I’m convinced that there is at least one artist out there who just drew a big dot on a piece of paper, made up a bullcrap story about how it represents his innermost desires or whatever, and it actually got hung up in a museum.
Basically, don’t feel bad if you don’t understand modern art. I don’t think that many people actually have since about 1970.
I remember seeing a series of paintings in the AGO where the dot sizes grew as the spacing grew till the last one was a single large black dot. To top it off the canvas was stretched but never even treated or anything. As a grade school kid I commented on what kind of crap this was since I would have gotten a D for wasting materials and the teachers time
The only abstract art you should be interested in is by people who can also paint traditionally. Because then you can be quite sure that the paint is exactly where the artist wanted it, for a reason.
Not really a good benchmark – I have seen their works up close and spoken with such artists and 90+% is pure and total BS and self delusion. Also add in a heaping load of hucksterism and ego to compensate for actual creativity and there you have it when it comes to modern gallery artists.
Unfortunately great artistic talent in one medium does not also come with actual creative talent.
I guess you’re right. The fact that an artist is capable of applying paint in a deliberate manner doesn’t prove that that’s what he’s actually been doing.
Methinks the “proper” chemical stimulation would help a lot. And while you still may not “appreciate” the art, at least you could say with true conviction: “Wow, man, that’s totally intense!”
Appreciating modern art is a lot like wanting to have a rogue squadron logo on your wall, it’s not that the logo itself is so amazingly beautiful that it strikes you, it’s about the story that accompanies it. Most of the modern art which looks really bizarre comes out of protests within the art community about what was “okay” to do, and a sort of reductionist fad that came with rebellion against “proper” art.
That being said, I personally don’t care for it, although I certainly have seen pieces with colors, designs, or uses of space which I liked. If anyone is truly interested in “getting” modern art, I’d recommend that instead of a museum they go to an art history class.
What about Mondrian? I hear he’s some sort of genius, but his work just makes me think of a broken computer monitor. Or Minecraft. Still, not the worst thing in the museum.
Halosty, I’ve seen one of those demonstrations in person. It’s amazing to watch a seemingly-mad guy screaming his head off and hurling paint at a wall, and after 10 minutes of that your brain suddenly registers the fact that you’re looking at a woman’s face on the wall. It’s as much performance art as anything, and really cool to watch.
Watching a PBS series on modern art made me appreciate one thing: it’s a reaction to photography. Once you could capture a scene with a camera, artists felt they had to do something else. Why the something else frequently looks like, as Twain said, “a tortoiseshell cat having a fit in a plate of stewed tomatoes,” I do not know. I often respond with a line from comic Red Green: “If I could do it, it ain’t art.”
Bruno is correct. Follow Piet Mondrian’s careel from art school through to his cubist period. It will give you a little more respect for some modern art.
It depends on the artist. Pollack, sure, meh, whatever. But Monderan? That’s something else entirely. And I don’t know why, but something about the exact composition of lines and spacing and color in a Monderan is just… I mean, if you draw a bunch of lines in those colors with a ruler, you’d think it would be the same thing. But there’s just plain something about it that feels different.
Then there’s Arthur Ganson’s stuff, which is mostly-abstract kinetic sculpture — and it’s just great. I mean, a lot of it is just hilarious, and I don’t know why, but it just makes me laugh.
So, yeah. A lot of modern art strikes me as just plain pointless — and then there are some things which are just… amazing.
The HMFA has a Pollack. Seeing one in person, up close is… interesting. There’s a lot more going on than you’d think. It’s worth a bit of consideration if you ever happen across one.
Abstract art is mostly bullshit. The Dallas Museum of Fine Art has a giant white canvas with a fire engine red circle on it. Bullshit.
They also had (it’s in a private collection now) The Cloud. A white, fluffy cloud sculpted out of granite. That you were supposed to walk under. Fucking terrifying. Cool piece.
I dunno about ‘abstract’ art, but modern art was basically a game of “how much bullshit can we get away with before anyone can come up with a persuasive argument for why I shouldn’t feature this urinal I mounted on its side in an art gallery.
Most people begin to appreciate abstract art as soon as they realize they can make millions throwing a bucket of paint on canvas.
So creative neurons sport goatees and wear berets.
Also, synapses are actually tiny brooms.
Who knew?
I’m convinced that there is at least one artist out there who just drew a big dot on a piece of paper, made up a bullcrap story about how it represents his innermost desires or whatever, and it actually got hung up in a museum.
Basically, don’t feel bad if you don’t understand modern art. I don’t think that many people actually have since about 1970.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/27/pair-of-glasses-left-on-us-gallery-floor-mistaken-for-art
There’s a story of an “artist” who was making one of these splatter painting when his wife/girlfriend came in and had an argument with him.
She threw a wet brush at him and it splashed a dot of red near the middle – and he called the painting ‘Rebecca’s Dot’ [or, whatever her name was].
