modernart group
sarpedon
constantly ranting about how bad modern art is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Modernart/
sarp
Gary Oblock
sarp --
A lot of modern art is not really bad. Abstract art can adequately serve a decorative function.
However, it does in my opinion lack the true power of representational art to present meaningful ideas.
Conceptual art often presents mildly amusing practical jokes. However, I'm not sure there is any art
in these pranks nor that art museums should house them.
-- Gary
--
Bronze Dreams
Santa Clara, CA
http://www.bronzedreams.com
-------------- ad for the hosting service I use ---------------
Free Web Hosting with Domain Registration or transfer
http://freewebhosting.catalog.com/jump/mw...@earthlink.net
sarpedon
>
> A lot of modern art is not really bad.
thanks for saying what we already know. a lot of all art is really
bad. Try genre painting by Hogarth or Kinkaid, or the softcore porn of
Bougereau. Most realist art is bad. the masters only represent about
one percent of one percent of one percent of the artists working in a
field.
>Abstract art can adequately serve a decorative function.
Just as kitsch landscapes and so-called "comfort art," which is
representational by the way, do also.
> However, it does in my opinion lack the true power of representational art to present meaningful ideas.
Ideas, as opposed to objects, is precisely why concrete art, ie
abstract expressionism, was invented by the Russians around 1913.
>
> Conceptual art often presents mildly amusing practical jokes. However, I'm not sure there is any art
> in these pranks nor that art museums should house them.
But then, this is merely anecdotal. Why don't you also say that jazz
is not music, or that man was never meant to fly. Don't bother me
again with these uninformed opinions again. Or if you must, don't
embarrass yourself by signing your name to them.
the sarp
King Rundzap
just for sarpedon.
the_...@yahoo.com (sarpedon) wrote in message news:<59b1da2d.04090...@posting.google.com>...
> Gary Oblock <mw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news
> > A lot of modern art is not really bad.
> thanks for saying what we already know. a lot of all art is really
> bad. Try genre painting by Hogarth or Kinkaid, or the softcore porn of
> Bougereau. Most realist art is bad. the masters only represent about
> one percent of one percent of one percent of the artists working in a
> field.
Wait, he said "a lot of modern art is NOT really bad". It seems like
you read that as "a lot of modern art IS really bad".
I have the opposite view of you, sarpedon. I think most art is good.
I like Kinkade, Bouguereau and Hogarth. I own books on each of them
(as well as hundreds of other artists), and I even have a Bouguereau
print (well, poster) hanging up in my place. In fact, there isn't
really any art I would say is bad, no art that I really dislike. For
me, the litmus test is more whether I'd buy something or not, and just
what I'd buy (a book versus a print versus an original, etc.)
I suppose I can understand someone having very narrow tastes, but I
just don't share that disposition. I like a lot of things in a lot of
different areas.
> >Abstract art can adequately serve a decorative function.
> Just as kitsch landscapes and so-called "comfort art," which is
> representational by the way, do also.
Yeah, the decorative versus non-decorative idea seems problematic.
> > However, it does in my opinion lack the true power of representational art to present meaningful ideas.
> Ideas, as opposed to objects, is precisely why concrete art, ie
> abstract expressionism, was invented by the Russians around 1913.
The comment about modern art (or anything, for that matter) lacking
meaning is always a curious one. I usually picture the person making
that criticism thinking that meaning is some mysterious force
contained in an object or not. Or otherwise, I picture them just not
analyzing what meaning is. Seems to me that meaning arises in one's
head--that it's not transferred to one's head by some mysterious force
of physics. That allows anything to have meaning just as long as the
person considering the thing assigns meaning to it, and to not have
meaning just as long as the person considering the thing doesn't
bother.
> > Conceptual art often presents mildly amusing practical jokes. However, I'm not sure there is any art
> > in these pranks nor that art museums should house them.
> But then, this is merely anecdotal. Why don't you also say that jazz
> is not music, or that man was never meant to fly. Don't bother me
> again with these uninformed opinions again. Or if you must, don't
> embarrass yourself by signing your name to them.
