<p>You know how some “modern art” is basically a canvas with some scribbles and splotches? Well I was just wondering how exactly modern art museums choose what to include in their collections…like obviously if I took a blank canvas and made some scribbles, the Museum of Modern Art would reject my masterpiece, but everytime I go to MoMA I see stuff like that, surrounded by artsy hipsters talking about how deep and meaningful it is. Maybe some of you Art majors could help me out with this? I’m not talking about modern art like Picasso, I mean like this type: <a href=“http://www.modernartwork.net/painting9-modern-art-work.jpg[/url]”>http://www.modernartwork.net/painting9-modern-art-work.jpg</a>. How come MoMA won’t take a child’s fingerpainted masterpieces but they proudly display some adult’s fingerpainted masterpieces? 
In one of my classes, we had to visit a bunch of art museums and write papers on this stuff so I just made up BS but I don’t get it.</p>
![http://www.modernartwork.net/painting9-modern-art-work.jpg[/url]](http://www.modernartwork.net/painting9-modern-art-work.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>A lot of modern art is not chosen for its skill, but for its meaning. Meaning is arbitrary and a human construction (well at least that is what postmodernism is obsessed with). So yeah a lot of these art works tend to be subjective, but I think that is kind of the point.</p>
<p>I took AP Art History this year and I still don’t understand it (granted, I wasn’t exactly conscious most of the time).</p>
<p>most of the time it is scribbles, but the art displayed is the people who first thought of doing the scribbles (and everyone else just copies them)</p>
<p>Yeah I get what you mean Lolly, but my question is why are certain abstract works chosen over others? Do the museum curators just look at it and say “hmm this scribble has more meaning than that scribble so let’s hang it up and charge people to look?” </p>
<p>i suppose it’s hard to say, because it’s so subjective. I do enjoy looking at some of this stuff, but I don’t get why it’s chosen over the other stuff that most people could make. Like what makes one person’s series of blobs and scribbles better than another’s blobs and scribbles?</p>
<p>I like painting and my portraits and landscapes are pretty realistic, but I get they would never be in a museum. With abstract art it’s different, it’s not based on skill - so what is it based on?</p>
<p>Just scribbles? That link you posted shows a masterpiece, for God’s sake! These “scribbles” form two things: eyes and infiniti signs. The eyes are peering right into the infiniti signs, symbolizing how humanity’s introspection stares into not only nothingness, but substance, at the same time. The colors add a heightened emotion to the piece, possibly hinting at the fact that our visions of events, history, and thoery are tainted by our own desires. And the four or five white circles/triangles? Those represent the woes of society, as it were. The people who lack said introspection. These white areas are also painted onto a lower level of the visual representation of the canvas, a metaphor for just how far these select few have sunk. </p>
<p>^To be honest, I was sort of BS-ing there (having some “fun” late at night). I want to know the answer to your question too. There is some modern art where, upon looking at it closely, I can see some intricacies that I never realized. But then there is modern art with just scribbles. Or a blank canvas with one line accross it. Or random shapes. What makes those things so special?</p>
<p>I think this doesn’t just apply to art. Sometimes I read a super postmodern novel, and it just makes zero sense to me. However, there is some college professor somewhere who can defend it to the death. Postmodern novels/movies/art sometimes become obsessed with the ineffable, and it’s annoying for the audience.</p>
<p>[Quiz:</a> True art, or a fake?](<a href=“http://reverent.org/true_art_or_fake_art.html]Quiz:”>Quiz: True art, or a fake?)</p>
<p>I find the bottom quiz quite hard, even aftr having read a full book by faulkner:</p>
<p>[Quiz:</a> Machine translation or Faulkner?](<a href=“http://reverent.org/sounds_like_faulkner.html]Quiz:”>Quiz: Machine translation or Faulkner?)</p>
<p>Honestly, I don’t see anything in his writing, much less anything that deserves a nobel.</p>
<p>67%.</p>
<p>Honestly, I got the fakes right because I knew which could be easily done in photoshop/paint.</p>
<p>And GammaGrozza, are you an English/some sort of humanities major. That was some really good BSing.</p>
<p>Faulkner is writing from the point of view of a ■■■■■■, modern artists are not drawing from the point of view of a child. Huge difference.</p>
<p>^I got a 67% too. I kind of did the same strategy, plus I recognized one or two paintings. On the Faulkner I got a 30 something, which is sad because I read the Sound and the Fury.</p>
<p>And no, my Faulkner score pretty much indicates that I’m not an english major. I’ve never even taken a formal art class (just that elementary school stuff). I tried to imitate how some of my past teachers and classmates have overanalyzed paintings/pictures/text. The classic example is when there are like two S’s in a longish sentence and a student will be like “There seems to be a repetition of the letter s. That could only represent how the narrator views this particular subject as somewhat sinister.” Thanks for the compliment, though :).</p>
<p>I got 75% of the art one (I would have gotten 1 more right but I second guessed myself… darn.) Which is weird cause I’m the opposite of an art major. I have seen a couple of the paintings before so I guess it’s sort of unfair.</p>
