Yes modern art is art, however as the title suggests it is a lesser form of art hears why.
I did have a rather lengthy explanation in here pointing out all the reasons modern art could be considered a lesser form (well beyond 1000 words). Instead lets just compared modern art to a great masterpiece..........Oh right you can't because those to pieces are so far apart its just not possible the amount of dedication, and skill alone that went into just one of Leonardo da Vinci is so far beyond anything a modern artist could muster its not fair to compare them.
The sad truth is that society has become weak in their critiques of the work of modern artists this in turn has weakened the art they produce, we are so worried that we might hurt their precious wittle feelwings that we don't give a true assessment of their work and they don't progress as artists to become better.
1000 years from now when the Leonardo da Vinci pieces are still being hung in galleries around the world there will not likely be any works from artists today hanging along side them for any reason other then there is not enough masterfully created pieces to fill the gallery. Sorry to say but the truth is there hasn't been any artists that deserve to have their works hung in a gallery along with any of the great pieces from centuries old artists, by comparison your work is chicken scratch you lack form and technique and most of all creative inspiration.
Strive to become the master of your craft maybe someday your art will be revered.
Everyone who judges art in such a way doesn't know what art really is which is a good thing because no body knows what it is.
So it would be great for both sides to stop arguing and enjoy whatever you think art is and stop saying others their choice is wrong.
I literally just made this argument on "yes" for "Is rap real music?". Of course modern art is real art. It's just not as artsy as Leonardo Da Vinci. It's made as art, and thus it's art. Just because it doesn't fit "your standard for art" doesn't mean it's not art.
Modern art is different art, no doubt. In the past century more and more artists have started using more modern styles: minimalism, cubism, and impressionism being the more obvious. These styles are extremely different from previous styles practiced before, of course. However, this does not mean that the minimalists, the cubists, or the impressionists are not artists and their works not art.
I would like to use music as an example. Instrumental music has changed a lot since the days of Mozart and Beethoven. If we compare their works to that of, say, Steve Reich's, the differences are drastic. This does not mean that either of them are not art, of course. Reich's pieces are excellent art. Even if they are in a minimalist style, it is still music. And music is very much art.
Art is art. There is nothing called fake art or real art. If you have to label a piece of art as fake or real, the criteria should not be the form of art. Intention is a more valid one. Modern art includes various forms of art. Stereotypically it's "abstract," but you should define it more if you want to have any in depth discussion and analysis about modern art. But again, I don't think there is "real" art and "fake" art. ART IS ART.
I'd like to first define art and then apply to the credentials of it. Art is defined as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination." Now, all modern art, within my knowledge, meets this criteria. As long as any form of art meets this criteria, it's still art. Also modern art is simply a category of many forms of art. Other categories of art are numerous. Our typical depiction of this is the type of art during the Renaissance which expresses the most realism. However, modern art expresses depiction of current subjects and issues. However, I will say that many current types of art may seem insignificant compared to former types of art but it is still art.
Art is about expression, not an evaluate-able deliverable. Just because you personally don't identify with it or because you think that you do the same rather easily does not mean that it is without value, especially compared with something else. Simply because it was not your idea does not mean it is lacking of idea.
Who is anyone to judge what "real" art is? Just because one doesn't like or understand the art, doesn't mean that the art is not real art. One might not like Duchamp or Dali or Matisse but that doesn't mean that the artist listed didn't make real art. Art is subjective.
Art is art. Art it can be seen in many ways and shapes and forms. If it represents something to the creator it can be art, but the people who look at it have to see what it represents or at least what they think it represents. Modern art is as much art as it was a long time ago.
Let's assume "modern art" refers to the evolution of abstract work from the 1860s to around the 1970s. With that is mind, there is no doubt modern art is considered "real" art. The problem is people define "art" by what they understand and what they find aesthetically appealing. This shouldn't be the case. If modern art isn't a form of art, great works by Picasso, Dali, and Van Gogh wouldn't be considered art. Even far extreme abstract painters like Jackson Pollock should be given recognition to their work. The result of the painting is just as important as the process. Whether a person likes realism or abstract art is irrelevant. Art should be unique, and as a result it will appeal to certain people. To say one piece or one artist defines all of modern art is fallacious.