Supposedly, it’s famous – or, my 5th grade teacher was full of it.
That was in a book, I think. Fictional. Judy Bloom.
I remember seeing a series of paintings in the AGO where the dot sizes grew as the spacing grew till the last one was a single large black dot. To top it off the canvas was stretched but never even treated or anything. As a grade school kid I commented on what kind of crap this was since I would have gotten a D for wasting materials and the teachers time
I love, love, love panel two. Keep up the great work.
Thanks!
The only abstract art you should be interested in is by people who can also paint traditionally. Because then you can be quite sure that the paint is exactly where the artist wanted it, for a reason.
Not really a good benchmark – I have seen their works up close and spoken with such artists and 90+% is pure and total BS and self delusion. Also add in a heaping load of hucksterism and ego to compensate for actual creativity and there you have it when it comes to modern gallery artists.
Unfortunately great artistic talent in one medium does not also come with actual creative talent.
I guess you’re right. The fact that an artist is capable of applying paint in a deliberate manner doesn’t prove that that’s what he’s actually been doing.
Methinks the “proper” chemical stimulation would help a lot. And while you still may not “appreciate” the art, at least you could say with true conviction: “Wow, man, that’s totally intense!”
…just saying…
There have been a few where I wondered whether the artist had such “stimulation” when creating it. Either that or a head injury.
Geez, what next, Adam? – Wondering what’s up with airplane food?
20,000 feet and climbing?
Art is just creative artisanry. The more crafty, the better, that’s my way of appreciating it.
Appreciating modern art is a lot like wanting to have a rogue squadron logo on your wall, it’s not that the logo itself is so amazingly beautiful that it strikes you, it’s about the story that accompanies it. Most of the modern art which looks really bizarre comes out of protests within the art community about what was “okay” to do, and a sort of reductionist fad that came with rebellion against “proper” art.
That being said, I personally don’t care for it, although I certainly have seen pieces with colors, designs, or uses of space which I liked. If anyone is truly interested in “getting” modern art, I’d recommend that instead of a museum they go to an art history class.
Panel two is, apart from hilarious, kinda reminiscent of Malevich, with maybe a hint of Kandinski. Love it. Also, T-shirt, dammit.
What about Mondrian? I hear he’s some sort of genius, but his work just makes me think of a broken computer monitor. Or Minecraft. Still, not the worst thing in the museum.
Having looked him up, I can say his work is intentional and well crafted. That’s better than what looks like random paint splatters, for sure.
Now, I *have* seen artists who make seemingly random paint splatters look like a scene or a person, and *that* I appreciate.
Halosty, I’ve seen one of those demonstrations in person. It’s amazing to watch a seemingly-mad guy screaming his head off and hurling paint at a wall, and after 10 minutes of that your brain suddenly registers the fact that you’re looking at a woman’s face on the wall. It’s as much performance art as anything, and really cool to watch.
Abstract art is just meant to be seen as it is: oil on canvas. That’s what I’ve heard, anyway.
Watching a PBS series on modern art made me appreciate one thing: it’s a reaction to photography. Once you could capture a scene with a camera, artists felt they had to do something else. Why the something else frequently looks like, as Twain said, “a tortoiseshell cat having a fit in a plate of stewed tomatoes,” I do not know. I often respond with a line from comic Red Green: “If I could do it, it ain’t art.”
Bruno is correct. Follow Piet Mondrian’s careel from art school through to his cubist period. It will give you a little more respect for some modern art.
It depends on the artist. Pollack, sure, meh, whatever. But Monderan? That’s something else entirely. And I don’t know why, but something about the exact composition of lines and spacing and color in a Monderan is just… I mean, if you draw a bunch of lines in those colors with a ruler, you’d think it would be the same thing. But there’s just plain something about it that feels different.
Then there’s Arthur Ganson’s stuff, which is mostly-abstract kinetic sculpture — and it’s just great. I mean, a lot of it is just hilarious, and I don’t know why, but it just makes me laugh.
So, yeah. A lot of modern art strikes me as just plain pointless — and then there are some things which are just… amazing.
The HMFA has a Pollack. Seeing one in person, up close is… interesting. There’s a lot more going on than you’d think. It’s worth a bit of consideration if you ever happen across one.
Abstract art is mostly bullshit. The Dallas Museum of Fine Art has a giant white canvas with a fire engine red circle on it. Bullshit.
They also had (it’s in a private collection now) The Cloud. A white, fluffy cloud sculpted out of granite. That you were supposed to walk under. Fucking terrifying. Cool piece.
Took me a few seconds to realise that panel two wasn’t just an example of abstract art…
I dunno about ‘abstract’ art, but modern art was basically a game of “how much bullshit can we get away with before anyone can come up with a persuasive argument for why I shouldn’t feature this urinal I mounted on its side in an art gallery.