Well, I wouldn't say they're uninformed, necessarily, but they have
that typical tone of mistaking opinion (or better, subjective
evaluations) for fact (or better, objective states of affairs not just
in one's mind). On the other hand, it's always difficult to say
whether the speaker, such as Gary, thinks it's obvious that what he
considers to count as art or not is just his subjective view, and he's
not bothering stating "what I'd call art", "what I think art should
be", etc. because it's so laborious to have to insert those protection
clauses in every sentence (I agree with that), or whether he thinks
that there is something about the world that makes things objectively
count as art or not. It's difficult to tell what a particular speaker
thinks without them making that explicit because there are a lot of
people who believe that there is something about the world that makes
things objectively count as art or not, and they make "identical"
statements (from an observational or behavioral standpoint) to the
first crowd, who is just using a manner of speaking.
--King Rundzap
Gary Oblock
sarp --
A lot of representational art is fluffy comfort art. I don't have a problem with that.
I even make some of my own art to be merely decorative. I think I seem to have
a more liberal attitude towards abstract art than you do towards representational art.
Jazz is music but that doesn't mean that everything anyone wants to call music is
by definition music. The same is true for art.
Furthermore, I don't think people were meant to fly. Nor were birds for that matter. I don't
any creature in particular was MEANT to fly. They just figured out how to do it and did it. ;-)
By the way, at least I seem to have a name to sign unlike some of the people that post here.
-- Gary Oblock
Mani Deli
to the whole of 20th century artwork. Most Critics and historians have
high-jacked the term to include only a limited facet of the artwork of
this period and excluded the rest which they claim is non-art. They
infer that modern art only refers to the type of artwork which conform
to those styles and subject matter presently allowed into the modern
sections of major museums and which are taught and practiced in most
educational institutions. I believe this facet of modern art should be
really be called "Modern Academic Art" (MAA).
Why have I inserted the word "academic" in this aspect of artwork
which I consider the major subject of this book?
During the whole of the so called modern art period, art historians
and critics labeled what in its time was considered the most important
artwork done during the 19th century as "academic." Any 19th century
work now critically labeled "academic" infers that it was a product
of, past stale teaching methods which resulted in little more than a
monotonous repetition of standardized subject matter. This is claimed
to have socially resulted in collusion and favoritism for a small
group of select artists who catered solely to the rich and excluded
other artists of great importance from showing their work. I consider
this to be modern art mythology. However, this very academic situation
prevails today and that is why I call this branch of modern art
"Modern Academic Art," rather than simply modern art.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
Thur
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:39a6k092qdf3cu4gm...@4ax.com...
> The term "modern art", written in small letters should roughly refer
> to the whole of 20th century artwork. Most Critics and historians have
> high-jacked the term to include only a limited facet of the artwork of
> this period and excluded the rest which they claim is non-art. They
> infer that modern art only refers to the type of artwork which conform
> to those styles and subject matter presently allowed into the modern
> sections of major museums and which are taught and practiced in most
> educational institutions. I believe this facet of modern art should be
> really be called "Modern Academic Art" (MAA).
>
> Why have I inserted the word "academic" in this aspect of artwork
> which I consider the major subject of this book?
>
> During the whole of the so called modern art period, art historians
> artwork done during the 19th century as "academic." Any 19th century
> of, past stale teaching methods which resulted in little more than a
> monotonous repetition of standardized subject matter. This is claimed
> to have socially resulted in collusion and favoritism for a small
> group of select artists who catered solely to the rich and excluded
> other artists of great importance from showing their work. I consider
> this to be modern art mythology. However, this very academic situation
> prevails today and that is why I call this branch of modern art
> "Modern Academic Art," rather than simply modern art.
>
>
>
> No skill no art!
>
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
>
> "The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
> combined with the stupidity of our people."
> - Bill Maher
Wasn't it true that artists who wished to make a living from their art
in this era, found that they had a fairly strict set of demands to comply
with, such as subjects and their clothing belonging to a Classical past,
the requirement to produce paintings of the greatest detail, requiring
the greatest technical skills, but allowing only a slight input for the
artist's
expression?
