Modern Art

Oh, we can tell.

For the most part I sort of agree with you, though perhaps not for entirely the same reasons. I do find that some Jackson Pollock paintings have an emotional vibe to them that gets to me--for instance, I wouldn't mind waking up to the sight of the energetic-looking "Autumn Rhythm" on my wall--but I don't see how there could be much to say on the matter. You can't exactly discuss or debate such a thing. Either it gives you a vibe or it doesn't. Artistic meaning is inherently subjective, and anything could be read into any work. The way I feel about it is, regardless of what may or may not be intended in an artwork, a painting or sculpture should ideally be as much a labor of the hands as it is of the mind. I am not particularly interested in whether it “makes sense” to anyone; I don’t accept that argument when people use it as a criticism of David Lynch films and I don’t accept it here. Again, the meaning of an artwork is subjective and sometimes purely emotional or intuitive. But yes, when frauds can so easily slip into your midst without being noticed, even when they’re displaying the work of five-year-olds, you’d be a fool not to admit that something is amiss. A man won a prize for an exhibit of lights being turned on and off. This is not good.

The minimalistic concept behind modern art is the kind of thing that must be done sparingly and occasionally if it is to be done at all, and is less and less useful the less and less novelty there still is to it. To make an entire “genre” or career out of it is like making a career of filming movies in which nothing happens but people sitting in a chair and coughing, or walking in circles around a park. The first time or two such a thing could conceivably be seen as a witty or even useful sort of statement; after that, it’s just annoying and ineffectual.

Local galleries have much lazymans art.

^ do you want to create a new thread ?

select a forum section, for example "General", once you're in that section you can create a new thread by clicking on the
"+ Post New Thread" Button (see the picture : )

Modern art is all too often a misnomer as much of it is not art but blatant commercialization to make fast money.

All schools of art were called modern art when they came out. Monet and Cezzane's work received much critiscism as they both came after the Realism period. Monet is now much appreciated.

He tried to capture the effects of early morning twilight and the beauty of hazy days, he often painted the same scene many times at various times and seasons.







I particularly like his work he did at Giverny Gardens





I really love the many paintings he did of the water lilies at Giverny.


He is often called the father of Impressionism, but when he was alive it was called modern art and very poor art as it did not meet the standards of realism.

Cezanne was another impressionist. His work never sold while he was alive and is just now finding a market. I rather like his series he did at Monte Sainte-Victoire



Contemporary Art is seldom liked at the time it is painted, but that which survives gives a good indication of the era it was painted in. Chimes Calligrapy is actually a form of abstract art and each charater is an abstract drawing of an object.. It takes a bit of imagination but look closely at the Chinese character for horse here you can see the 9 forms from the earliest to today and you can see how it began with an early drawing of a horse.

I love Rothko his paintings hold special meanings for me



There is much of modern art to admire..

All very well and good but I think that by "modern art" Laura means stuff more like The Lights Going On and Off.

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

I love Rothko his paintings hold special meanings for me



There is much of modern art to admire..

is that a letterbox, a grave or what?

quie frankly i hate art. because im no good at it

The school teachers would tell us of how the "artist" "captures the mood", using those random blobs of paint. I found it a shortcut later, to get some As' in key stage 3 Art classes. It saved a lot of time; just splash some paint onto the paper, and somehow the teacher was always impressed by "its quality". Earlier, when I did make more effort in drawing; I'd get no higher than a B+.

format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS

seriously done by an artist? They show no talent at all, any one of us could have done it

art isnt about talent its about emotion and creativity
art is the way an artist is feeling. What they have put into the painting doesnt have to be cookie cutter perfect or even understandable.
Personally most of my art is fueled by sadness, stress, or anger so i literary put that negative feeling into whatever i am drawing or painting....its mainly one of the reason why i hate most of the things that i have drawn because it was fueld by such negative feelings....
What i am trying to say is instead of just looking at it like a bunch of scribble try to think
"hey i wonder what the artist was feeling or what was going thru there mind" or "what was his idea behind that scribble touching that scribble" becuase that scribble could represent him (the artist) and the other could represent an obstacle in his life.

I love Salvador Dali's work, but he died in 1989. Probably not modern enough for the purposes of this thread.

I'm a philistine when it comes to modern art. Anyhow...

Modern art I cannot stand - the work of Damien Hirst.

Modern art I like very much - the work of graffiti artist Banksy.

well then look into the artists life it may help understand their art
he was basically somewhat of a nonconformist at one point.....how he was kind of going against what the market considered art.

Highly informed by Nietzsche, Greek mythology, and his Russian-Jewish heritage, Rothko's art was profoundly imbued with emotional content that he articulated through a range of styles that evolved from figurative to abstract. Rothko's early figurative work - including landscapes, still lifes, figure studies, and portraits - demonstrated an ability to blend Expressionism and Surrealism. His search for new forms of expression led to his color field paintings, which employed shimmering color to convey a sense of spirituality.
Rothko maintained the social revolutionary ideas of his youth throughout his life. In particular he supported artist's total freedom of expression, which he felt was compromised by the market. This belief often put him at odds with the art world establishment, leading him to publicly respond to critics, and occasionally refuse commissions, sales and exhibitions.
read more about him here
http://www.theartstory.org/artist-rothko-mark.htm

Read the Vonnegut novel Bluebeard. It is a fascinating story by the best English language novelist who ever lived about a fictitious modern art-ist, and it gives an extremely interesting, sympathetic, and varied insight into why and how he paints the way he does.

format_quote Originally Posted by tango92

is that a letterbox, a grave or what? quie frankly i hate art. because im no good at it

With Rothoko it was always about the accompanying stories he wrote.. I have some anecdotal stories about Rothoko's daughter from one of my mentors .. it is fascinating.. needless to say most of his art was much of the same and then he committed suicide ...

art is a personal statement.. I am not much of a painter (I do try) and it all looks so funny.. but I do love to write, so I think everyone is given a talent they can utilize..
the best way to be introduced to art in my humble opinion is to go to the museum and rent one of those headsets dial the number beneath the painting and listen to the story behind the painting and the artist..