Question about modern art

[someon]

<p>Whatever your opinion about modern art, you have to admit that there are at least some “critics” or, people who are supposedly well qualified in the evaluation and interpretation of the arts (not just visual, but also literary and whatever else there is) that see things that just aren’t there. I don’t know if these examples are representative of what can actually happen or not, but: </p>

<p>[Sokal</a> affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair]Sokal”>Sokal affair - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>[Physics</a> and Physicists: Another “Hoax Paper” Accepted For Publication](<a href=“http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2009/06/another-hoax-paper-accepted-for.html]Physics”>Physics and Physicists: Another "Hoax Paper" Accepted For Publication)</p>

<p>the jordanowich or whatever link from before</p>

<p>and for fun, a take on deconstruction:</p>

<p>[How</a> to Deconstruct Almost Anything](<a href=“http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html]How”>How to Deconstruct Almost Anything)</p>

<p>and I think the most horrible one is:</p>

<p>[Amazon.com:</a> Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time, and Light (P.S.): Leonard Shlain: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Art-Physics-Parallel-Visions-Space/dp/0061227978/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248293486&sr=8-1]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Art-Physics-Parallel-Visions-Space/dp/0061227978/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248293486&sr=8-1)</p>

<p>That there are over 100,000 copies in print is atrocious. That isn’t really concerned too much with modern art, but makes the same sort of tenuous connections between things. In this case, it is demonstrably wrong.</p>

<p>Now, obviously, I don’t think that there is much in modern art. I don’t know if you would think that the fact that I have not taken a course in interpreting modern paintings (though I have had to do a fair share of literary interpretation including faulkner) is a good thing or a bad thing. You might argue that I don’t know what I am talking about, that there is something legitimate in modern art. You might argue that the people who do take the interpretation art courses are predisposed to a flawed mindset concerning modern art (not saying that is is definitely flawed, talking about hypothetically if it were). I have observed that those who are in the field of interpreting art are often too open-minded, but in a strange way. That is, if you assert something (prefaced with “I feel as if”), you far too often get the response “that’s interesting.” If you try to say that some meaning is not there, however, you are more likely to be greeted with some sort of skepticism. Anyway, I realize that this is a fairly cynical view, but perhaps I can seem less one-sided by saying that (I think) I do understand why someone would want to explore literature. I have gotten that nice feeling that comes from making these sorts of connections in novels. I just think that modern art, and criticism of art in general, has taken this sort of mindset to a ridiculous extreme. </p>

<p>To the original question, I think that:</p>

<p>[Disumbrationism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disumbrationism]Disumbrationism”>Disumbrationism - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>provides some insight into your question. Follow some of the external links- it is quite shocking to see the paintings that were so critically acclaimed. They look like they were done by someone who did not know how to paint at all. But why were they so well-received? It looks like there is some hidden cause that is not skill or depth. Perhaps politics. Perhaps foreign-sounding names and authority. I don’t claim to know. But there are reasons besides depth, meaning, and the like.</p>

<p>For this whole post… ehh, I suppose you should take my opinions with a grain of salt. I can assure you that I have, at least, tried to think from the perspective of the modern art critic, to at least understand the motivation for being in that field. I fully acknowledge that I might, in not “getting” the spirit of art, sound like those who don’t get the “spirit” of math/science do to me.</p>

[Alix2012]

<p>

if you think everybody can create “modern art”, then why not try it yourself?

Well like I said, I do love art and I paint and do ceramics. I did some abstract stuff years ago, but I’m mostly into landscapes, still lifes, portraits and interiors. I’m not that artistic, but some of the Studio Art majors in college are amazing, and their work will likely never see the inside of a museum. I think a lot of stuff these Art majors do is better than pieces I’ve seen in museums! I think some of you are misunderstanding my question - I’m not trashing contemporary art, I’m saying I know very little about it so I was just asking a question.

To the original question, I think that:
Disumbrationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
provides some insight into your question.

Gosh, it looks like an acorn with a face and the name is “oblatenart bohnenkopfteller” - damn that is a great name.

