Modern Art: Talent or Trash?

[Loony BoB]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Archive/Search/2011/4/13/1302702860034/Joan-Miro-Tate-Modern-007.jpg

Do you think some artists are making a mockery of what can be defined as 'art'?

[blackmage_nuke]

I quite like Voice of Fire but I dont think the 'artists' for these types of paintings deserve to get any money from it, or at least no more money than a decorator who could do this with a paint roller

That said it's still art to me

[Jinx]

Personally, I think it's trash. But it's not something I'm huge passionate about either. I recognize that it's my opinion and feeling, and it doesn't negate what the artist was feeling when they made that art, or if they had a specific message in their work. I just don't think I'm edgy enough to "get it".

[Loony BoB]

Personally, I think it's trash. But it's not something I'm huge passionate about either. I recognize that it's my opinion and feeling, and it doesn't negate what the artist was feeling when they made that art, or if they had a specific message in their work. I just don't think I'm edgy enough to "get it".
This pretty much sums up how I feel about it, too. Thanks for saving me trying to put my opinion into words! :D

[Jiro]

Plenty of modern art is shit, but then I think plenty of old art is shit too. I would kill for a painting of a potato right now though, BoB; you put me in the mood. That'd be a real gem.

[Psychotic]

I don't think I can apply a blanket statement to all modern art. Like all creations, I do like some but I also find a lot of it unappealing too.

[Madonna]

I think all art is a very personal experience, and sharing it and saying, "This is good art, you best like it," versus, "I like this, I hope you like it," is a terrible viewpoint. It can be a wonderful thing to share a connection with others via an object or situation, and that is what makes any art great; it is a chance to connect to another human being.

What is "modern" art to you, Loony BoB? The term you are using may not be as accurate as you think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art)

[Loony BoB]

What is "modern" art to you, Loony BoB? The term you are using may not be as accurate as you think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art)
Yeah, I did look that up, but just couldn't find a better term short of "Turnip Prize material". :p

[Ayen]

It depends on the painting? I don't look at enough art in general to have much of an opinion on the matter, but if we're going off the example picture in the first post I'm kind of leaning to the side of trash. It's blank canvases of a different color, what am I looking for?

[Sephex]

This whole time I thought blind monkeys were behind modern art!

[EtcherSketcher]

Just for those who don't know, Art which is being made now is known as contemporary art. Modern art is work which was created roughly between the 1860s and 1970. :p

Edit: I see Madonna beat me to it.


Anyway, for what it's worth, all that blank canvas stuff is bollox for the most part, unless you're willing to buy into the artists concept, which again can often be some made up claptrap.

[Shorty]

A good majority of modern art is trash.

[Jiro]

I am curious as to how many people have been to a gallery before, though! I hope you are basing your conclusions on some evidence :monster:

[Shorty]

I am curious as to how many people have been to a gallery before, though! I hope you are basing your conclusions on some evidence :monster:

I spent five years going to art walks, art festivals and galleries in downtown Tempe, AZ with my boyfriend and his family for modern and corporate art. Trash, all of it, just like those giant uselessly colored canvases above!

[Parker]

Contemporary art is often talent but it seems it is easier for trash to get into good galleries than in more traditional genres. It's all personal opinion, of course. Some people connect with Hirst's formaldehyde stuff or Emin's bed, others think it's pretentious troute. It's probably the same for all forms of art, but the divide seems greater (to me) than in "regular" art.

[EtcherSketcher]

I am curious as to how many people have been to a gallery before, though! I hope you are basing your conclusions on some evidence :monster:
I go probably once a week to an exhibition opening, I live in Limerick, which is currently the European city of Culture, Eva international started this week, lots of good and lots of obscure crap stuff. :D
Richard Mosse opened here a few weeks ago, awesome work! ^^

[Ayen]

I've never been to a gallery, I've been to a museum once or twice and that's it. That's why I'm not voting in the poll.

[blackmage_nuke]

What is "modern" art to you, Loony BoB? The term you are using may not be as accurate as you think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art)
Yeah, I did look that up, but just couldn't find a better term short of "Turnip Prize material". :p

Minimalist Abstract

[Miss Mae]

The question on the thread is different to the question in the poll. I'm not going to vote that all Modern art is trash because 'Modern art' spans a long period of time and many artistic styles, and many modern artists are unbelievably talented. I have visited galleries of modern art on many occasions and I rarely find myself thinking the works there are making a mockery of art.

