Modern Art

[Mac66]

I think any form of art, is more about the reaction you have to it. Modern or classical.

I don't go for all this art critic b*ll*ck$ and analysis about the artists intentions etc. If you like it, good. If you don't, well, equally good.

 

[Fnaar]

I can handle 'modern art' if I think the person has some talent. But unfortunately it's a wide-open field... someone I know has some self-produced 'art' on her wall... a big white canvas with a few splodges (5 or 6, different colours, randomly flicked onto canvas) on it... I've heard people go 'ooh' and 'ah' over it, but all she did was put a few splodges on a white canvas. It's not an indicator of talent, even though it may look pleasant... grrr.... where's me paintbrush, I'll show 'em....

 

[Fnaar]

Similarly, a distant relative takes it upon himself to send us all his tedious 'poetry' whenever something big happens in the world (war, terrorist attack, etc etc). It's worse than William McGonagall, I tell you! If I was a more honest chap I'd write back and say look, this is tedious, talentless utter shite, pleas stop sending it ot me, but I fear family gatherings might be a bit difficult after that....

 

[Renard]

For the record, my main (classical and proto modern) dudes include Dali, Mondrian and the Futurist school.

I went to Futurist school. The uniform was a bit uncomfortable though. It rustled everytime you moved and it was dazzling when the sun was shining.

 

[Melvil]

I went to Futurist school. The uniform was a bit uncomfortable though. It rustled everytime you moved and it was dazzling when the sun was shining.

My father, Marty, went there too. It was rough and he was regularly bullied by transgalactic robots. A while ago we got a letter through the post that said they were having a class reunion.

Dad sighed and said "I'm never going back to the Futurist...."


GROAN

 

[Aperitif]

I like Pol Bury

Yacov Agam

Chuck Close

Pat Caufield

David Hockney - recent stuff esp.

Alexander Calder

and thousands more.

 

[Arch]

Similarly, a distant relative takes it upon himself to send us all his tedious 'poetry' whenever something big happens in the world (war, terrorist attack, etc etc). It's worse than William McGonagall, I tell you! If I was a more honest chap I'd write back and say look, this is tedious, talentless utter shite, pleas stop sending it ot me, but I fear family gatherings might be a bit difficult after that....

Perhaps you could tell him in a poem?

Dear Cousin with your tedious rhymes
Telling us of modern times
Although with prose I wish you luck
I honestly don't give a...

You get the idea...

 

[vbc]

Just a thought - how old does 'modern art' have to be before it becomes old fashioned?

 

[rich p]

Similarly, a distant relative takes it upon himself to send us all his tedious 'poetry' whenever something big happens in the world (war, terrorist attack, etc etc). It's worse than William McGonagall, I tell you! If I was a more honest chap I'd write back and say look, this is tedious, talentless utter shite, pleas stop sending it ot me, but I fear family gatherings might be a bit difficult after that....

Post them on here, I like a laugh!

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I think people get confused about a lot of things here. To what does the original question refer?

Impressionist? Abstract? Conceptual? Surrealist? Symbolist? They are all 'modern', but all very different in form and intent.

Is the problem people have with things that are not recognisable representations of something? Or too obvious a message? Or is with a perceived lack of craft or skill?

What I would say is that there is almost no possibility of anything being avant-garde or truly shocking or threatening to society in art anymore and probably there never will be. This means we have lost something. Art has lost something. Whatever the 'work of art' once was or was intended to be, it is in danger of only ever having the possibility of being a kind of branded commodity or a advertisement...