I have observed that those who are in the field of interpreting art are often too open-minded, but in a strange way. That is, if you assert something (prefaced with “I feel as if”), you far too often get the response “that’s interesting.” If you try to say that some meaning is not there, however, you are more likely to be greeted with some sort of skepticism. Anyway, I realize that this is a fairly cynical view, but perhaps I can seem less one-sided by saying that (I think) I do understand why someone would want to explore literature. I have gotten that nice feeling that comes from making these sorts of connections in novels. I just think that modern art, and criticism of art in general, has taken this sort of mindset to a ridiculous extreme.

Hmm I kind of got that feeling from taking AP Art way back when - like instead of art for the enjoyment we were over-analyzing it and deciphering every move. It’s like in English class when we read an awesome book but then the teacher sucks all the goodness out of it by analyzing the poor piece to death. Or when we read a poem and and then we have to go back and examine every damn line and beat the poem to death to extract every droplet of meaning. Sometimes a poem is just a poem, for fun. Or sometimes it’s just a long sentence broken up in fragments.</p>

[Lima]

<p>^Perhaps because there is more to life and art than just an aesthetic level of whether it’s pleasurable to you?</p>

<p>For instance, I hate Durer on a purely “like/dislike” level. But the guy had skills, you have to give him that. I also don’t connect with Cindy Sherman, aesthetic-pleaurable-gut reactionly. But I think that the meaning behind her work is so deep and thought out it deserves respect. Ditto for Madame Bovary. I loathed that book, but the symbolism and careful realism must’ve taken INTENSE WORK on Gustave’s part.</p>

<p>At my work (I work for a major theater company in DC), we use the “Liz Lerman critical response method”. It gets the viewer to move beyond a gutteral response to an academic one, and also protects the artist. (Really, it keeps the artist’s feelings from being hurt before they are ready.)</p>

<p>Sorry, OT I know, but I am a MASSIVE fan of formal criticism because it’s like unwrapping a giant puzzle. (Layers of meaning are so fun!)</p>

[silence_kit]

<p>someon, are you actually familiar with “modern art”? Or are you repeating arguments you’ve heard on TV, movies, message boards, etc . . .</p>

[Alix2012]

<p>

^Perhaps because there is more to life and art than just an aesthetic level of whether it’s pleasurable to you?

oh, I don’t think anyone would deny that. But sometimes it’s nice to read a poem and let it be, y’know? or like the poet Billy collins said “But all they want to do is tie the poem to a chair with rope and torture a confession out of it. They begin beating it with a hose to find out what it really means.”

At my work (I work for a major theater company in DC), we use the “Liz Lerman critical response method”. It gets the viewer to move beyond a gutteral response to an academic one, and also protects the artist. (Really, it keeps the artist’s feelings from being hurt before they are ready.) Sorry, OT I know, but I am a MASSIVE fan of formal criticism because it’s like unwrapping a giant puzzle. (Layers of meaning are so fun!) Sorry, OT I know, but I am a MASSIVE fan of formal criticism because it’s like unwrapping a giant puzzle. (Layers of meaning are so fun!)

Well it’s nice of them to spare the poor guy’s feelings. If formal criticism is fun for you, by all means have fun!
It is fun to unwrap giant puzzles…although it’s more fun to unwrap giant presents. </p>

<p>wow, I’ve been typing on this forum a lot lately. i’ll come back in a couple days and the threads from now will have died and there will be new ones. bye!</p>

[Senior0991]

<p>I know a modern artist. She’s not famous or anything (yet), but she’s gotten some pretty good praise and just got a fellowship (or whatever they are called) at a top LAC.</p>

<p>I’ve seen some of her art, and it isn’t something a fifth grader could do. It is quite complex. More than that, though, it is imaginative and has a deeper meaning. My favorite piece of hers was created as follows: she painted a scene of a line of Jewish men all reading their newspapers in a diner on the day that Israel got statehood. She then took a picture of this painting, and somehow punched a hole through one of the man’s newspapers. She then took another picture of the picture with the hole in it, and then painted what was on the second picture. So, it is a painting of a line of Jewish men reading the paper in a diner from the 40s, with a hole in one of the guys newspapers. The theme of it: The Day the News Broke. So, in this work I not only see an aesthetically pleasing painting, but action painting (punching the hole), creativity for idea, and meaning behind the work. That is what I call solid modern art. </p>

<p>I should add, someone else mentioned that many modern artists have a consistent theme throughout their work, well the hole, or other alterations to the paintings, appears in every one of her other paintings.</p>