Some time ago I visited the Museum of Silversmiths in
Kazimierz Dolny. I saw some astonishing works of art - goblets, plates, cups
and other examples of great craftsmanship. I was pleased and impressed by
what people were able to craft of silver, gold, amber and jewels.
In the
same building, on upper floor, there was a modern art exhibition. There was no
need to buy another ticket, so I went to see it. There are many words I could
use to describe what I saw there but I think ‘disappointment’ fits best. There
were some crude necklaces and earrings made of plastic or natural materials and
simple pictures presenting nothing. I felt like nobody put any actual skill or
effort to produce those. That looked like a caveman’s work.
"Why is
modern art like that? Why is it so bad? What makes modern art so popular?" I
asked myself. If you are also curious about answers to these questions, I encourage you to watch the video
below, where Robert Florczak - american artist and illustrator - shares his thoughts on the topic with us.
Some questions for you:
What do you think makes something "a work of art"?
Do you think classical art was better than modern art? Or maybe modern art is superior or equal to the classical art?
Do you know any modern artists worth attention?
Comments
I start to getting tired about people who looking for equality, when there cannot be any. Impressionism as an art form is not so bad but it created a monster. Nowadays, anyone can make any crap you can imagine and call it "art". Modern art is not an art at all. It is nothing but slow decadence, which will bury the lineage of classical art if things will continue to go this way.
It's hard to compare modern and classical art. Ages ago artists didn't have computers, tablets and any devices. They were painting and there was no undo option. Modern art uses technology and some different techniques. I love both modern and classical art.
Actually I know many people who create awesome works of art, but I wouldn't call them artists.
You found an interesting video.
These are all tough and complex questions. There has been a long and heated debate in the art community on how much importance aesthetics and beauty dictate what can be considered art. Conceptual art rejected these ideas completely and, as a consequence, has left a hollow place that it has not managed to fill in. When art can be just a comment, an observation or a joke and everything can become an art, art loses its meaning.
I defend modern art only when it is smart, but I dislike pretentious and elitist work pieces that are hollow in meaning. I recommend Christopher Hall blog posts about it:
http://www.christopherhallart.com/blog/?category=Art+I+Dislike
I think Warhol killed art the same way that Schoenberg killed music and I mean it as a compliment to them. It was a clever final step in an inevitable evolution of theory of art and music.
From the modern artists I like Alberto Burri.
btw: I was thinking to use this video for the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-gIt08I :)
Don't you think, that if anything can be considered a piece of art, then art means nothing?
I think, that as long as we don't come up with precise definition of art, we will be dealing with those "shocking" chairs and blank whiteboards called paintings.
Personally, I believe that an artist needs to put an actual effort in his creation, so I can call it a piece of art, regardless of what tools or materials where in use.
Thanks for the comment.
Thank you for the comment. I watched the video from your link and I really liked it, I think the author makes a good point. Also, I've checked this Burri guy. I like how he experiments with various materials and techniques, but I don't think his works are that interesting. For me, they lack content or context, they are just hollow forms. Again, it's just my opinion.
I liked the moment from the movie "Intouchables", when they were in a gallery. Omar sad that the picture François wanted to buy is just "a guy nosebleed on a white board and asks $30 000 for it").
I definitely appreciate classical art much more than modern art. Not only because of the fact that works of classical art were pretty, they often were masterpieces, works of the author's lives. Meanwhile modern art enthusiasts are pretty often passive-aggresive ignorants who think that people who can't appreciate modern art are simply stupid or uneducated. Why? Because they believe that artist personal opinion is the only thing that matters. Beauty of their creations doesn't have a lot to do with it anymore.
I don't know or appreciate any modern artists. That doesn't mean that I didn't do any research about modern art works and artists. It just means that I didn't find anything good enough to appreciate it.
I was never interested in paintings until i saw Bob Ross :) Now i am willing to pay even couple of thousands zlotys for paiting, but one that i like, not that someone said is pretty or valuable.
Few years ago I had got a talk about modern art. Girl I talked to said, that she's making modern art, because you don't have to have talent to do it, and to the clasicalone you have to have got some skills. I disagree. I like clasical art, because of everything - topics of arts, technics, idea. But since I'm vising art gallery I started to appreciate modern art - not all of it, but I stared to see something there.
Because of that, we have modern-art museums, filled with people who pretend to be "experts", staring at blank canvases and plain drawings. We can also do anything reckless and/or stupid, and call it "performance"- I won't quote the story of "man walking to a modern-art museum with his dog" here, but it describes the problem quite well- anything can be an art these days.
Classical art was better, because it was more complex - just by looking at nowadays art, we see mostly either some random drawings, or some simple ones, that can be recreated in hours if not minutes. Compare that to anything "classic" like Rembrandt, Michelangelo- these artists worked years to make the finest art of their times, and you have the answer to "Why modern art is mostly crap" - its years versus hours...
That girl you you talked about must have became a successful businesswoman by now :)
Thank you for the comment!
Than you for your comment!
You can locate a simple chair in a room and call it an art just because you are making a statement or presenting a metaphore of, for example, "lonely life". There is no actual skill in that. How different is it from simply writing a statement on a piece of paper? It is the same amount of work in both cases. Should making statements be called an art?
As I once read "art is consumed in a state of concentration. You give yourself over to it in a conscious decision to contemplate it". And I totally agree. I believe each of us decide what makes a piece of art for oneself. The next thing strongly connected to arts is ethics. Frequently artists have done simething considered unethical just "for the sake of art" (read about artist called Tinkebell and her "works"). In this case we can wonder is it still art? How far can we move the line of one's ethics and still say "it's a work of art"? These are all doubts conntected to the modern art.
I believe classical art and modern art are two completely different things. In my opinion classical art was created to delight, show artist's skills and talent, while modern art was created to encourage people to stop for a moment and think. It may be weird, controversial, shocking. All to trigger thinking. I can't say which one is superior or inferior to which. I believe they can't be compared.
I believe many modern artists are worth attention, however there is one thing I don't like about modern art. It's making something just because no one has ever done that before. Shocking just for the sake of shocking. Sometimes I feel modern pieces of art are made without thinking. Just to make artist famous, to shock more than others, to be more controversial than others.
Yes. I know some artists. For example, Erik Johansson. He's a photographer who "creates realistic photos of impossible scenes -- capturing ideas, not moments.". I'm sure you've seen his photos.
I think that work of art is everythig. It only depends of ideology in wich belive group of people who admire that work of art.
In my opinion classical and modern art are equal. Live is changing and something which excited emotions thousand years ago now doesn't have to. It's important for artist to make something which make impression or provoke to start thinking about some subject deeply. I love works of arts made by Frida Khalo, Salvador Dali, Claud Monet or Wassily Kandinsky. I really enjoy modern art! :)
Personally, I think classical art is better than modern art. For me it is much easier to understand because it often shows something concrete. Something I've met in the past. For me, today's work in painting is often a few lines or spots. I don't get it. Maybe there is something wrong with me... :(
Each of us knows Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Pablo Picasso.
To be honest I do not know any modern artists. It seems to be an important argument in discussing which kind of art is the better one.