12 ms·

What a great read. I think that we see the same thing in poetry as well -- the inaccessible modernist expiriments with form, while interesting to insiders, is a

What a great read. I think that we see the same thing in poetry as well -- the inaccessible modernist expiriments with form, while interesting to insiders, is at its conclusion an esoteric pursuit. I think that the turn back toward classical forms, towards a broader audience, and largely the turn inward (the self as the primary concern of the work, rather than it's form) really is a wonderful new wave across many genres, and makes for an wonderful time to be a consumer of art.

hestipod 7y ago
I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but I know with age and I hope "maturity" I appreciate many more forms of art. Things I didn't have the life experience or emotional depth to grasp when I was younger can deeply impact me now. An example would be Mark Rothko's paintings. I would have said "pfft anyone can do that...just some stripes or blocks" when I was a kid, and probably did, but have recently rediscovered his work and absolutely love it. Same with a lot of poetry as you mentioned. I really regret not having more openness and ability to grasp these things before. I really wish I had more health and life stability, and the resultant time and means to explore and experience creative things.
- catalogia 7y ago
  It certainly is not true of everybody that appreciation of modern art comes with age. I'd wager the majority of people, young or old, consider it inaccessible or worse.
  - hestipod 7y ago
    I surmised in my case had to do with life experiences and emotional growth allowing me to see things differently, but maybe that's self righteous nonsense. All I know is I can enjoy a lot more art than I used to and I am glad for it.
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    I remember going to the museums on field trips and we kids would all love seeing what would've been the "modern" pieces that were on the tour list (I had some somewhat eccentric teachers in middle school). Even in young adulthood (read: in college) I took many a date to MCA in the summers because, and maybe chalk this up to typical youth rebellion, I liked it. Only recently, because I can travel more now, have I gotten to see more Classical and Renaissance period art in person and, honestly, I feel completely robbed - or like I robbed myself. I look back on some of this stuff that we all looked at as "genius" (and would attempt to recreate in art class as kids with construction paper and elmer's glue) and it's just crap to me now. So I guess I disagree that "modern" art isn't "accessible". It seems that there's been a culture invented around it in order to make it look and feel more sophisticated than it actually is.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      The use of Abstract Expressionism as a deliberate propaganda tool to promote a politicised concept of "individual freedom" is well-documented. If there's nothing of lasting value there, that would be - ironic. I wouldn't go that far, but I also don't think you can recreate it with construction paper and Elmer's glue. As the OP says, a big element in Modernism is breaking (up) with the past, and you can only really do that once. The thing that gets hung on a wall is a snapshot of a process, and in Modernism the process is more important than the snapshot. What hasn't changed is the use of art as a status marker for the rich and powerful. Those glorious Classical and Renaissance pieces were painted for the same reason. In Modernism the-thing-on-the-wall is more of a repository of intellectual, cultural, and historical and commercial associations as a thing to look at for its own sake. The obvious manual labour - the representational brushstrokes in traditional art - were replaced with the intellectual labour of commercial self-justification as a value in itself. Essentially it's a semi-corporate sales exercise - which of course captures the culture around it much better than classical figurative painting would.
    - watwut 7y ago
      We had to go to see many classic drawings and renaissance etc. It was mostly boring to me whole time. It does not have that awesome feel when you are a kid who is not artist and seen a lot of the same already.
- whateveracct 7y ago
  It also helps to see some of these modern artworks in person. Rothkos are huge! And seeing the thickness of the paint on a Pollock really adds to it.
  - hestipod 7y ago
    I would love to see some of his stuff up close. I live in rural nowhere middle Murica so it's not accessible. I have heard it's pretty amazing to see how big they truly are. Nothing is as good as in person. I recall seeing the Mona Lisa in person later in life and being shocked at how small it was, and turning around and seeing how massive The Wedding Feast at Cana was. It completely...sorry for this...reframes your impression of things relative to books and photos. I envy people who live in places with so much culture accessible.
    - dagw 7y ago
      I've often wondered if there wouldn't be value in creating a series of truly world class reproductions of the great pieces of art and distributing them around the world. If you want to experience the great works of classical literature, you can get them from any library in the world. If you want to experience the great works of classical music you can again pick up a CD at your local library, and most mid sized cities in the world have halfway decent symphonic orchestra with a rotating reportoar. If you want to experience the great works of art you have to jet set off to a dozen+ cities around the world.
      - Miraste 7y ago
