Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Modern art

headphonegut
Posts: 4,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 11:52:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is not only lacking in discipline and quality. It is not transcendent nor profound. Lacking any real impact and instead is only intentionally provactive. Modern art is just bad.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Smithereens
Posts: 6,725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:07:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
+1

nac
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017
SuperHuman
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 2:13:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2015 11:52:36 AM, headphonegut wrote:
It is not only lacking in discipline and quality. It is not transcendent nor profound. Lacking any real impact and instead is only intentionally provactive. Modern art is just bad.

Not all modern art. But there is a great amount of non quality works which prevents to perceive the normal art. In each century there were own geniuses.. And our century is not an exception. So better post here the works that you like instead of criticizing the artists that you even don`t know
cal7011
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 9:42:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Art can be contemporary and modern. We can espress ourselves without being contemporary and be modern.
Vaarka
Posts: 9,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 11:09:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 12/15/2015 11:52:36 AM, headphonegut wrote:
It is not only lacking in discipline and quality. It is not transcendent nor profound. Lacking any real impact and instead is only intentionally provactive. Modern art is just bad.

"Modern art is terrible" - Every generation of art critics in history
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCat: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
headphonegut
Posts: 4,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2016 11:22:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 12/12/2016 11:09:03 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 12/15/2015 11:52:36 AM, headphonegut wrote:
It is not only lacking in discipline and quality. It is not transcendent nor profound. Lacking any real impact and instead is only intentionally provactive. Modern art is just bad.

"Modern art is terrible" - Every generation of art critics in history

This was like a year ago... I am saying modern art is bad because of x. You are saying close to nothing. What is your point exactly? Don't want to misinterpret nor come up with your points for you.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Vaarka
Posts: 9,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2016 11:25:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 12/13/2016 11:22:51 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/12/2016 11:09:03 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 12/15/2015 11:52:36 AM, headphonegut wrote:
It is not only lacking in discipline and quality. It is not transcendent nor profound. Lacking any real impact and instead is only intentionally provactive. Modern art is just bad.

"Modern art is terrible" - Every generation of art critics in history

This was like a year ago... I am saying modern art is bad because of x. You are saying close to nothing. What is your point exactly? Don't want to misinterpret nor come up with your points for you.

I was just saying something that I learned from art app last year. No matter what age, there was always a standard for good art, and then as popularity shifted towards another via the public, the critics said it was terrible.

The problem now is that it seems to be the opposite. Critics are saying it's wonderful, and everyone else thinks it's terrible.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCat: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
headphonegut
Posts: 4,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2016 12:01:23 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 12/13/2016 11:25:51 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 12/13/2016 11:22:51 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/12/2016 11:09:03 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 12/15/2015 11:52:36 AM, headphonegut wrote:
It is not only lacking in discipline and quality. It is not transcendent nor profound. Lacking any real impact and instead is only intentionally provactive. Modern art is just bad.

"Modern art is terrible" - Every generation of art critics in history

This was like a year ago... I am saying modern art is bad because of x. You are saying close to nothing. What is your point exactly? Don't want to misinterpret nor come up with your points for you.

I was just saying something that I learned from art app last year. No matter what age, there was always a standard for good art, and then as popularity shifted towards another via the public, the critics said it was terrible.

The problem now is that it seems to be the opposite. Critics are saying it's wonderful, and everyone else thinks it's terrible.

idk for almost 2,000 years this so called standard that was held required perfection and excellence improving upon the previous generation. During the 19th century the impressionists i.e. beauty in the eye of the beholder took hold. They kept many of the principles the classical standards. And after every generation it diminished, the standards. I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Is it merely to point out something, and that which is demonstrably false, or to comment that modern art just is? And that the art community knows best? Idk about that; with the lacma buying a rock for 10 million and calling it art. Being evocative and intentionally shocking and calling that art and why not? It sells. Modern art is objectively bad.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Vaarka
Posts: 9,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2016 1:17:42 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 12/14/2016 12:01:23 AM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/13/2016 11:25:51 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 12/13/2016 11:22:51 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/12/2016 11:09:03 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 12/15/2015 11:52:36 AM, headphonegut wrote:
It is not only lacking in discipline and quality. It is not transcendent nor profound. Lacking any real impact and instead is only intentionally provactive. Modern art is just bad.

"Modern art is terrible" - Every generation of art critics in history

This was like a year ago... I am saying modern art is bad because of x. You are saying close to nothing. What is your point exactly? Don't want to misinterpret nor come up with your points for you.

I was just saying something that I learned from art app last year. No matter what age, there was always a standard for good art, and then as popularity shifted towards another via the public, the critics said it was terrible.

