"Modern Art", time to rename?
Rich Clancey
quite trendy at the time, I'm sure. But I can't help but
wonder what young art students, born maybe half a century
after the term was coined, think of a bunch of "old stuff"
trying to pass itself off as "the latest thing". Anyone who
thinks of a painting executed in 1952 as modern is badly
dating himself and his sensibility.
Whether you think of the stuff as trash, which I do, or find
value in it, as many of you do, can't we all agree that it's
time to think of another term?
--
rich clancey r...@world.std.com
Richard
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:29:08 GMT, Rich Clancey
<r...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
> Whether you think of the stuff as trash, which I do, or find
> value in it, as many of you do, can't we all agree that it's
> time to think of another term?
My personal word for it is "expressionism," because they're all about
expressing themselves in any way they feel like. The funny thing is,
you usually can't tell what they're trying to express because they've
abandoned the use of skills. It would be like a writer abandoning
grammar.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Ali Yupe
>
> I'm not sure when the term "Modern" came into use...
>...can't we all agree that it's time to think of another term?
Okay! How about Post-Modern?
Personally I like the term "Feel Good" for
most recent work. Or a close second, "Let Go."
Noumenon
has nothing to do with TIME as it is.
MODERN [Art] is just about everything that came ehhhh.... after CLASSIC
[ART].
It is description of attitude and epoch, not of style or trend.
But if anyone wrinkles at mentioning social issues in connection with
Fine Arts-
- here it is:
In any case - that "Modern Art" is still quite "modern", because nothing
better was done
or invented since "Art Nouveau" - anyway.
Painting pictures with elephant shit or sticking pieces or smelly lard
on canvases is hardly "modern", new or interesting to anyone,
even though this idiocy is happening NOW.
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
John Ng
moderness. In fact, Modern Art to my mind is archaic art that has
passed its "use by" date. You have got to be a dinosaur to like it.
Let the term stay because it is highly descriptive just like the term
"Passing Fad"... it is gone.
John
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
John Ng
> better was done
> or invented since "Art Nouveau" - anyway.
Actually nothing better has been invented since the Middle Ages. It
just got more refined until it got to the peak in the 19C. Because it
has reached its peak with nowhere else to go, we have to start all
over again with Cave Paintings (which they call Modern Art).
Jack
> I'm not sure when the term "Modern" came into use.
The first Encarta example of "Modern Art" is Grant Wood's "American
Gothic" (1930), followed by Jackson Pollock's "Black and White"(1948).
But earlier examples are mentioned later in the article.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761568672
The term "Modern Jazz" describes a musical style developed during the
1940s, according to the American Heritage Dictionary.
Perhaps "Modern" *anything* is archaic. And isn't that ironic?
Richard
Ooooohhhh!!!! I just got a really good idea!
Lets call it CRAFT ART!!!!
This is so funny and apt. What great revenge for calling real artists
"lowly illustrators."
Here is the reasoning:
What is the nature of crafts? They are simple and easy to make. They
require no artistic skills. They revolve around expressing yourself in
a way that anyone can do without training. A child can do just as well
as an adult.
THAT'S JUST THE SAME AS "modern art!!!!"
The only difference is that artspeak is used to talk about "modern
art."
So from now on it's "craft art," and we shall call the makers "lowly
craftsmen," "craftsperson." That's what people who splatter, smear,
and drip paint deserve to be called.
Ali Yupe
says...
>Here is the reasoning:
>What is the nature of crafts? They are simple and easy to make.
More adolescent twaddle! Don't YOU have
anything better to do? Have you ever done
a damned thing constructive/creative yourself?
Why don't you take up a hobby that will keep
you otherwise occupied?
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Marilyn Welch" <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:3D99AEDF...@islandnet.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Jack wrote:
>
> > Rich Clancey <r...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:<H3710...@world.std.com>...
> >
> > > I'm not sure when the term "Modern" came into use.
> >
> > The first Encarta example of "Modern Art" is Grant Wood's "American
> > Gothic" (1930), followed by Jackson Pollock's "Black and White"(1948).
> > But earlier examples are mentioned later in the article.
> >
> > http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761568672
> >
>
> 'naive' in style and execution. The content has become an ironic
> image of American Life. That painting might be the most satirized
> painting in the world.
>
I thought that the Mona Lisa had that distinction.