        In the next few years I expect experiencing great art to become much more accessible with virtual reality recreations, e.g. https://store.steampowered.com/app/515020/The_VR_Museum_of_Fine_Art/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/515020/The_VR_Museum_of_F.... It's not the full experience yet, but it's already much better than a picture on a screen, and it gets closer to reality all the time. Also, sorry, but *repertoire.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > I really regret not having more openness and ability to grasp these things before. Ironic - modern art has such a lack of this same openness, that the classic techniques it despises were nearly lost. It was not enough for modern art to be accepted - classical art had to be driven out from contemporary galleries: The Slade school in London used to be world-famous for turning out fine British draftsmen. A distinguished British painter who taught at the Slade asked me, 'How did you learn how to do animation?' I answered that I was lucky enough to have done a lot of life drawing at art school, so without realizing it I got the feeling for weight which is so vital to animation. Then I said, 'What am I telling you for? You're teaching at the Slade and it's famous for its life drawing and excellent draftsmen.' 'If the students want to do that,' he said, 'then they've got to club together and hire themselves a model and do it in their own home.' At first I thought he was joking - but no! Life drawing as a subject went out years ago. It wasn't even on the curriculum! -- Animator's Survival Kit, page 32. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-OTUJDZcAzLcDhFbVN3TjdwUnc/view https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-OTUJDZcAzLcDhFbVN3TjdwUnc/...
  - pasabagi 7y ago
    As somebody who's done a lot of life drawing, and a lot of classical stuff in general, I see the reason why it's no longer central to the curriculum. Ultimately, drawing is just another tool, just like stonecarving, crochet, or dance, and life-drawing is a practice that is good training for a specific use of that tool - portraiture - that was the economic lifeblood of art until daguerreotypes came on the scene. So really the odd thing is not that they stopped doing life drawing classes. The question is, why did they continue for so long? It would be rather like doing an engineering course where a core competence was the construction and maintenance of steam engines.
    - steve19 7y ago
      Computer Science (usually at least in my experience) both teaches programming and expects proficiency in programming. My friends who did mechanical engineering had to take classes on tool making. Meanwhile nowadays you have metal sculpturers who cannot weld.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- puranjay 7y ago
  I never really understood modern art until I a) saw it in person, and b) saw it in the context of its time. I was at the Hermitage museum in St Petersburg. I'd done museum tour after museum tour in both Moscow and Petersburg. Nearly all of this art was classical/neo-classical or romantic, rococo, etc. By the end of your 1000th neo-classical painting, you get exhausted of the sameness of the realistic style. The themes, colors, sensibilities all appear similar. Then I walked into the modern and post-modern hall and there was a massive Matisse painting on the wall. The bright blue was such a revelation. You see a painting like that after 400 years worth of realistic painting style and it takes your breath away. It was particularly impactful when contrasted against the neoclassical architecture of the museum itself. The worst way to appreciate modern and post modern art is on a computer screen. These things have to be experienced in person. For one, their sheer size can't be captured on screen. A 12' x 10' canvas has a visual impact that's not possible to replicate anywhere. Second, their experimental quality has to be contrasted against the dominant art forms of their time. Anyone can technically paint like Matisse. But they didn't.
  - dagw 7y ago
    I had a very similar experience with Pollock. I'd of course seen his famous drip paintings in books, and never understood what the big deal was. But seeing one in real life completely blew me away. Both the size of it and most importantly the 3D nature of it. The paintings aren't simply 2D images, but rather sculpted 3D surfaces that change as you look at them from different angles.
  - brazzy 7y ago
    > Anyone can technically paint like Matisse. But they didn't. That reminds me (in a rather postmodern way, I suspect) of an interview I recently read with a celebrity whose claim to fame is basically nudity: Anyone can show their boobs. But they don't.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - thedaemon 7y ago
    I don't think the size of any painting can make it better. Especially if it's something a 2 year old can and will paint. As an artist myself, I've always disliked and never understood why people like modernist artworks. Picasso's best work was his early work, before he gave up on painting life. That some people think they get this crap artwork is just hilarious and just goes to show you can hock anything if you pretend it's high minded. And your statement "Anyone can technically paint like Matisse. But they didn't." That's probably because noone wants to paint like a child and wants to be considered a good artist not a joke. Believe me, in 1000 years no one will care about Modernist artwork.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
goto11 7y ago
Klimt, Monet, van Gogh are very popular though, and they are included in the definition of modernism in the article.