If by modern you don't mean 'Modern' but rather 'contemporary', I still disagree because there is obviously recently created art that requires talent and recently created art that is trash. This applies to all time periods. There has never been a time in history where all art created is fantastic because not all humans are artistically talented.

If by modern you don't mean 'Modern' but rather 'somebody painted a canvas red' like in the photo you've posted, I think it depends. In most cases these works don't seem to have a point, but I've seen a canvas that looks blank that actually had a face painted in texture so that it could only been seen from the right angle to represent how people facing mental illness can be invisible to most people and the message that spoke was incredible. I've also seen a canvas that was entirely one colour but was created using thousands and thousands of little dots, making a comment on the relationship between process and result. Sometimes the talent is not in the finished product, but in the ideas that were used to reach it.

I don't think anyone would argue that painting a canvas red for no reason and calling it art is a talent, but I definitely don't consider all, or even most, Modern art to be trash.

[black orb]

>>> The world of fine arts is nothing but hype these days, you just need to make a good name into the scene and your art will sell itself. It doesnt matter if you have talent or not.
Same goes for the world of music and fashion..:luca:

[EtcherSketcher]

>>> The world of fine arts is nothing but hype these days, you just need to make a good name into the scene and your art will sell itself. It doesnt matter if you have talent or not.
Same goes for the world of music and fashion..:luca:
You make it sound so easy :P

[black orb]

You make it sound so easy :P
>>> Never said it was easy, make a name is probably not easy.
But the discussion here is about if they really have talent or not, if their art is really good or is just trash.. Common people like us who are not experienced art critics or anything can tell that is something wrong when you compare an orange canvas with two dots with a Vincent van Gogh painting..:luca:

[Mirage]

It's art, but it sure is boring art. I wouldn't pay for it, for sure. I guess I prefer things that display a certain level of skill, not just someone's inner emotions ejaculated onto a canvas.

Maybe they have creativity, but I don't think they have a lot of talent, except a talent for making money on things that require little skill. That's actually a talent I wish I had, though.

[Madame Adequate]

not just someone's inner emotions ejaculated onto a canvas.

Not to single you out but ITT people who complain about art being art.

[Mirage]

Oh, I am fine with emotions being ejaculated onto a canvas, but it's not gonna impress me if it's not skillfully ejaculated :p

[Night Fury]

I like Modern Art, I think it is talent, definitely.

It annoys me when people dismiss modern art with the excuse 'but I could have done that!' - but you didn't.

Some modern art makes me angry and I think that's great - that's the point. Some of it is absolutely mindblowing though. I can't remember the name of the artist but I went to a wonderfully bizarre art show last year at the baltic and some of his pieces made me completely irate but some were just fantastic.

[Mirage]

"I could have done that" because I have the skill required. "I didn't do it" because I don't have the creativity (or desire) to do it.

Sounds perfectly fine to me.

I guess it all depends on what you are looking for in a piece of art. I more often than not am looking to be impressed by a display of skill, combined with a decent portion of creativity.

[Quindiana Jones]

From my extremely limited experience, I would say that most of what is considered contemporary art is an expression of creative talent over the typical artistic talent of more traditional art styles. And, in my opinion, creative talent is often shit.

[Fynn]

What constitutes art and what big a part of it is talent is such a huge topic debated in academia to this day that I feel saying "I like it" or "it's dumb" in a forum is utterly pointless, as I doubt all of us have sufficient background to make a serious artistic debate here. I know I don't.

[Loony BoB]

I find one of the greatest things about art is that you don't need to have any "sufficient background" whatsoever in order to offer a perfectly justified opinion. Art is there to be enjoyed and appreciated - you either enjoy/appreciate it or you don't. When it comes to art, everyone is a critic and no amount of education one critic might have in the field of art is suddenly going to make someone else feel all that differently.

[Jinx]

I think everyone is able to judge what is and isn't art even if they don't have the "learning" backing them up. Because, like I said in my original post, what is and isn't art is different for everyone else. I don't like "modern" art (and I've learned something new from this thread about the term!), but I'm willing to accept that there was probably a lot of thought or emotion that went into creating it, and it's just not something I personally connect with.

[Pumpkin]

I think it depends on individual works for me personally. I enjoy art that makes me feel. Good or bad. The pic on the first page doesn't make me feel anything. Not anger or annoyance or irritation. Not happiness or wonder. It's just a "oh look, colours. Are those dots? Alrighty." There is no emotion there other than maybe apathy. And not because the work gives me a feeling of apathy, just because there is lack of feeling.

