4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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.
- graemeo 7y agoWhat a sad and myopic take on art, especially coming from a self-proclaimed artist. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but why make such bitter sounding absolutist statements about what other people create or enjoy? There's enough negativity in this world already. Additionally, the fact that you're judging the relative worth of a piece of art based on it lasting for 1000 years is pretty sad, in my opinion. What is wrong with art being created for a specific time and place? Life is ephemeral, and there is beauty in that.
- puranjay 7y agoThe irony is that the 1000 year old 10th century art we do care about today looks like it was drawn by a child.
- thedaemon 7y agoYou make very good points and I'd have to agree with you if this was anything other than "modern art". Modern art is not art in the sense it's not a highly crafted work. It's minimum effort. The time frame was given to acknowledge the fact that we think this is "art". In the future we will know this is junk and not art. I really dislike most pop art, but at least it's art. A big yellow square canvas in no way should constitute artwork.
- puranjay 7y ago