I compare with the painting of Watteau, and Fragonard, for example, of
how earlier eras held much looser requirements for their artworks.
I read somewhere that it was this seeming cul-de-sac in painting which
gave birth to Impressionism, which seems to be the other side of the coin
in painting.
Thur
King Rundzap
> to the whole of 20th century artwork.
And it should refer to that because . . . ?
> Most Critics and historians have
> high-jacked the term to include only a limited facet of the artwork of
> this period
Most writing about art uses terms as they are contentionally used. If
you're going to start a campaign about changing language, as if that's
likely to happen just because some guy with an Internet site starts a
campaign, an important part would be to present an argument _why_
everyone should adopt your recommendation rather than the current
conventional usage(s). Simply bitching about the use, and creating
straw man and red herring arguments supposedly related to the use,
probably will not work.
> and excluded the rest which they claim is non-art.
The conventional use of "modern" as a descriptor of a type of art
isn't to distinguish it from "non-art". Where are you encountering
all of these instances of "critics saying 'such and such is non-art'
"?
> They infer that modern art only refers to the type of artwork which conform
> to those styles and subject matter presently allowed into the modern
> sections of major museums and which are taught and practiced in most
> educational institutions.
Wait, the "modern" section of museums like the Met, and the dominant
type of art found in museums like MoMA is called "modern" because
that's the convention usage in the artworld of that term. The term
isn't used that way because the Met arbitrarily decided to include
that work in a "modern" section.
> I believe this facet of modern art should be
> really be called "Modern Academic Art" (MAA).
> Why have I inserted the word "academic" in this aspect of artwork
> which I consider the major subject of this book?
This book? (yeah, I know that you're copying and pasting from your
book (should I put that in quotation marks?)--or has your computer
just gone off on its own tangent in the last day or two and started
reposting on its own. Hal?)
> During the whole of the so called modern art period, art historians
> and critics labeled what in its time was considered the most important
> artwork done during the 19th century as "academic."
"Academic" was never conventionally synonymous with "this is the most
important stuff".
> Any 19th century
> work now critically labeled "academic" infers that it was a product
> of, past stale teaching methods which resulted in little more than a
> monotonous repetition of standardized subject matter.
No, you're conflating a sense "non-modern" and "academic" there.
"Academic" doesn't imply past "staleness". But a popular sense of
"modern" is that it is opposed to "old-fashioned" (see the usage and
history note for "modern" on www.dictionary.com for example).
"Academic", in general, is related to the idea of formal instruction,
but see the note on art below.
> This is claimed
> to have socially resulted in collusion and favoritism for a small
> group of select artists who catered solely to the rich and excluded
> other artists of great importance from showing their work.
Academic venues often exclude non-academic material, in general.
Material originating from outside the academy can gain entry into
academic venues, but it is usually much more of a struggle to get it
there. That's not just true of the artworld, but it's true for all
academic disciplines.
> I consider
> this to be modern art mythology.
Well, a conspiracy theory there is probably a myth, yes.
> However, this very academic situation
> prevails today and that is why I call this branch of modern art
> "Modern Academic Art," rather than simply modern art.
Yeah, the stuff conventionally called modern art is done in academies,
and along with postmodern art, is apparently a focus of most of them.
I doubt most other people are going to start calling it "Modern
Academic Art" any time soon instead of just "Modern Art", though.
Partially beacause "academic art" now conventionally refers to a
certain style and period, although it doesn't refer to a particular
judgment of that style and period.
A lot of your post, by the way, is really just an example of the
extreme conservative camp's views when it comes to language. That
view is characterized by a desire to stick to etymological
definitions, sometimes to the point of claiming that deviations from
that are somehow "wrong" (the most confused among the bunch seem to
believe that language and definitions are somehow objective), and a
desire to minimize change and varied senses of the same word. The
conservative camp's view is helpful in keeping language reigned in, so
it doesn't change so quickly that we're in a Tower of Babel, but
ultimately, they're going to remain frustrated, as people just aren't
going to only stick to etymological definitions without varied senses.