Does this make it trash? I don't know. It isn't art to me, but it might evoke an emotion in someone else. I'm sure there is stuff that gives me feels that someone else thinks is trash. I guess this is why they say art is subjective.

[Fynn]

Context is everything. The artistic world is full of it's own machinations and understanding what each movement represents, what its ideologies are is incredibly crucial when it comes to understanding a work of art. It's far more than just looking pretty. You're right that you can assess whether you like it or not, but not whether it's good or trash. And that's a huge difference.

And that is all I shall contribute. I already regret looking at this thread. This reeks of EoEO.

[Loony BoB]

Pshaw! EoEO is way different. In here, we can post smileys and be silly and not get reported for it. Dare I say it, we could even have fun!

I dunno. I've grown up with an artist mum and have read a bunch of art books because of it (I was a big reader growing up and Mum had alllll kinds of art books). I just don't feel it's made me view art any differently. If anything, it has made me appreciate the amount of work that goes into a specific piece, and I have a lot of appreciation for things because of that. But contemporary art just isn't my bag at all.

Trash is a strong word, but I purposefully chose strong words when making the poll because I wanted it to be divisive. ;D

[Quindiana Jones]

I think I'll stick to my base evaluations, since trying to understand art in any great depth apparently makes one a whiny gobtroute. :up:

[Jinx]

Sure you can. You don't have to have a degree in English and be a writer or editor to read a book and know it's trash. Same with art. You may not understand all of the nuances or the movements it comes from...but if you have to know all of that to know if it's art or not, doesn't that defeat the purpose? Art is supposed to get its own message across without needing an explanation beforehand.

And then, it still comes down to personal preference. What I consider trash in a book or a movie may be the greatest thing someone else has seen or read. I may not agree with their opinion, but it's still valid.

[Old Manus]

The whole thing has a distinct Emperor's New Clothes feel about it, in my opinion.

[Pete for President]

I consider things to be art when they make you think about something in life or provoke an emotion. But different people get triggered by different things, so that's why some people can consider something art and others don't.

As for the picture in the first post, it doesn't work for me. But maybe someone out there discovered how intense a good green can be. Works either way.

I'm pretty sure I'll stick to my landscapes for a while :cool:

[Shauna]

I think my main thoughts on the matter have been covered. I have not come to enjoy any of the "modern art" I've happened upon in my time - and I have been to exhibitions in the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow (multiple times) and the Tate Modern Gallery in London. There has never been anything I have connected with - some things are cool to look at, but other things are a mirror put on a wall with a plaque beside it describing how YOU ARE THE ART.

If someone enjoyed all that stuff I turned my nose up at, well, good for them - glad they had a good time with it all. I don't need a degree in art to let me not like something. Sure having that deeper knowledge might cause you to have a deeper appreciation for the art - but appreciating something is not the same as thinking that it's good.

[kotora]

It doesn't really matter what the smallfolk think about different forms of art, since it's certain elite groups of intellectuals and critics and auctioneers that make the calls and determine the value of art works and what is art and what is kitsch at the moment.

[Quindiana Jones]

Having to explain an artistic piece for it to be truly appreciated is like having to explain a joke. It's either a shit joke, or you're telling it to the wrong audience. There's no point complaining that these toddlers don't get your joke ("C'mon! It's because tau is two pi! IT'S SO SIMPLE WHYAREN'TYOULAUGHINGYOULITTLEBRATS."), and there's no point complaining when someone doesn't appreciate a piece of art. :)

[Madonna]

It is not for you, Quin. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ImFrTq3hNg)

[Pop Alexandra]

I've seen both in modern art, though generally speaking I'd say it's talent.
_________________________________
Alexandra
https://artystransit.ca/en/museum/crating (https://artystransit.ca/en/museum/crating)

[Mr Gashtacular]

modern art rules for so many reasons:

sometimes its actually very good, and truly beautiful

sometimes its actually very bad, and truly ugly

sometimes its bodily fluids, like piss and cum

sometimes its directly money laundering, which is cool

sometimes its indirectly money laundering, which is cooler

sometimes its getting a billionaire to spend tons of money on something they dont understand, which rocks

most people who dislike modern art only like furry art and manga

people want to feel smart and thats fine but sometimes their only way to do it is to look at a tower of TVs each displaying a different tree and say soemthing like "this isn't art, its barely engineering!!" to their friends - this rules the most because everyone wins