When I enter the Modern Art Museum, I always get this weird sensation. It's hard to explain, but it's something that I have resented because of my nature or maybe perhaps because of morality. Visual Art used to take great amount of effort and talents to complete great works of has marveled the people who stand in front of it. Paintings and sculptures used to have meticulous and well planned details. Modern art is a product of nondescript objects that has been through human hands. "Look! I can squirt paint on the canvas, throw seaweed and hair onto it, and burn it halfway through! $100,000 please."
Modern art I've seen has been nothing but a blank space with a few colors in it and it fetches millions of dollars. I could do that. But no one would buy it. It's because the media supports a select few people and suddenly they're "great artists". Their not. Leonardo was a great artist. Raphael was a great artist. These hacks are not even in the same league as them. Please actually come up with actual art or just pick a different career so maybe you can contribute to this economy.
Compare art during prehistoric to Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc., and ancient art in general. What makes it so beautiful? the EFFORT that is put into it. Modern art has very little effort, and anyone can make a simple excuse: Grab a canvas, paint it a color, and put some shapes on it and say "it represents my happiness!" and then that work is sold as "art"? I think this is stupid! Art needs to show emotion, beauty, and needs to be a window to the artist's emotions. Art is something that you see and must look deeply into to understand or find beauty in. Modern art is art that a 5 year old can do or imitate. Modern art has too little effort to be considered art. Art must be compared to the great art pieces most people love and admire today in present time. Why do we still admire these pieces of art? What makes them so special? Because of the effort, the story, the artist's inspiration, the beauty. Modern art cannot be compared to pieces like this. Therefore, modern art is not "real" art. Modern art is simply effortless, random, and looks silly. There are too many people out there in the world and we need to recognize those TRUE artists; not the artists that create random effortless things and call them "art".
Art gets ridiculous when it comes to abstract art. No offense. I can't believe people can sell it for thousands of dollars. It blows my mind. It saddens me that art that is created by minimal effort is praised when artists that work so much harder to create the best possible art pieces should receive more attention.
It's only popular because the CIA forced this crap down our throats. Hitler was completely right about modern art it's degenerate and for the slow minded/posh. The popularity of it baffles me to no end (but should I really be surprised since the CIA funded so fiercely and made everyone think it was trendy?).
It doesn't portray true emotion, as real art should. It's a swirl of colors and squares that are places by other squares. Not art. It's just nothing but a spit on the true art of history. Modern art is bad and isn't anything that should be in a museum. Graffiti is better.
If it's all in the eye of the eye of the beholder, why bother making it? They'll draw their own conclusion from anything else... A trashcan on the street, graffiti... Why bother putting this in museum when it is virtually everywhere? It just doesn't make sense and it takes up space.
Art does not exist without a "Critique", someone to appreciate it, thus makes it "subjective" and biased to "manipulation" from outside. What I mean is that most of the "art" we see today (and not only) is "grown" into being art rather than being art itself, for future or immediate gains. I don't think art exists, but rather someone keeps it alive - just like a country - the country would not exit if no one kept it alive. Thus art it's just an subjective idea that one or more embrace as a "valid" truth, more of a religion, and has no foundation and can't be separated from the "Critique" and it would not exist without it.
Yeah, no offense to modern artists, but I also find it to just be the epitome of the death of "content". When we say anything and everything can be expressed, what we really end up with is nothing is expressed and art completely loses its communal aspect as well. It doesn't link us to the world or ideas or each other, because no objective communication is allowed to happen, it only "means" whatever each individual wants to think it means. Essentially - art ceases to exist.
As I said, modern art is effortless; the deeper meaning isn't shown for most of the people that look at it, and they don't get satisfaction when noticing and thinking of it. But if you look at classical art, every detail has hours of work put into it; it could've taken the artist months, or even years to create it. That is what I call effort. Art is something that cannot be described with mere simplicity. It is far more then that.