How can I appreciate modern art
Kinksey
,
Wednesday, 11th of August 2010 02:02:10 AM
Went to the Houston Art Museum.I am no expert, but l have half a sense of Kinksey art appreciation.If l do not ''get it'' on an artistic level, l can at Registered User least appreciate the craft, attention to detail, time and effort it takes Joined: Tuesday, 4th of May 2010, 15:05:37 to create a work of art.Then there was the modern art.l could not fathom Posts: 1036 it, nor could l appreciate the craft as it all looked so much like a rush Viewed 19543 times job.How is a canvas with painted squares art?Or an acrylic cube filled
with pink sand considered display worthy?l see no craft, nor any
astetics.Am l missing something, or is modern art simply a statement that
there is nothing left to explore?
ButtyCutz
,
Thursday, 12th of August 2010 04:19:53 PM
I have come across the same problem (Christ in a bottle of pee, ButtyCutz ''aire de paris pigs cut in half, 3mm smear of feces on a pedestal and Registered User other pieces such as these). However, I found that if I look at the Joined: Sunday, 30th of May 2010, 03:59:38 statement behind the piece it becomes much more interesting. Look beyond Posts: 1976 what you see and try to understand the statement the artist is trying to Viewed 11494 times get across.
perfect Angel
,
Friday, 13th of August 2010 02:19:27 PM
While I, too, sometimes have trouble enjoying certain works of perfect Angel art, I think it should be understood that in modern art, you have to Registered User understand the context. Joined: Thursday, 10th of June 2010, 02:09:36 Posts: 564 This is sometimes documentary context, i.e., the artist will have a Viewed 1452 times written statement somewhere about why he/she created the work.
Sometimes the context is simply that the object is in a museum. While this
may seem odd, it has an important history. When Marcel Duchamp got his
''readymades'' (a urinal, a postcard rack, a bicycle wheel, etc.) accepted
into museum & gallery shows before 1920, he was making a statement. In the
following quote, where he calls himself ''Mr. Mutt,'' he explains ''The
Fountain,'' which is a urinal:
''Whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no
importance. He chose it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so
that its useful significance disappeared under a new title & point of view
-- he created a new thought for the object.''
As far as paintings with squares of color go, what the artists are doing
is allowing the full impact of the color or colors to affect you
emotionally. As a viewer, you should allow this. It is often a thrill.
Bubblezyum
,
Saturday, 14th of August 2010 06:12:58 AM
People have written enough to fill an ocean on both sides of Bubblezyum this debate. but if you'd like something to think about that might give Registered User you the context for this art think about this. Joined: Thursday, 10th of June 2010, 12:52:57 Posts: 1897 For thousands of years (leading up to today even) there were very strict Viewed 11216 times definitions on what was & was not ''art.'' At one point illuminated
manuscripts, jewelry, & architecture were considered fine art, & painting
was merely a lowly craft (painters would do well to remember this
sometimes). However much the times changed this basic fact remained, by
some arbitrary definition, certain things were art & certain things were
not.
One of the arguments of the modern artist was that ''we can take this
thing, be it a urinal, or some trash, or a completely random design on a
canvas, & this can be art!'' that might sound stupid but they were saying
that by giving art a strict definition (like a painting or a specific kind
of sculpture) we were choking the creativity & the life out of it. So the
next time you see something like that, think about it as a statement that
there is no paradigm for art, & the creativity of the artist is what
should be held in esteem, not the medium.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 4 guests
|