hestipod 7y ago

I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but I know with age and I hope "maturity" I appreciate many more forms of art. Things I didn't have the life experience or emotional depth to grasp when I was younger can deeply impact me now. An example would be Mark Rothko's paintings. I would have said "pfft anyone can do that...just some stripes or blocks" when I was a kid, and probably did, but have recently rediscovered his work and absolutely love it. Same with a lot of poetry as you mentioned. I really regret not having more openness and ability to grasp these things before. I really wish I had more health and life stability, and the resultant time and means to explore and experience creative things.

catalogia 7y ago
It certainly is not true of everybody that appreciation of modern art comes with age. I'd wager the majority of people, young or old, consider it inaccessible or worse.
- hestipod 7y ago
  I surmised in my case had to do with life experiences and emotional growth allowing me to see things differently, but maybe that's self righteous nonsense. All I know is I can enjoy a lot more art than I used to and I am glad for it.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  I remember going to the museums on field trips and we kids would all love seeing what would've been the "modern" pieces that were on the tour list (I had some somewhat eccentric teachers in middle school). Even in young adulthood (read: in college) I took many a date to MCA in the summers because, and maybe chalk this up to typical youth rebellion, I liked it. Only recently, because I can travel more now, have I gotten to see more Classical and Renaissance period art in person and, honestly, I feel completely robbed - or like I robbed myself. I look back on some of this stuff that we all looked at as "genius" (and would attempt to recreate in art class as kids with construction paper and elmer's glue) and it's just crap to me now. So I guess I disagree that "modern" art isn't "accessible". It seems that there's been a culture invented around it in order to make it look and feel more sophisticated than it actually is.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    The use of Abstract Expressionism as a deliberate propaganda tool to promote a politicised concept of "individual freedom" is well-documented. If there's nothing of lasting value there, that would be - ironic. I wouldn't go that far, but I also don't think you can recreate it with construction paper and Elmer's glue. As the OP says, a big element in Modernism is breaking (up) with the past, and you can only really do that once. The thing that gets hung on a wall is a snapshot of a process, and in Modernism the process is more important than the snapshot. What hasn't changed is the use of art as a status marker for the rich and powerful. Those glorious Classical and Renaissance pieces were painted for the same reason. In Modernism the-thing-on-the-wall is more of a repository of intellectual, cultural, and historical and commercial associations as a thing to look at for its own sake. The obvious manual labour - the representational brushstrokes in traditional art - were replaced with the intellectual labour of commercial self-justification as a value in itself. Essentially it's a semi-corporate sales exercise - which of course captures the culture around it much better than classical figurative painting would.
  - watwut 7y ago
    We had to go to see many classic drawings and renaissance etc. It was mostly boring to me whole time. It does not have that awesome feel when you are a kid who is not artist and seen a lot of the same already.
whateveracct 7y ago
It also helps to see some of these modern artworks in person. Rothkos are huge! And seeing the thickness of the paint on a Pollock really adds to it.
- hestipod 7y ago
  I would love to see some of his stuff up close. I live in rural nowhere middle Murica so it's not accessible. I have heard it's pretty amazing to see how big they truly are. Nothing is as good as in person. I recall seeing the Mona Lisa in person later in life and being shocked at how small it was, and turning around and seeing how massive The Wedding Feast at Cana was. It completely...sorry for this...reframes your impression of things relative to books and photos. I envy people who live in places with so much culture accessible.
  - dagw 7y ago
    I've often wondered if there wouldn't be value in creating a series of truly world class reproductions of the great pieces of art and distributing them around the world. If you want to experience the great works of classical literature, you can get them from any library in the world. If you want to experience the great works of classical music you can again pick up a CD at your local library, and most mid sized cities in the world have halfway decent symphonic orchestra with a rotating reportoar. If you want to experience the great works of art you have to jet set off to a dozen+ cities around the world.
    - Miraste 7y ago
      In the next few years I expect experiencing great art to become much more accessible with virtual reality recreations, e.g. https://store.steampowered.com/app/515020/The_VR_Museum_of_Fine_Art/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/515020/The_VR_Museum_of_F.... It's not the full experience yet, but it's already much better than a picture on a screen, and it gets closer to reality all the time. Also, sorry, but *repertoire.
