Musea E-mail Club #366 Modern Art Abuses
musea/Tom Hendricks
of our time. It's art that is no longer relevant.
The Dallas, 'End Of Modern Art, Conceptual Art Event' of 1/8/02
was staged to oppose the abuses of Modern art.
Specifically it opposes these major problems of
MODERN ART:
1. It's cold.
It's harsh and unfeeling.
2. It's disjointed.
Usually modern art is disjointed parts that have no relevance
to each other.
3. It's non communicative.
Usually the artist has to explain what you're looking at!
4. It's weird.
5. It's elitest
only the elite get it, get to see it, get to buy it.
6. It's often technically poor
- if there's any technique at all.
7. It's pompous and inflated
in size (it covers walls and rooms) and in concepts.
8. It's not useful
Seldom integrated into our lives - instead its isolated in
galleries and museums.
The post-modern art is opposed to all this.
New Century - New Arts!
----------
In house news: the new Christmas Story issue
of Musea is on our website at musea.us PLUS a link
to Hunkasaurus and Pet Dog Guitar color photos, playing
in the Inwood box office. Check it out.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays - y'all!
Tom Hendricks
ed. of the 14 year old zine Musea
musea.us
hunkasaurus.com
Myspace.com/musead
Myspace.com/hunkasauruscom
tomhend...@cs.com
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hendricks
jonatha...@gmail.com
Eh... modern art as a movement is generally regarded to have died
somewhere between 1960 and 1980, but keep that faith you've got
going...
--
Jonathan Penton
http://www.unlikelystories.org
musea/Tom Hendricks
I think you are being generous - I'd say 50's for innovative art -
and downhill for the next 50 years.
Art from 1980-2007 is still considered modern art by most.
It's just not very good art.
jonatha...@gmail.com
> and downhill for the next 50 years.
What I mean is not that it deteriorated in quality, though I think that
you're probably right if we limit our scope to visual art that
self-described as Modern Art. I mean that between 1960 and 1980,
artists stopped referring to their work as Modern Art.
> Art from 1980-2007 is still considered modern art by most.
That's possible (at least in the U.S., and I'll restrict my comments to
that nation from here on out). If so, it demonstrates, quite
effectively, the distance between artists and the average American,
since no one's been producing anything they call "Modern Art" for
decades. Perhaps, with Pynchon and Eggers and the like becoming more
famous, the American populace is starting to catch up to the term
"Postmodern." Even if so, that doesn't address the underlying issue of
why American artists and citizens don't speak the same language. I
guess you're trying to address that, which is certainly appreciated. I
think you'll miss the mark if you tell artists to change or stop
"Modern Art," though, since they did, decades ago.
> It's just not very good art.
Also specifics. Specifics rock.
musea/Tom Hendricks
I don't think they did a good enough job - it still has all the
problems cited above. Though now its even more disjointed.
>
> > It's just not very good art.
>
> Also specifics. Specifics rock.
The initial "End of Modern Art Conceptual Art Event" was against
the winner of that year's Turner Prize (Creed?)
With his lights out idea. I turned lights out in my head and ended
modern art - 1/8/02.
But the abuses are inherent in so many artists work that it's harder to
find
an exception than the rule. And I really don't know a mainstream
exception.
kingw...@yahoo.com
imposed from on high.
Zine writing, on the other hand-- the best of it anyway-- is the
opposite. It's from the people.
Note the work of zinesters from Aaron Cometbus to Jen Gogglebox to Ammi
Keller to Doug Holland to Michael Jackman to Chris Estey to Jeff Somers
and on and on and on.
I try to write in the DIY zine tradition. It's what's exciting-- not
the literary MFA homogenized same-old same-old.
Underground writers are telling the real story of this society.
www.kingwenclas.blogspot.com