4 ms·

I don’t and definitely never understand “modern art“. Am I blind? Is there something wrong with me?

by rq1 7y ago

growlist 7y ago
God forbid any artist get recognition for painting beautiful pictures that are popular with the general public. Where would that end!? Joking aside it's the same with architecture. Horrific demoralising modernist/post-modern abortions that are forced on the general public against their wishes, who, when they are asked, say they prefer traditional architecture. Speculate away as to why this hideous crap is forced on us by metropolitan trendies.
- lqet 7y ago
  You might be interested in the Dom-Römer-Project in Frankfurt [0], where they re-build a major part of the old town center, using reconstructions or houses build in a "traditional" style. There was an extremely ugly and unfair discussion between the advocates of the project and modernist architects, which basically ended in the modernists accusing the former of facism and populism - which is completely absurd. This is the building they demolished for the project: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Technisches-Rathaus-Frankfurt_2007_LWS0780.jpg/1920px-Technisches-Rathaus-Frankfurt_2007_LWS0780.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Te... It is still lauded by some as a masterpiece, which either means that I have zero architectural understanding, or that they are using different metrics to measure architectural quality. The Dom-Römer-Project was and is a huge success. For me, the lesson is that if you want to avoid architectural controversies outside the world of renowned architects (meaning if you want to general population to like a building), build traditional. It's as simple as that. Another thing I really like about the Dom-Römer-Project was the enthusiasm of the people who build it. It makes a huge difference if you are a carpenter and you are just inserting pre-made doors into a modern building, or if you have to actually build a classic timber frame [1], which you might only heard of during your apprenticeship. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dom-R%C3%B6mer_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dom-R%C3%B6mer_Project [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Haus-Zur-Goldenen-Waage-2018-Ffm-830-833.jpg/800px-Haus-Zur-Goldenen-Waage-2018-Ffm-830-833.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Ha...
  - rwnspace 7y ago
    Architecture is a sub-culture just like anything else. There's plenty of software we love that is buried under a hideous UI, because we understand how the construction and operation of our beloved is unique in concept, function or influence. Lots of aesthetics is to do with prediction and surprise, and if you don't have the 'perceptual training' you won't be able to make much sense of the art or architecture which defies your expectations. IANAA but I imagine the "Technisches Rathaus" building is supposed to be a bit like what's supposed to go on inside a technical academy - scientific reductionism or abstraction. The design exposes the 'idea' of the components of the building (the steel poles, obvious floor layout, bringing up the 'foundations' to ground level) and abstracts away the typically visceral particulars (receding the windows, using only design-relevant adornment). I think there are plenty of interesting buildings that look absolutely disgusting in context, but which I'd probably enjoy and be able to 'see' properly if they were grouped together in their own little town somewhere, because I'm not in a mode where I expect to see traditional architecture. At the same time, if I never see those buildings, how am I to know what novel aesthetics I'm missing out on?
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    That first building does look ugly to me but I'm not sure what the point of building a pastiche of the past is either. Presumable they used modern standards and materials internally. It reminds me of the estate my parents live on with mock Tudor windows and beams. It's just as hideous as your first image. It is possible to build attractive and liveable yet modern buildings.
    - growlist 7y ago
      As opposed to a pastiche of the present...
itronitron 7y ago
There is nothing wrong with you, you just have no stake in propping up its value. There was an artist in the '90's that did a short questionnaire asking people their preferences for certain types of art. The artist then created one painting representing what everyone wanted in a painting, it was a cabin in the woods. They also painted one representing what people didn't like, it was a geometric modern-style painting.
kristiandupont 7y ago
I've been in relationships with two artists who were both very opinionated on this topic and we had long (and pleasant) discussions. I am not sure they would agree with me but this is the take that I have: Art "works" for you if it makes you feel something. That's all. It can be joy, melancholy, curiosity or it might even be repulsive to you. Do you like The Big Lebowski? I remember seeing this question on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/f5hvt/what_do_so_many_people_find_enjoyable_in_the_big/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/f5hvt/what_do_so... -- the person wants to understand it. But to me like many, I am sure, it's clear that there is not really something deep to understand. Either you enjoy it as a funny movie, or it does nothing for you. The type of art that most of us appreciate without trying to "understand" is music. It can evoke a spectrum of feelings and a lot of it just doesn't. Most people don't have issues with this the way they do with "modern art". So if you see an abstract painting and you feel nothing, probably just let it go. Don't try and decipher it.
- martopix 7y ago
  I think this is precisely the issue. A lot of contemporary art not only "means" nothing to a lot of people, but also "feels" like nothing to a lot of people. The problem I have with that kind of art is not it being non-beautiful or non-interpretable. It's just that it doesn't make me feel anything. Music does. Photography does. Cinema does. Some art certainly does, but a lot of it doesn't.
  - itronitron 7y ago
    I think this is why 'Street Art' is gaining momentum, it's accessible, part of people's everyday environment, and doesn't need to be mediated by a collector, curator, or museum.
    - Melting_Harps 7y ago
