As a teenager, my love for art sparked at a fairly young age. I started drawing when I was 3 or so, at my aunt's place. Since then, although I am not as passionate as I was younger, I feel like I've improved well for my age range.
However, a subject that always disturbs me is modern art. I remember going to a musuem for a school field trip, seeing a white circle on a red canvas, and I was shocked it was in an art musuem, I was in Elementary school.
But also, for example this piece, valued at about $44 million USD.
While this piece this piece was priced around $10 million USD I lied about the polka dot art, that was a random google image I found. However, the white line on blue canvas DID actually sell for $44 million.
There are some art elites who tell me that I simply don't understand art and abstract art invokes emotions.
What is your opinion of modern art? Do people simply lack the mental capacity to appreciate it, or do the people that appreciate it - lack mental capacity?
Its a controversial topic really. I mean art is a representation of anything, history, perceptions, thoughts, ideals, concepts etc.. Essentially the point is to evoke some sense of emotion, some concept (anything). all art is equal. the industry has a lot to do with the artist. If you can sell yourself as an intelligent, good, backed artist you can sell pretty much anything. I read an article not to long ago.. Basically a mother let her three year old faughter go crazy with paint etc.. She later took the piece to a gallery, they went through the interview process talking about the mothers intrigue in the art scene and art in general. They came to an agreement to have the puece displayed and promoted at a local exhibition that month and when they asked how old her daughter was and she responded with three. The deal fell through LOL. The painting was just as youd imagine a three year old would make it yet the curator went on this deep tangent about the value and unique qualtity blah blah blah.. Etc and when the 'artist' was revealed the once $30000 piece was all the sudden seen as nothing special. When in reality if the bisiness wasn't always so full of sht it wouldn't have been assessed as a 'work of art'. In my opinion art is worth was someone will pay for it. Its judged half on the art and half on the behalf of the artist.
I think it's place. I've been to museums all over the country and I think... even though I don't particularly appreciate visual art personally, my preference is for modern art that employs a lot of abstract expressionism. Because it gets your mind working trying to find the meaning.
I promise you whether or not it's readily apparent, it's there in these works. And if it's a little obvious doesn't that make it a little more compelling? I love any kind of artistic expression that makes you look inside a bit to understand it
A lot of "modern art" is just fucking pretentious trash... people are literally trying to come up with the most ridiculous, stupidest crap they can just to see if people will fawn over it when they slap the "art" label on it.
A lot of modern art is like the naked clothes story back in the olden day. Only smart people can see them so everyone pretend to see the clothes (and wear them) because they don't want to be called stupid.
Still, I can sometimes appreciate pieces of arts that I can understand a little bit. For example, "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" by Picasso.
There was one famous con-man who sold a lot of cheap copied arts for a lot of money. He said the key isn't the art itself but the history (or story if you lie) behind each of the work and you also need antique frames to make the art look old and valuable.
The art world is now suffering from being too tolerant of low quality and accepting the origin of the artist, the back story of the artist or piece, and novelty of presentation as substitutes for it. I enjoy nonrepresentational art as much the representational kind, and I think there still must be evidence of technical ability for it to be considered good.
The price paid for any art is not evidence of anything but the buyer's willingness to pay. The reasons for paying for art often has nothing to do with the art itself, so don't even factor that into the equation.
Art, like publishing, has gotten too comfortable with identity and issue politics and is letting that lower the quality of what gets the spotlight by substituting the artists' identities and stories for their skill, creativity, and ability to effectively communicate with viewers.
So you're saying it's not art but trash. You're not an art critic dude, you didn't invent art, you have no right to act like your work is superior. Art changes over time, you think people loved abstract art when it started? No, lot's of people like you said it was trash because it wasn't classical. Get over yourself dude.
You said it's trash and that the artists make a mockery out of everyone else who works hard. That's not just an opinion. Saying it's trash is an opinion, saying the artists don't work and that they make everyone look bad is just insulting. You're criticising them, you are acting as if you know everything about art to the extent you can determine that other people's work is garbage. Did I ever say you said you were an art critic? No, I didn't, so you can stop your little rant, get off the internet if you can't handle it.
Alright, Mia. I'm going to do a step by step break down of everything. "You said it's trash" - correct, "That's not just an opinion. Saying it's trash is an opinion," - sorry you contradict yourself directly in the next sentence. "You're criticising them" - correct, "you are acting as if you know everything about art", no I was very much just expressing that I don't value modern art. People can criticize food, but that doesn't mean they think they're the next Gordon Ramsay. "Did I ever say you said you were an art critic?" - which I in fact never accused you of saying, I only said "Did I suggest I was an art critic?" because you had said - "You're not an art critic dude."
Mia, this is the internet, and I'm asking for opinions. I did not ask you to berate me for my opinions. I have very much steered on the subject, modern art. Though I will admit the "Let me Google that for you" was intended to be insulting.
If you can't handle a civil conversation, I shouldn't be held to the standard of being civil with you as well.
That's not what contradict means. I said "that's not just an opinion" not "that's not an opinion" so that part of your little "let me spell it out for you" rant is irrelevant. You are acting like a critic, you are saying people's work is garbage and that they make a mockery out of real artists. I said you are not an art critic to emphasize the fact that you can't just go around trying to discredit other artists because you are not a professional critic, again you are discrediting people simply because you don't appreciate their work when it's really not your place. I'm fine with you not liking their work, but you can't just say people are not real artists or that they are an insult to actual artists. I don't like Mr. Brainwash, but I also don't say he's not an artist or that he makes a mockery out of "real" artists or that he doesn't work hard enough. By the way, it's not Mia, the first part says Mai.
You replied to me with an obvious personal attack to me, even though I had not involved you in my reply, only my opinion on modern art. That is not how a civil debate works.
However, I am losing my interest in this argument because I understand how stubborn we teenagers can be, so I will leave with this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ez-gIt08I
Modern "art" is mostly fraud. Trash art has become a lucrative industry. And with anything that turns into an industry, psychopaths take over and destroys the entire concept.
Most Helpful Opinions