--
"May you get what you want, and want what you get" - Double Gipsy curse from
"Thirteen conversations about one thing"
John Ng
The fact is that Mona Lisa is not a passing fade and has lived 600
years (and its genre even longer). Modern (eh archaic) Art is only
invented during the avant of photography (Cave Painting excluded).
WoN ereH
Well, I had a look at this site. Though the works are certainly technically
proficient, they all look somewhat alike. Basically these painters are very
good craftsmen, despite the fact you harangued fine craft. However, art that
stands out from the huge crowd needs more than dexterous skill, in fact that
has proven to be often secondary to the effect the artist intends -- Warhol's
pics would not have made an impact in oil no matter how well he painted. Art
also needs original and interesting subject matter/new ideas/unique expression
-- for its time. Skillfully painting pictures of pretty little girls doesn't
make for great art. Nice art, pretty art, not great art.
IMO
Debra
Richard
Have I hit a nerve? I guess I did.
Yea, I have done drawing and just recently started painting with
acrylics. I'm taking 3 art classes in college right now: life drawing
1, intro to painting, and 3d design. I've been told I have talent by
professional artists and my drawing teacher. He also said I have a
good sense of proportion, a light touch, and a good work ethic. I get
nothing but A's in art classes. On my latest painting, the teacher
told us she wanted us to make a simple impressionist type painting of
a still life with broad strokes & big brushes, but I spent something
like 40 hours on it so far and have used a realistic style instead. I
spent way more time & effort on it than I was supposed to, because I
want to advance my abilities as fast and as much as I can. I think it
looks pretty good considering it's like my 3rd painting ever. It has a
horse, macaw, vase, flowers, lake, table, and a sunset. I posted a
couple of my drawings before, but nobody commented on them. I guess
they couldn't think of anything bad to say. I'm not yet as great as
Bouguereau, but I'm making a serious effort at advancing my abilities,
and I just recently ordered over 20 art instruction books from
Amazon.com, the best books I could find. I refuse to make any "modern
art," because that's just simple crafts and a waste of my time. It
doesn't develop my skills. I also create my own art on my own time
besides class assignments. I take art very seriously.
Richard
On 02 Oct 2002 01:17:17 GMT, won...@aol.comnojunk (WoN ereH) wrote:
>
>
>Well, I had a look at this site. Though the works are certainly technically
>proficient, they all look somewhat alike. Basically these painters are very
>good craftsmen, despite the fact you harangued fine craft. However, art that
>stands out from the huge crowd needs more than dexterous skill, in fact that
>has proven to be often secondary to the effect the artist intends -- Warhol's
>pics would not have made an impact in oil no matter how well he painted. Art
>also needs original and interesting subject matter/new ideas/unique expression
>-- for its time. Skillfully painting pictures of pretty little girls doesn't
>make for great art. Nice art, pretty art, not great art.
It's greater than the horse shit called modern art.
John Ng
> stands out from the huge crowd needs more than dexterous skill, in fact that
> has proven to be often secondary to the effect the artist intends -- Warhol's
One secondary aspect of art is to stand out from the crowd (not to the
point of ridiculousness). However, not many things can do that these
days as you are now competing with photography and computer graphics.
If you can think of it, it has been done before.
> Nice art, pretty art, not great art.
Exactly what I want.. I am not a painter and never will. I admit that
there is not enough essence (I always feel my paintings are inferior)
but I am only starting and as an amatuer, I don't have the time.
However, skillfully presenting an image is the first step that many
"con"-artists like Pollock, Warhol, Kardinsky should try to do.
WoN ereH
many
>"con"-artists like Pollock, Warhol, Kardinsky should try to do.
You are taking those artists completely out of context. Obviously, compared
to all their imitators, they look like more of the same crap. But in their
day, they were incredible innovators. They turned art on it's head, and made
people look beyond the pretty pictures of pretty people in pretty scenes.
Their art was shocking, new, incredibly daring - in it's day. To now look back
and say they couldn't draw just shows complete ignorance of everything art can
potentially be, the ability to change and move culture forward in its thinking
and awareness. Michaelangelo was great not because of his skill as a painter,
but because he was the FIRST to render musculature, veins and the details which
prior artists had no knowledge of. Pollack was great because he made people
think about painting in an entirely new way, as a here and now event/action of
the artist. It is almost pathetic how those that incessantly whine about the
*artzy fartzy types* know so incredibly little of basic art history themselves.
