Hmmm
I think it's now fairly acceptable to say that art isn't limited to things that are aesthetically pleasing. Art can be ugly and still be worthwhile if, for example, it has a political or social message (a genuine one, not a tenuous one) or if it evokes certain feelings in the person observing it.
But as a defender of 'modern art', this kind of thing depresses me. It has no worth, no artistic intent, no message, no aesthetic value and is shock for the sake of shock. It's horrible. If artists want modern art to be taken seriously, this kind of rubbish has to stop.
Having said that, if this IS art, I'd paint more often.
(, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 20:58, Reply)
Agreed!
I like a lot of modern art. I just think a lot of the time the message is lost. Take Shibboleth in the Tate Modern currently; it just doesn't click with everyone, so close, yet just not quite there.
Also, the message doesn't necessarily need to be an opinion or story or anything, it can just be portrayal of a 'feeling'. So for example Louise Bourgeois's sculptures, such as circular rooms, and cages with chairs in... and the big eff-off spider! (That's so friggin' cool... though it is bordering on doodle, I dare say, but a cool doodle none the less.)
Though when she went menopausal, oh god, did it show in her work. "Looky! I maded a penis out of marble!"
(, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 22:19, Reply)
True
Modern Art is a tricky subject because it attracts such vitriol from traditionalists. The knee jerk reaction from advocates of modern art is to claim that traditionalists are standing in the way of progress and that modern art does have value and worth (emotional, political etc.).
I think the people that make this point have a good argument, but it's hard to maintain it when artists are wanking on paper and selling it.
It is upsetting how quick people are to put down modern art though.
(, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 23:54, Reply)