case there needs to be some talent in order to exploit it. What I'm saying is that the selection process has become a little more artificial (because this has existed for a long time, but it has been perfected greatly). This leaves many very good artists basically licking the dirt. We'll probably hear about them in about 50 years or so, if ever.

- Finally, I think that this whole industry has actually changed artists in such a way that they are not creating art because they have to (as many artists will say is their driving force) but they create art *for the industry*. Essentially they are producing the stuff that will more likely get them the big chair (or cheque) and not the art that is meaningful, which of course brings us back full circle to the creation of cold, meaningless art that nobody understands (with good reason, of course).

Like all art periods, this will evolve eventually (for the better or worse). Society tends to go from one extreme to another, and so do artists. It might take a couple of decades but someone, eventually will get sick of it and probably go back to something polarly opposite... but maybe society is not ready for that yet... we'll see.
Damian1226
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 10:53:53 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
A work of art is not valued for itself but for the ideas that it conveys. When this concept is married with the understanding that anything can be art, we face a bewildering array of installations, video clips, embroidery or what have you that are intended to convey something to us.
SuperHuman
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 2:07:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 10/6/2015 4:31:56 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Obviously not all modern art is bad, but some like these are just plain awful:

http://princeton.guendel.org...

http://princeton.guendel.org...

http://princeton.guendel.org...

Why do these even exist...
I don`t really understand... But the creators of this awful pictures are a great marketers!