Debra
Mani Deli
>John lameted:>However, skillfully presenting an image is the first step that
>many
>>"con"-artists like Pollock, Warhol, Kardinsky should try to do.
>
> You are taking those artists completely out of context. Obviously, compared
>to all their imitators, they look like more of the same crap.
Obviously indeed! That is because it is crap, one needn't look at
imitators to sense this.
> But in their
>day, they were incredible innovators. They turned art on it's head, and made
>people look beyond the pretty pictures of pretty people in pretty scenes.
Really?
>Their art was shocking, new, incredibly daring - in it's day. To now look back
>and say they couldn't draw just shows complete ignorance of everything art can
>potentially be, the ability to change and move culture forward in its thinking
>and awareness
How did Pollock "move culture forward in its thinking
and awareness?" He couldn't draw.
> Michaelangelo was great not because of his skill as a painter,
Really? I guess this is the sort of crap you learn in art school
today. What about his skill as a sculpture?
>but because he was the FIRST to render musculature, veins and the details which
>prior artists had no knowledge of.
He wasn't first in any of this.
>Pollack was great because he made people
>think about painting in an entirely new way, as a here and now event/action of
>the artist.
And what's a " here and now event/action of the artist?" University
Artspeak?
.
> It is almost pathetic how those that incessantly whine about the
>*artzy fartzy types* know so incredibly little of basic art history themselves.
>
Its always amusing to read artzy fartzy comments which reveal how
little these people know about art history beyond parroting art school
jargon.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
WoN ereH
How ignorant you are of art. You try to sound so informed when you haven't
even the beginning of a clue. BTW, I learned about art from going to museums
all over the world, not at an art school. You apparently did neither.
Debra
Mani Deli
The usual drivel which avoids answering my points! "You haven't a clue
etc."
>How ignorant you are of art. You try to sound so informed when you haven't
>even the beginning of a clue. BTW, I learned about art from going to museums
>all over the world, not at an art school. You apparently did neither.
I suspect you learned it by reading the blurbs in your tour guide.
Just tell us, How Pollock "moved culture forward in its thinking
and awareness?"
>>> Michaelangelo was great not because of his skill as a painter,
>>
>>Really? I guess this is the sort of crap you learn in art school
>>today. What about his skill as a sculpture?
>>
>>>but because he was the FIRST to render musculature, veins and the details
>>which prior artists had no knowledge of.
He wasn't. Go back to Europe and take a close look.
>>Its always amusing to read artzy fartzy comments which reveal how
>>little these people know about art history beyond parroting art school
>>jargon.
...no skill no art!
WoN ereH
>Just tell us, How Pollock "moved culture forward in its thinking
>and awareness?"
I was just a tot at the time, but I remember how shocked people were in the art
community. How dare they call that art, and so forth. But they also were
incredibly intrigued. They realized art was indeed far far more than just
pretty pictures. It was expression, it was revulsion, it was wild and crazy
and it was all art! People who didn't dare try to create art now felt released
from judgemental twits like you to try their hand at it. Art became alive
again, a living part of culture. You can't see that, because you are not alive
and vital enough to understand at all what that means. Pity you and your
narrow constricted view of art and life.
Debra
Mani Deli
>
>>Just tell us, How Pollock "moved culture forward in its thinking
>>and awareness?"
>
>I was just a tot at the time, but I remember how shocked people were in the art
>community. How dare they call that art, and so forth. But they also were
>incredibly intrigued. They realized art was indeed far far more than just
>pretty pictures. It was expression, it was revulsion, it was wild and crazy
>and it was all art!
It was and still is bullshit. I didn't "move culture" and art is more
than an incompetent ugly put-on.
>People who didn't dare try to create art now felt released
>from judgemental twits like you to try their hand at it.
I assume you have taken a survey of people who said they felt
"released" and you are trying to do dribbles because you feel
released. Released from what?
> Art became alive again, a living part of culture.
Do tell us what it was before Pollock.
>You can't see that, because you are not alive
>and vital enough to understand at all what that means.
So tell us what "all that means." Bet I get more bullshit and pity. Is
anyone who doesn't understand Pollock "alive, vital?"
>Pity you and your
>narrow constricted view of art and life.
>
Some of these nitwits talk like the religious right. I wonder if they
eventually pray for those who disagree with them.
