Really, Contemporary art is different art, But anyway it is art. Long long time ago people draw on the caves' walls, And it was art. Then people tried to paint animals, People and nature. Maybe it wasn't that good, But they continued developing their skills.
Our world is changing every year, Every day, That's why everything is changing, Including art. Yes, We can say that there's no difficulty just to paint a dot or spray some paint on the canvas. But now, In our modern world we don't look for super realistic pictures just because they are realistic (although because there are photographers, And photos are art too). Now artists express themselves through the paintings. They show people not to afraid of expressing their emotions. And people who try understand this can relax. Of course, There maybe no meaning in some works of art, But viewers want to see something there and they see.
Only people can say is contemporary art real art. But it's also ok to have different thoughts on this topic. Our generation is breaking some images of beauty. This will help people to understand that they are different. Contemporary art can help people understand themselves.
Now, We know that beauty's in the eyes of the beholder, And all that.
But here's why I think contemporary art is bad. It relies more on the audience to decipher what the artist is purportedly trying to tell them, Than it does on the artist themselves. The artist doesn't even need to know what they are trying to tell us, They just have to do something- anything. In that case, I do not need to even see the artist's work in person, Let alone pay them grand sums of money for the hidden meanings that I will ultimately have to find myself. Why do I need an external prompt to stimulate my thoughts for me? Am I incapable of doing that myself? And if I am, Will I be able to think by myself even after being stimulated by the 'art'?
The claim that art should only be about thought is thus ludicrous. It has to have something else in it- beauty. If something is both visually pleasing and thought-provoking, Then it surely has taken effort in its production. When there is more to it than my own thinking, Only then is it worthy of being called good art.
There is also the argument that art is supposed to offend our sensibilities. But if someone punches you on the street, Are they an artist? They did intend to offend you. And you were most likely offended. Why not? Because you did not want them to punch you. And if you did, You must've expected something like this, So it shouldn't be offensive to you. This is just a flimsy excuse to guise the fact that this kind of art has no merit to it- neither aesthetic nor philosophical.
In my opinion all that we have in the world is art. What is more it's a question of our point of view. For example, For me Messi's goals are art and for other person who doesn't watch football could think that I'm crazy. But be or not be art front my point of view is a question of how you see anything, And that's why some people think that contemporany art is art and for other people it isn't.
Though I hate modern art. I could easily print out a sheet of solid red paper and frame it. You're buying the name of the artist and the prestige of owning expensive pieces of art. I personally prefer landscapes. They show skill and contain emotion. Modern art is meant to be interpreted 100% by the looker. Meaning none of the interpretation is done by the artist. So in short: it's real art but I think terrible art.
Art changes along with the times and explores different facets of reality. It is not just a recreation of physical reality. Contemporary artists most often can do a technique of realism and have studied drawing and color. They choose to take off from that to express what is going on in today's society.
Contemporary art is abstract, that is right. Of course, what is the point of taking three weeks to paint a realistic landscape when you can take a picture of it with a camera in just two seconds? Today's art is an evolution compared to before. We now have the technology to capture a realistic image within 2 seconds, but technology can't really create abstract images. A scribble can mean everything, just as much as a landscape. Perhaps the scribble is a metaphorical expression of the landscape, who knows. Today's art is interpretation.
I will admit, sometimes I see contemporary art and I don't get it but I know that the artist put some time and thought into. Sometimes, it can be really simple and while I may not get, there are people who enjoy it and think it's the best thing ever.
Say someone paints a sculpture of a foot gold. They spent time and effort and they poured their passion into it. That is the art. Art is passion. And love. Art is the beauty that we reflect into the world in any way that we feel fits because without art we are just boring robots who lack any motivation to live. Of course it is art.
There is no definition of 'art'. And a lot of contemporary artist, its not so much the actual piece of art that makes it 'art', its the concept behind it all (like Yoko Ono's work). Just as much thought and emotion, perhaps more, goes into temporary art as does 'classic' art.
Art is self-expression. Real art means creating something new, unique, original. The main goal of art pieces is to carry the message to the audience. Everyone is free to choose their own form of art. This world changes every day and it is no surprise that art changes with it.
Contemporary art has gotten to the ridiculous point of where someone can simply forget their glasses on a bench in a gallery, and visitors will assume that it's art - apart of the exhibit. Clearly there's something wrong here. People's minds have become so bent to the concept of contemporary art that art has no value anymore. Especially if ANYTHING can be "art".
When you can make meaning out of everything and everything is art, then art itself loses meaning. I can literally take a shit on a canvas and cover it with my jizz and call it art, and it would be sold for fortunes, all I need to have is a good reputation of being an artist and some bullshit explanation.