deogeo 7y ago
> I really regret not having more openness and ability to grasp these things before. Ironic - modern art has such a lack of this same openness, that the classic techniques it despises were nearly lost. It was not enough for modern art to be accepted - classical art had to be driven out from contemporary galleries: The Slade school in London used to be world-famous for turning out fine British draftsmen. A distinguished British painter who taught at the Slade asked me, 'How did you learn how to do animation?' I answered that I was lucky enough to have done a lot of life drawing at art school, so without realizing it I got the feeling for weight which is so vital to animation. Then I said, 'What am I telling you for? You're teaching at the Slade and it's famous for its life drawing and excellent draftsmen.' 'If the students want to do that,' he said, 'then they've got to club together and hire themselves a model and do it in their own home.' At first I thought he was joking - but no! Life drawing as a subject went out years ago. It wasn't even on the curriculum! -- Animator's Survival Kit, page 32. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-OTUJDZcAzLcDhFbVN3TjdwUnc/view https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-OTUJDZcAzLcDhFbVN3TjdwUnc/...
- pasabagi 7y ago
  As somebody who's done a lot of life drawing, and a lot of classical stuff in general, I see the reason why it's no longer central to the curriculum. Ultimately, drawing is just another tool, just like stonecarving, crochet, or dance, and life-drawing is a practice that is good training for a specific use of that tool - portraiture - that was the economic lifeblood of art until daguerreotypes came on the scene. So really the odd thing is not that they stopped doing life drawing classes. The question is, why did they continue for so long? It would be rather like doing an engineering course where a core competence was the construction and maintenance of steam engines.
  - steve19 7y ago
    Computer Science (usually at least in my experience) both teaches programming and expects proficiency in programming. My friends who did mechanical engineering had to take classes on tool making. Meanwhile nowadays you have metal sculpturers who cannot weld.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
puranjay 7y ago
I never really understood modern art until I a) saw it in person, and b) saw it in the context of its time. I was at the Hermitage museum in St Petersburg. I'd done museum tour after museum tour in both Moscow and Petersburg. Nearly all of this art was classical/neo-classical or romantic, rococo, etc. By the end of your 1000th neo-classical painting, you get exhausted of the sameness of the realistic style. The themes, colors, sensibilities all appear similar. Then I walked into the modern and post-modern hall and there was a massive Matisse painting on the wall. The bright blue was such a revelation. You see a painting like that after 400 years worth of realistic painting style and it takes your breath away. It was particularly impactful when contrasted against the neoclassical architecture of the museum itself. The worst way to appreciate modern and post modern art is on a computer screen. These things have to be experienced in person. For one, their sheer size can't be captured on screen. A 12' x 10' canvas has a visual impact that's not possible to replicate anywhere. Second, their experimental quality has to be contrasted against the dominant art forms of their time. Anyone can technically paint like Matisse. But they didn't.
- dagw 7y ago
  I had a very similar experience with Pollock. I'd of course seen his famous drip paintings in books, and never understood what the big deal was. But seeing one in real life completely blew me away. Both the size of it and most importantly the 3D nature of it. The paintings aren't simply 2D images, but rather sculpted 3D surfaces that change as you look at them from different angles.
- brazzy 7y ago
  > Anyone can technically paint like Matisse. But they didn't. That reminds me (in a rather postmodern way, I suspect) of an interview I recently read with a celebrity whose claim to fame is basically nudity: Anyone can show their boobs. But they don't.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- thedaemon 7y ago
  I don't think the size of any painting can make it better. Especially if it's something a 2 year old can and will paint. As an artist myself, I've always disliked and never understood why people like modernist artworks. Picasso's best work was his early work, before he gave up on painting life. That some people think they get this crap artwork is just hilarious and just goes to show you can hock anything if you pretend it's high minded. And your statement "Anyone can technically paint like Matisse. But they didn't." That's probably because noone wants to paint like a child and wants to be considered a good artist not a joke. Believe me, in 1000 years no one will care about Modernist artwork.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

goto11 7y ago

Klimt, Monet, van Gogh are very popular though, and they are included in the definition of modernism in the article.