Notice she failed to support her points on Michelangelo.
WoN ereH
>>>and awareness?"
>>
>>I was just a tot at the time, but I remember how shocked people were in the
>art
>>community. How dare they call that art, and so forth. But they also were
>>incredibly intrigued. They realized art was indeed far far more than just
>>pretty pictures. It was expression, it was revulsion, it was wild and crazy
>>and it was all art!
>
>It was and still is bullshit. I didn't "move culture" and art is more
>than an incompetent ugly put-on.
>Notice she failed to support her points on Michelangelo.
What points? You don't admire the achievements of Michaelangelo? True, his
David statues have become rather kitschy, but in his day, well, hardly worth
arguing.
Of course art was *alive* before Pollock, I was just commenting on how his art
shocked people, back when art could still shock people. At least it seemed
that way to me, a little kid hanging around adult artists. You take him out of
context and bemoan his scribbles. How naive. You totally miss the point. He
OBVIOUSLY was not trying to paint realistically and failed. DUH. Be that as
it may, you seem to be under this rather peculiar notion that all great art is
done via painting/drawing, the more realistic the better. Have you not been to
any good movies lately? So many artists work on movies. Take a peek outside.
Amazing stuff is being done by artists in fashion, furniture, architecture,
animation, jewelry, product design, the list is endless. I recently became
interested in art jewelry. Wow, amazing creativity going on there. Not all
artists want to paint. Painting is one form, nice choice for walls, but hardly
the extent of art. Maybe it's time you left your apartment. There is an
incredible amount of talent out there, and no, they all aren't painting
realistically, how dull the world would be if they were. Sheesh.
Debra
John Ng
> >Just tell us, How Pollock "moved culture forward in its thinking
> >and awareness?"
> I was just a tot at the time, but I remember how shocked people were in the art
> community. How dare they call that art, and so forth. But they also were
> incredibly intrigued.
It still shocks me even today. How dare they call that art! If I put
my faeces on display, it will still stock anyone two hundred years
from now, and if Michelangelo did it, I would still be -- after 600
years. If you call that art, you have to have your head examined.
> Art became alive again, a living part of culture.
Wrong. Art died!!! Art was DEGRADED and HUMILIATED. Isn't that
death?
> Pity you and your narrow constricted view of art and life.
Your views are rather narrow -- narrow in that you can't see the
obvious. You couldn't stand on your own two feet without the critics
spoon-feeding you their muck.
John
Mani Deli
>What points? You don't admire the achievements of Michaelangelo?
And where did you get that idea?
>True, his David statues have become rather kitschy, but in his day, well, hardly worth
>arguing.
"Become kitschy?"
>Of course art was *alive* before Pollock, I was just commenting on how his art
>shocked people, back when art could still shock people.
So what's the "alive" crap about?
> At least it seemed
>that way to me, a little kid hanging around adult artists. You take him out of
>context and bemoan his scribbles. How naive. You totally miss the point.
Sure, so tell us what the point is. Bet she doesn't!
> He
>OBVIOUSLY was not trying to paint realistically and failed. DUH.
How long did it take you to notice?
> Be that as
>it may, you seem to be under this rather peculiar notion that all great art is
>done via painting/drawing, the more realistic the better.
I'm not under that impression. Great abstract art was produced for
centuries. From Egypt, Persian rugs to Japanese prints etc.
> Have you not been to
>any good movies lately? So many artists work on movies.
Some of the greatest abstract work is in animation. Animation is valid
abstract art. My complaint is about Modern Academic Abstraction which
hangs in museums under the pretext that it is great art. I find it no
better than average towel design and bed sheets and more often greatly
inferior.
> Take a peek outside.
Are you a teacher who can't get beyond patronizing bullshit?
>Amazing stuff is being done by artists in fashion, furniture, architecture,
>animation, jewelry, product design, the list is endless.
Indeed, so what's the point?
> I recently became interested in art jewelry.
Gee, have you written a manifesto yet?
> Wow, amazing creativity going on there. Not all
>artists want to paint. Painting is one form, nice choice for walls, but hardly
>the extent of art. Maybe it's time you left your apartment. There is an
>incredible amount of talent out there, and no, they all aren't painting
>realistically, how dull the world would be if they were. Sheesh.
>
I don't exactly paint realistically. Perhaps you can get out of your
outhouse and check it out.