The problem now is that it seems to be the opposite. Critics are saying it's wonderful, and everyone else thinks it's terrible.

idk for almost 2,000 years this so called standard that was held required perfection and excellence improving upon the previous generation. During the 19th century the impressionists i.e. beauty in the eye of the beholder took hold. They kept many of the principles the classical standards. And after every generation it diminished, the standards. I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Is it merely to point out something, and that which is demonstrably false, or to comment that modern art just is? And that the art community knows best? Idk about that; with the lacma buying a rock for 10 million and calling it art. Being evocative and intentionally shocking and calling that art and why not? It sells. Modern art is objectively bad.

lol, I don't even know what to respond with. I was just saying something, not really trying to make a point
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCat: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
headphonegut
Posts: 4,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2016 4:01:54 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 12/14/2016 1:17:42 AM, Vaarka wrote:
At 12/14/2016 12:01:23 AM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/13/2016 11:25:51 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 12/13/2016 11:22:51 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/12/2016 11:09:03 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 12/15/2015 11:52:36 AM, headphonegut wrote:
It is not only lacking in discipline and quality. It is not transcendent nor profound. Lacking any real impact and instead is only intentionally provactive. Modern art is just bad.

"Modern art is terrible" - Every generation of art critics in history

This was like a year ago... I am saying modern art is bad because of x. You are saying close to nothing. What is your point exactly? Don't want to misinterpret nor come up with your points for you.

I was just saying something that I learned from art app last year. No matter what age, there was always a standard for good art, and then as popularity shifted towards another via the public, the critics said it was terrible.

The problem now is that it seems to be the opposite. Critics are saying it's wonderful, and everyone else thinks it's terrible.

idk for almost 2,000 years this so called standard that was held required perfection and excellence improving upon the previous generation. During the 19th century the impressionists i.e. beauty in the eye of the beholder took hold. They kept many of the principles the classical standards. And after every generation it diminished, the standards. I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Is it merely to point out something, and that which is demonstrably false, or to comment that modern art just is? And that the art community knows best? Idk about that; with the lacma buying a rock for 10 million and calling it art. Being evocative and intentionally shocking and calling that art and why not? It sells. Modern art is objectively bad.

lol, I don't even know what to respond with. I was just saying something, not really trying to make a point

wow, nice meme buddy.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
cyber_onions
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 3:10:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I think I understand your initial assertion, though it is problematic because you are using the term "Modern art" when I think you mean "contemporary art." Modern art refers specifically to the period of Modernism, which ended circa 1970, so if you"re talking about art that is made today you are not talking about Modern art.

Further to this, you have asserted that Modern (contemporary) art lacks quality, discipline, is not profound, is not transcendent, lacks real impact, and is intentionally provocative, but you haven"t defined any of these terms. What do you mean by art "lacks discipline?" Do you mean that artists are ill-disciplined, or is there something about an artwork itself that can be said to lack discipline? I get the impression that you are trying to argue that contemporary artists lack technical skills and are not refined in their techniques, which is not only broad but very difficult to assert because art is varied, different artists have different skillsets in different mediums, and what is judged to be "good" and "bad" in terms of skills is fluid and has changed throughout history. You do not provide any real substance to these claims, so it is hard to know what you"re arguing. The same is true of your other assertions " what does it mean for an artwork to have impact? How is this defined? Is transcendence necessarily a laudable goal for art? Can the idea of transcendence, linked in art to religious experience through much of history, exist as a goal for art in the Postmodern era? And what do you mean when you say art is intentionally provocative? Many artists throughout history have been intentionally provocative, this is not a symptom of the contemporary artist.

You say that "for almost 2000 years this so called standard that was held required perfection and excellence and improving upon the previous generation" " this is not historically accurate. For many centuries, the types of art produced in certain regions remained relatively stable, with the idea of "improving upon the previous generation" being unheard of. Notions of perfection and excellence varied from region to region and from time period to time period. For example, in the classical period of the Classical era of Greek antiquity, sculptors sought "perfection" in the human form through ratio and mathematical harmony, however in the Hellenistic period sculpture became much less focused on perfection and embraced a degree of expressiveness and emotion. This might be seen as an example of a shift away from the ideals of perfection. To paint 2000 years of history with the brush of "oh it was about excellence and perfection" is misguided and overly simplified.

Though Impressionism began in the 1860s/70s this didn"t herald a shift to "art is in the eye of the beholder." As you said the Impressionists stuck to some classical principles, but their work was not a random decent from perfection to subjectivism (as I alluded to before, the history of art is not a history of striving for perfection). In many ways the Impressionists work more closely resembled "reality" than the classical works that preceded them or the salon works of the time. As they painted en plein air, and with a scientific eye (and taking into account recent developments and discoveries of colour theory and optics) many of them produced work which resembled the observable world more closely than say, Greek classicism of 2000+ years ago. In that sense, it might be considered more "perfect and excellent" even though those weren"t their goals.

In general I find your assertion to be rather baseless and predicated upon a lack of understanding of both art history and art criticism. To say that "Modern art is objectively bad" is ludicrous.