      > I think this is why 'Street Art' is gaining momentum That's hard thing to say, I mean graffiti has been a cultural ingrained thing in popular media since at least the 80s. Its competitive subculture took to 'bombing' as turf wars and one-uping for street cred since I was a kid in the 90s. And then you look at places like Berlin, London or Bristol all with DEEP underground music cultures and its hard to envision a time without that street art. With that said, I wish I had spent more time in Modena, I only had 1/2 a day off when I lived there, as one of the things I really enjoyed doing with my gf at the time was go look for these type of murals in the back alleys and abandoned buildings. Here are some examples of the those that I saw while out for aperativo and a stroll around town https://duckduckgo.com/?q=modena+street+art&t=lm&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=modena+street+art&t=lm&iax=images&... It's a lot sketchier during the night, which is normally when we were off, but it was like an Easter Egg hunt (on a bike) I used to do for first time guests in my hometown where large Surf or Ocean based murals were commissioned by local artists and sanctioned by the municipality and local business owners, they served as cultural icons all throughout out town--many of them were actually not easily visible unless you actually went looking for them. > satoshi Funny, you should mention that; several Bitcoin street artists have actually been paid by observers in Bitcoin for their art throughout the years, here is just one example: https://bitcoinist.com/street-artistincorporating-bitcoin-qr-code-artwork/ https://bitcoinist.com/street-artistincorporating-bitcoin-qr... I'm sure this is how a Banksy should actually be validated, rather than being a 'social status' vanity piece hanging in someones living room.
04091948 7y ago
I think it's based on two factors: - The emperors' new clothes: liking it makes you look sophisticated, disliking it exposes you to mockery (as someone inferior that doesn't get it). it also allows people to feel that they are better than the out-group ( and being evil while feeling good about is appealing to humans). These social dynamics need not be conscious decisions. - These social dynamics can be exploited by third parties to suit their own ideology. Propaganda is powerful.and it was used as a CIA weapon: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-... - financial incentives: if I pay a higher price for an art piece. my collection from the same artist will appreciate in value. In addition, it can be used as a mean for money laundering and for tunneling money for illegal purposes. therefore the value of a piece need not match it's artistic merit.
jmkd 7y ago
There's nothing wrong with you at all! As a precursor another couple of useful misconceptions to discard: 4. Art must be beautiful, or crafted, or at least 'good'. 5. Art has to have meaning. It's useful to look at the early part of the 20th Century to understand modern art. A good painting to start this conversation is The Treachery of Images by Magritte[1] from 1929. On one level it is a simple, acceptable painting of a pipe, with the handwritten label in the painting "This is not a pipe". What is that label doing? It is in some ways telling the truth, this is not a pipe, it is a painting of a pipe. Already we have opened a useful void between object and reality. It is also creating a tension in the painting that was not there before. We have an obvious pipe, and we have a counterclaim immediately following. But both the painting of the pipe and the label disclaiming its pipeness are 'true' in that they were put there by the artist and they are unambiguous in their own right. So the pairing creates an ambiguity that is difficult to resolve. What does the label mean? Do I understand it properly? Is one true and not the other, if so which? What is the sum total of them both? How am I meant to 'read' this, whatever is meant by 'reading'. Many questions emerge, inhabiting a place outside the painting, in the mind of the viewer. Are these questions part of the artwork? Where does the artwork start and stop? Is my reaction part of it? Why couldn't it just say "This is a pipe"? Is this treachery of some kind? (hence the title of the work). Once you have seen that this is something a little different to a 'normal' painting, that it in some way occupies a broader space than simply the dimensions of the physical object, then the door of modern art is ajar and cannot be closed again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
- CerebralCerb 7y ago
  "4. Art must be beautiful, or crafted, or at least 'good'. 5. Art has to have meaning." By whose authority can these conceptions be labelled as misconceptions? If art is neither beautiful nor crafted or good in any way, and also has no meaning, it can be argued that it also has no intrinsic value. In that case it is merely an object that is meant to inspire pompous rambling, but so can any object if put on display for the right observers, like in an art exhibit.
  - coldtea 7y ago
pgcj_poster 7y ago
Could you be more specific? "Modern art" can mean almost anything, going as far back as Impressionists in the 1850s.
coldtea 7y ago
No, just uncultured. Not as in uneducated, but as in not introduced (which should best happen at an early age) to certain cultural environment, ideas, and tastes. It's like someone only liking McDonalds who can't understand why people would ever eat Chinese food. Or someone liking pop who can't understand why someone will listen to jazz or classical. It's a cultural thing, and it's limiting themselves, even though nominally they don't appear to / have to suffer anything for this self-limiting (it's a free country, anybody can like whatever they want, but it's still some kind of loss). That is, if you speak about all kinds of modern art, from 1900 to 2020 say. Because sure, there are lots of crap within it, and easy for-the-money, by-the-book boring works, but also lots of wonderful works in there, so to dismiss it all is problematic.
brazzy 7y ago
No, it's probably just that you see art as something to casually consume which you expect to provide some form of enjoyment to you. And there's nothing wrong with that. But if you invest some time into studying art, its history and what has been done in the past centuries as an ever increasing share of mankind's time has been freed from satisfying basic needs, you soon realize that "it's all been done before". Doing anything that hasn't alreadly been done, and done better, by some prodigy 200 years ago, is almost impossible. At least if you work in a traditional medium like paint or theater. So if you're an artist who wants to do something truly original, you can either switch to a technologically new medium (and realize that quite often you're still riffing off something existing), or you can start to question the "needs to be realistic, pretty or otherwise enjoyable" requirements. So what modern and postmodern art does is, very roughly, to drop those requirements and instead ask questions like "what other crazy things can we do with this medium?" or "What other emotions can we provoke in the audience, how and why?" As the audience, it's best approached like a puzzle.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