Whilst abstract art may be pleasing to the eye, it requires little or no technical skill to produce it so, in my view, it is not "real" art as anyone can produce it.
Why people spend a fortune on coloured daubs that they could produce themselves is completely beyond me. It's a case of the emperor's new clothes.
Of course one's answer to this question will be based somewhat on their own definition of "art".
To me, it is complete nonsense to think that art can be "anything". Something that could be "anything" would be of no value and no interest. Is that how you would define art? Not me for sure. I think "art" has got to represent something unique and of value to humans. Then if I'm right about that assumption, it follows that by being "unique", it definitely can be discussed, compared, judged and so on.
Contemporary art is not art when it creates something:
-that requires no talent;
-that can be easily imitated;
-that nobody really wants to imitate anyway;
-that only has "shock value";
-that can only be justified as "art" through a lot of poetic and meaningless descriptions.
Art is difficult to define and explain, but most people know art when they see it. I know quite a few people who'd love to paint the Mona Lisa or hang it in their house, but I have yet to find someone who just can't wait to go back home for putting a table upside down hanging from the ceiling. How could that be?
There's been many psychological experiments about how people can't stop themselves from "following the crowd" to the point of agreeing even with lies (see Asch conformity experiment.) Maybe that can explain why people feel compelled to say that "anything" is art. When people start justifying their position in vague ways, saying that something can't be defined, can't be compared, can't be judged, that you are not an expert and do not "understand", I think it shows the real value of contemporary art.
Anyone can draw a some rectangles on a canvas and claim that it's art. Most of it isn't really creative either- that meaning that the messages portrayed are so vague, that is inferred that they either haven't really thought about some idea extensively or had the effort/skill to portray it. Besides that, I can't really appreciate most modern art- most, not all though.
It is not art at all. Art is thought to be something that refelects "beauty" and it is one of our best creations over the times, not only has it to surprise people, it has to be something really remarkable and almost unattainable, something to be admired. Nowadays, people who make contemporany art and claim that a piece of rubbish or a few scribbles are art are just lowering down our ideal of art and making it worse progressively. Maybe these creations could be called something else, or included in other fields of human activity but, heartily, it cannot be called ART.
It does not require skill, creativity, or talent. It only requires the material. Art is not only about creating something good. It is about creating beauty, about creating something that makes the viewer feel relieved and glad. It should have feelings and deep meanings. These days even a scribble is considered art! I personally can't see art unless I feel it and feel its beauty.
Contemporary 'art' is a horribly deteriorated form of what the world used to call 'art'.
When religion was thrown out the door by secular governments a few hundred years ago, 'beauty' became something that anyone could make, hence 'art' these days.
One of the things that are shoved down our throats at school is that "anyone can be an artist". This is a complete lie, as, for example, not anyone can be a mechanic, architect, or swimming coach. Everyone is different. We all have different strengths and weaknesses -- talents and failures. If you say that anyone can be an artist, you must also say that anyone can be anything. Now, you may be thinking, "What rubbish! People don't say that anyone can be a GOOD artist, they simply say that anyone can be an ARTIST!" Think about this, though. A lot of the art that is in galleries these days -- carefully selected -- is garbage and could be done by anyone, so why was that particular one chosen? Not anyone can paint like Da Vinci, Michelangelo, or Rembrandt. What they painted was art -- REAL art -- and they had skill. If anyone can do something, than that thing is not a skill. For example, if you can blink, or move your hand, that is not a skill, as anyone is capable of doing it.
People like myself are often criticized for our opinions on art. People say that we are 'arrogant' and 'narrow-minded'. The question we need to ask ourselves is this:
Which is more arrogant? Making a logical judgement based on proof and prior knowledge, or saying that is is impossible to judge and, instead, condemning those 'bad' people who believe that you can judge it?
People often tell us that we are wrong, simply because the professionals disagree with us, but this is a classic example of the argumentum ad verecundium fallacy, and is not even an argument.
The final truth of the matter is that you simply can't group together the Sistine Chapel, Mona Lisa, and other grand masterpieces to the works of people who make messes on canvases that anyone could make.
Finally, I feel sorry for those of you who have been brought up -- essentially brainwashed -- into believing that there is beauty to be seen in the miserable contemporary 'art' of today.
And to those who dislike contemporary 'art', I encourage you to help in the effort of reviving art as it used to be --art in its truest, most beautiful, form. Bring it back, and don't be afraid of those who oppose you -- the truth must always win, and the 'art' of today is just a trend, not a truth.
Go against the flow. Remember these famous words of Winston Churchill:
"Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it."