Modern Art Debate
Chris Smowton
I am 17, and studying for A-levels in England, and have been landed
with the following issue to debate:
"This house believes that modern art is a mockery."
I have been assigned to argue FOR the motion.
Now, I, personally, strongly dislike populist modern art (don't get me
wrong; I am sure there are huge quantities of superb modern art out
there, but they tend to be flop as 'old hat'), because,
* Sensationalism has been allowed to gain the limelight, which, whilst
far from the majority of modern art, has grabbed a large portion of
the limelight with crass shock tactics, which has damaged the image of
modern art severely.
* In certain cases, 'original,' 'different,' or 'surprising' have been
mistaken for 'skilled' and 'talented.' Many who clearly have a minimal
understanding of art but wish to appear cultured tend to express
appreciation of the former rather than the latter, and mistake the
former for the latter, as it has almost become a social norm.
* Governments, in their poor attempts to appear forward-thinking and
modern, tend to promote sensationalist modern art as what they
perceive as being the ways of the mystical 'Youth of Today' to whom
they so desperately want to attract. Take the Tate Modern as an
example.
However, I have a problem, and that's that all of these are extremely
hard to back up with any sort of evidence. Does anyone here have more
experience arguing such cases, or have opinions to contribute?
Chris
G*rd*n
| ...
| hard to back up with any sort of evidence. Does anyone here have more
| experience arguing such cases, or have opinions to contribute?
That depends on what you consider to be evidence. If you want
to say art of type X is bad, you have to define just what X
is, set up a framework in which to judge it, and get your
audience to agree with the framework, at least for the sake
of the argument. That's not very easy in contemporary art
unless you can select a fairly prejudiced audience, because
contemporary art is all over the place. However, by "modern
art" I suppose you may be referring to Modernism? That's
now about forty years out of being small-m modern, but it
seems to be what a lot of people mean by the term.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Roy L. Ballou
smowto...@hotmail.com says...
>However, I have a problem, and that's that all of these are extremely
>hard to back up with any sort of evidence. Does anyone here have more
>experience arguing such cases, or have opinions to contribute?
Mani Deli and John NG will be happy to jump
in here for you, both feet first or both feet
in mouths - whichever!
As for Modern Art - perhaps you would care to
define it??? You could fill, at least,
24 enclopedia volumes on the subject and still
not cover all aspects of it!!!
sculpt...@ethanham.com
reading it today, but there seems to be a lot of energy devoted to
debating that very topic. Below are some thoughts on one of your
bullet points.
> * In certain cases, 'original,' 'different,' or 'surprising' have been
> mistaken for 'skilled' and 'talented.' Many who clearly have a minimal
> understanding of art but wish to appear cultured tend to express
> appreciation of the former rather than the latter, and mistake the
> former for the latter, as it has almost become a social norm.
Because one of the posters uses "No skill, no art" as his tag line,
I've been thinking about this topic.
First let me say, I can't help be reminded of "America's Funniest Home
Video"'s tag line of "No funny, no money." But I suppose you didn't
have that show inflicted on you, since you live in Britain :)
I take the slogan (the poster's, not the tv show's) to mean "No skill,
bad art." After all, Modern art is art, whether you like it or not.
I think it's a mistake to simply say Modern art doesn't take skill.
(I don't mean to put words into your mouth--but even if you don't mean
to say that, it certainly has been said in this news group :)
The truth of the matter, I think, is that is harder to judge skill in
abstract art than it is in realistic art. Realism gives an easy
yardstick to measure art by: i.e., "Does it look realistic?" But of
course, even in Realism there's a lot more to being a great work of
art than just technical accomplishment in making something look
realistic. But there are certainly artists who are skilled in
abstraction just as there are artists who are skilled in realism.
Whether or not Picasso was skilled in realism is really beside the
point, just as whether or not Rembrandt was skilled at abstract
painting is beside the point.
John Ng
group in the previous six months and you will be overwhelmed.
www.artrenewal.org is a good starting site.
I have to say that I am meeting surprisingly many young people these
days who are resenting Modern Art. I predict that it would take
another twenty years before good-old Classical art becomes fully
revived. Bougureau's paintings are ever increasing in value and has
doubled in the last ten months.
> However, I have a problem, and that's that all of these are extremely
> hard to back up with any sort of evidence. Does anyone here have more
> experience arguing such cases, or have opinions to contribute?
It is very hard to backup either way as the term "art" is inherently
amiguous.
John Ng
Advocate of a renewal in art and the return of realism
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Secundra
> However, I have a problem, and that's that all of these are extremely
> hard to back up with any sort of evidence. Does anyone here have more
> experience arguing such cases, or have opinions to contribute?
this says it all
if you dont have the evidence how did you form your views?
Ethan Ham
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:iJP%9.12520$RZ.1...@newsfep4-win.server.ntli.net...
> > After all, Modern art is art, whether you like it or not.
> definitions of art
Well, I think most reasonable people would agree that modern art is art,
even if they can't agree whether it is good art. (Hence the fact it is
called "modern art" not just "modern" ;)
I think it is difficult to come up with a definition of art & fine art that
really stands up. Here's what I've come up with as my own personal, working
definition:
"Art is anything that its creator considers to be art. Fine art is anything
that is created in order to gain acceptance/recognition from the fine arts
establishment, or anything that has come to gain acceptance/recognicition
from the fine arts establishment (even if its creator didn't intend it as
fine art)."
> >even in Realism there's a lot more to being a great work of
> > art than just technical accomplishment in making something look
> > realistic
> Even in Art, there's a lot more to being a great work of art than just
> skill and realism.
> Is it decorative and/or does it have an immediate visual impact?
> Is the subject matter worthy of the whole and is it treated in
> an artistic way?
> As a rule of thumb, can the whole capture the viewer and give more
> than a moment's pleasure and/or interest?
> Do the techniques and materials used, form a coherent whole with the
> subject?
> Can the work be set against others and confidently judged?
> Does the visual narrative work well enough that no lengthy
> accompanying text is necessary?
> If the signature were removed would it still be held in the same esteem?
> Only a very few of the possible ways to judge, along with the skills.
> Thur
Sure, I think that's all reasonable. I was really using "skill" as a
shorthand for "possessing the ability to make a good work of art" (i.e., the
ability to create a work that stands up reasonably well to your check list).
Chris Smowton
> if you dont have the evidence how did you form your views?
I formed them on personal opinion! I hold these views because they are
what I believe, but I have never had to rigorously defend them in
debate before.
Tina Mammoser
Hi all!
Chris
There was this exact debate on Radio 4 within the last 6 months. Maybe a
search on the BBC website would bring up some info? You
could see what their arguments were in the radio debate.
You may also want to look up press reviews and such for recent high
profile exhibitions such as the 'Galleries' show at the Royal Academy
this past year - which was a show of work from a handful of the
'premiere' galleries (all London based I think) and the 'Sensations'
show.
These may help you gather some public opinion quotes.
Tina.
--
********************
--Colorist expressionist contemporary landscapes direct from the
artist!--
HTTP://WWW.TINA-M.COM
mailto:ti...@tina-m.com
-----Limited editions and original prints from London artists!-----
HTTP://WWW.BRIGHTNEWART.COM
mailto:ti...@brightnewart.com
********************