<p>agree completely with OP. I remember seeing a piece or art that sold for millions of dollars at auction. It was a 9’ x 9’ black square of steel. Thats it. Just something you could make for about $200 at Home Depot. And I still don’t understand how that Pollack is the most expensive painting ever sold at auction. I had to watch a documentary on him for school once…seeing him stand over a canvas and just fling the brush at it made me want to join that career path, seeing the payoff.</p>
<p>^ Haha I know what you mean…we’ll I’d rather do neuro research than draw squiggles, but do you know how much medical research could be paid for by drawing squiggles?! Dammit I should be a scientist by day, artist by night to fund myself…:p</p>
<p>None of you are answering my (unanswerable?) question: What qualities are abstract art judged by that qualify some works to be hung in museums and celebrated while others are merely papers with lines and shapes? Pollack paintings sell big because he’s well known, but at one point he wasn’t and people bought his stuff, and 21st century artists continue to get recognition for abstract stuff - Why is it if I draw a blue triangle next to a yellow splotch it’s crap, but if someone else does it it’ll a million-dollar masterpiece? </p>
<p>I feel like I’m missing some big secret. I’m not coming to any conclusions yet, I’m just wondering why. Hopefully some Art major will come along and explain. I enjoy art as a hobby, but not in an academic sense (AP Art sucked the joy out of painting).</p>
<p>Pollack can’t paint worth crap…or at the very least, doesn’t choose to paint worth crap.</p>
<p>His most expensive painting ever is a pure piece of garbage.</p>
<p>I don’t really care if there is any deeper meaning, because the bottomline is that painting is butt ugly, and whoever bought it is an idiot for buying it for more than a $1. Might be worth $5-10 dollars to get the frame it was sold in. But you would want to throw away that painting once you get the frame.</p>
<p>^I like pollack’s work, aesthetically. Quite a lot, actually. I also like his idea of “action painting”</p>
<p>Modern art is hard to explain, because there are so many reasons for it. Some:</p>
<p><em>The meaning behind the work (often conceived before the work)
*Pushing the boundaries of “what is art”, which often requires being the first to do something
*Aesthetic pleasantness-- ie, I can make an abstract splatter piece, but I prefer how Pollack’s look to how mine looks
*Pushing the idea that anyone can do art
*Drawing on ideas from history and child development, ie stick figures= cave drawings
*A strong emotional release (See German Expressionism) that is conveyed through such things as brush strokes and bright colors
*Being an a</em>*hole
*The action of painting, like Pollack’s stuff or fingerpainting, as it is conveyed in the work.
*Bringing work and life together (like those big metal cubes that you HAVE to walk around to get where you’re going and thus become a part of the art
*ETC</p>
<p>Most modern/pomo/contemporary art that is worth money is worth money because of its historical significance, like if it was one of the first pieces to do any of the above. Not because of its value as an art piece out of context.
Your question is interesting, though, and a lot of “what it takes to become famous” is really bull**** and a**hole-ery. But that doesn’t mean that what you do is crap; you’re just not famous for it. Any artistic expression is as valid as any other, it just might not be worth as much money, because people suck.</p>
<p>Modern artists who have achieved notoriety have not only honed their craft (beautifully wrought dribbles by Pollack), but they have committed huge amounts of time to exploring variations, improvements, and support for their art. They usually lived in poverty for years and years to pursue their artistic vision, instead of heading to I-banking.</p>
<p>While theoretically, many people could produce an attractive abstract canvas, galleries and curators would not even consider exhibiting the painting until a huge body of work was produced, with consistent quality and a unique vision. Thus the elite art-market forces dictate who is successful, who will attain high prices, and be granted important museum exhibitions. </p>
<p>If Pollack had painted in a barn in North Dakota, instead of Long Island NY, he never would have been deemed a master, because the NY critics would not have been there to crown him with approval.</p>
<p>
I’m from Long Island and live in NYC, I’m living in poverty because I make $8/hr, and I do some paintings in my spare time…dammit why aren’t the NY critics crowning me with approval?! Arghh 
That’s a good point about the elite art market dictating everything though…sucks for those poor artsy fellas in North Dakota. </p>
<p>@Lima - ooh that’s a lot of interesting reasons…I suppose the art critics basically have to see who’s pushing the boundaries and coming up with new stuff. I noticed some of the cubes you have to walk around in MoMA but I didn’t know those were art - I thought they were seats! I did see people taking pics but sometimes it’s hard to tell if something is art or just a bench. </p>
<p>I have to say though, my AP Art class in high school created lots of works that were more aesthetically pleasing than stuff I’ve seen in museums.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.uoregon.edu/~msiuo/taylor/art/Boston.pdf[/url]”>http://www.uoregon.edu/~msiuo/taylor/art/Boston.pdf</a></p>
<p>Pretty interesting article that this thread reminded me of.</p>
<p>Modern (abstract) art has become more about words and writing than the art itself.</p>
<p>Art shouldn’t need explanation; viewing it alone should convey its meaning.</p>