--King Rundzap
Thur
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425a3330.0409...@posting.google.com...
>you're going to start a campaign about changing language...
But the term "modern art" has several possible meanings, and I have
heard it used in several conflicting ways.
I note that the term "modern" is not used in the sense that I would
expect in normal language, but in a comparative sense with non-modern
art (pre-20th Century).
It is also used to define works that are different to works that are
comparable
in some way with pre 20th Cent. work, and are for the most part abstract.
The words were ill-chosen, and could never have been thought about because
this argument was entirely predictable.
Sometimes I have heard modern art used where contemporary art would have
been clearer, and sometimes used to mean the whole of abstract art, and
including everything from Cezanne onwards.
A term "Modern Art" requires a definition, and as such is appropriate to the
language.
Thur
King Rundzap
an error.
"Thur" <a@nospam.z> wrote in message news:<a9Y0d.69$VY6...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>...
> > A lot of your post, by the way, is really just an example of the
> > extreme conservative camp's views when it comes to language. That
> > view is characterized by a desire to stick to etymological
> > definitions, sometimes to the point of claiming that deviations from
> > that are somehow "wrong" (the most confused among the bunch seem to
> > believe that language and definitions are somehow objective), and a
> > desire to minimize change and varied senses of the same word. The
> > conservative camp's view is helpful in keeping language reigned in, so
> > it doesn't change so quickly that we're in a Tower of Babel, but
> > ultimately, they're going to remain frustrated, as people just aren't
> > going to only stick to etymological definitions without varied senses.
> >
> > --King Rundzap
> But the term "modern art" has several possible meanings, and I have
> heard it used in several conflicting ways.
Yes, that's why I pointed out to Mani that his view is a desire to
"minimize change and varied senses of the same word". "Varied senses"
are several possible meanings. The conventional definition depends on
the context--one aspect of that is to consider the arena the term is
being used in. Is it an art critic using it? A computer network
administrator in a chat room? etc.
> I note that the term "modern" is not used in the sense that I would
> expect in normal language,
The usage in the arts, in cultural theory, in philosophy, and in many
other arenas does not tend to resemble the average "man on the street"
usage of "modern".
> but in a comparative sense with non-modern
> art (pre-20th Century).
In the visual arts, "modern" does _not_ conventionally mean "20th
Century Art". It means a certain _type_ of art, which began
blossoming prior to the 20th Century, with a particular ideology
behind it.
If you think that's confusing, the "modern" period in philosophy began
in the early 17th Century, and by some accounts was starting to wrap
up by the late 19th Century. Also potentially confusing is that in
the visual arts, "modern" has a lot of contrary connotations to
"modern" in philosophy. It just takes some familiarity with the terms
in the different arenas to sort it all out. It would be easier if
everyone took the conservative road here (only stick to the original
etymological definition, disallow various senses, etc.), but that's
not how language works.
> It is also used to define works that are different to works that are
> comparable
> in some way with pre 20th Cent. work, and are for the most part abstract.
A lot of modern art is abstract, yes.
> The words were ill-chosen,
Well, judgments like "ill-chosen" for words comes mostly from the
conservative view.
> and could never have been thought about because
> this argument was entirely predictable.
> Sometimes I have heard modern art used where contemporary art would have
> been clearer,
In the visual arts "contemporary" is usually reserved for referring to
living artists. It hasn't been assigned to a particular movement or
ideological period/style yet (as "modern" has in most academic
humanities fields).
> and sometimes used to mean the whole of abstract art, and
> including everything from Cezanne onwards.
The most typical view is that modern art began around the 1830s, with
Joseph Mallord William Turner and ended, as a dominant trend among
artists, sometime around the 1960s.
> A term "Modern Art" requires a definition, and as such is appropriate to the
> language.
Well it is defined by plenty of visual art dictionaries. Typical
definitions focus on a turning away from adherence to the "classic
tradition" in the visual arts, combined with a reactive distancing
from photographic content, as photography became more prominent in the
19th Century, and a movement towards "personal expression", tending
towards some of the ideals of expressionism.
--King Rundzap
GODSTAR
I thought that was the fun!