I think there"s two further points I"d like to make in response: Firstly, that contemporary art is not just what you see in galleries. Art made today varies hugely in its aims, intentions, and manifestations, that when you claim that all "Modern" art is bad I think you forget that much art today closely resembles art made in the past, even that of 2000 years ago. Many galleries show representational work, work made with traditional methods, etc., and so I think your position is predicated upon a false understanding of what art today actually is; you"re looking at a very narrow range of contemporary art, likely the more outrageous examples that make the news.

Secondly, there are some important distinctions in art criticism that you are overlooking. There is a difference between these three types of assertions:

1."I like this art/I don"t like this art"
2."I think this art is good/I think this art is bad"
3."This is art/this isn"t art."

I think you have confused the first two, namely you don"t like a certain kind of art, and you think that therefore it is bad. Liking and not liking particular artworks is entirely subjective " however to claim that some art is good, or bad, you need to provide a structure for discerning good from bad, which you haven"t. All you"ve done is say you think Modern art is bad, when really what you"re trying to say is that you don"t like Modern art.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2016 7:59:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 12/15/2016 3:10:46 PM, cyber_onions wrote:
I think I understand your initial assertion, though it is problematic because you are using the term "Modern art" when I think you mean "contemporary art." Modern art refers specifically to the period of Modernism, which ended circa 1970, so if you"re talking about art that is made today you are not talking about Modern art.

Further to this, you have asserted that Modern (contemporary) art lacks quality, discipline, is not profound, is not transcendent, lacks real impact, and is intentionally provocative, but you haven"t defined any of these terms. What do you mean by art "lacks discipline?" Do you mean that artists are ill-disciplined, or is there something about an artwork itself that can be said to lack discipline? I get the impression that you are trying to argue that contemporary artists lack technical skills and are not refined in their techniques, which is not only broad but very difficult to assert because art is varied, different artists have different skillsets in different mediums, and what is judged to be "good" and "bad" in terms of skills is fluid and has changed throughout history. You do not provide any real substance to these claims, so it is hard to know what you"re arguing. The same is true of your other assertions " what does it mean for an artwork to have impact? How is this defined? Is transcendence necessarily a laudable goal for art? Can the idea of transcendence, linked in art to religious experience through much of history, exist as a goal for art in the Postmodern era? And what do you mean when you say art is intentionally provocative? Many artists throughout history have been intentionally provocative, this is not a symptom of the contemporary artist.

You say that "for almost 2000 years this so called standard that was held required perfection and excellence and improving upon the previous generation" " this is not historically accurate. For many centuries, the types of art produced in certain regions remained relatively stable, with the idea of "improving upon the previous generation" being unheard of. Notions of perfection and excellence varied from region to region and from time period to time period. For example, in the classical period of the Classical era of Greek antiquity, sculptors sought "perfection" in the human form through ratio and mathematical harmony, however in the Hellenistic period sculpture became much less focused on perfection and embraced a degree of expressiveness and emotion. This might be seen as an example of a shift away from the ideals of perfection. To paint 2000 years of history with the brush of "oh it was about excellence and perfection" is misguided and overly simplified.

Though Impressionism began in the 1860s/70s this didn"t herald a shift to "art is in the eye of the beholder." As you said the Impressionists stuck to some classical principles, but their work was not a random decent from perfection to subjectivism (as I alluded to before, the history of art is not a history of striving for perfection). In many ways the Impressionists work more closely resembled "reality" than the classical works that preceded them or the salon works of the time. As they painted en plein air, and with a scientific eye (and taking into account recent developments and discoveries of colour theory and optics) many of them produced work which resembled the observable world more closely than say, Greek classicism of 2000+ years ago. In that sense, it might be considered more "perfect and excellent" even though those weren"t their goals.

In general I find your assertion to be rather baseless and predicated upon a lack of understanding of both art history and art criticism. To say that "Modern art is objectively bad" is ludicrous.

I think there"s two further points I"d like to make in response: Firstly, that contemporary art is not just what you see in galleries. Art made today varies hugely in its aims, intentions, and manifestations, that when you claim that all "Modern" art is bad I think you forget that much art today closely resembles art made in the past, even that of 2000 years ago. Many galleries show representational work, work made with traditional methods, etc., and so I think your position is predicated upon a false understanding of what art today actually is; you"re looking at a very narrow range of contemporary art, likely the more outrageous examples that make the news.

Secondly, there are some important distinctions in art criticism that you are overlooking. There is a difference between these three types of assertions:

1."I like this art/I don"t like this art"
2."I think this art is good/I think this art is bad"
3."This is art/this isn"t art."

I think you have confused the first two, namely you don"t like a certain kind of art, and you think that therefore it is bad. Liking and not liking particular artworks is entirely subjective " however to claim that some art is good, or bad, you need to provide a structure for discerning good from bad, which you haven"t. All you"ve done is say you think Modern art is bad, when really what you"re trying to say is that you don"t like Modern art.

No I mean modern art not contemporary. nice meme buddy.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?