I don’t and definitely never understand “modern art“. Am I blind? Is there something wrong with me?

by rq1 7y ago

I don’t and definitely never understand “modern art“. Am I blind? Is there something wrong with me?

God forbid any artist get recognition for painting beautiful pictures that are popular with the general public. Where would that end!? Joking aside it's the same with architecture. Horrific demoralising modernist/post-modern abortions that are forced on the general public against their wishes, who, when they are asked, say they prefer traditional architecture. Speculate away as to why this hideous crap is forced on us by metropolitan trendies.

lqet 7y ago
You might be interested in the Dom-Römer-Project in Frankfurt [0], where they re-build a major part of the old town center, using reconstructions or houses build in a "traditional" style. There was an extremely ugly and unfair discussion between the advocates of the project and modernist architects, which basically ended in the modernists accusing the former of facism and populism - which is completely absurd. This is the building they demolished for the project: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Technisches-Rathaus-Frankfurt_2007_LWS0780.jpg/1920px-Technisches-Rathaus-Frankfurt_2007_LWS0780.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Te... It is still lauded by some as a masterpiece, which either means that I have zero architectural understanding, or that they are using different metrics to measure architectural quality. The Dom-Römer-Project was and is a huge success. For me, the lesson is that if you want to avoid architectural controversies outside the world of renowned architects (meaning if you want to general population to like a building), build traditional. It's as simple as that. Another thing I really like about the Dom-Römer-Project was the enthusiasm of the people who build it. It makes a huge difference if you are a carpenter and you are just inserting pre-made doors into a modern building, or if you have to actually build a classic timber frame [1], which you might only heard of during your apprenticeship. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dom-R%C3%B6mer_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dom-R%C3%B6mer_Project [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Haus-Zur-Goldenen-Waage-2018-Ffm-830-833.jpg/800px-Haus-Zur-Goldenen-Waage-2018-Ffm-830-833.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Ha...
- rwnspace 7y ago
  Architecture is a sub-culture just like anything else. There's plenty of software we love that is buried under a hideous UI, because we understand how the construction and operation of our beloved is unique in concept, function or influence. Lots of aesthetics is to do with prediction and surprise, and if you don't have the 'perceptual training' you won't be able to make much sense of the art or architecture which defies your expectations. IANAA but I imagine the "Technisches Rathaus" building is supposed to be a bit like what's supposed to go on inside a technical academy - scientific reductionism or abstraction. The design exposes the 'idea' of the components of the building (the steel poles, obvious floor layout, bringing up the 'foundations' to ground level) and abstracts away the typically visceral particulars (receding the windows, using only design-relevant adornment). I think there are plenty of interesting buildings that look absolutely disgusting in context, but which I'd probably enjoy and be able to 'see' properly if they were grouped together in their own little town somewhere, because I'm not in a mode where I expect to see traditional architecture. At the same time, if I never see those buildings, how am I to know what novel aesthetics I'm missing out on?
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  That first building does look ugly to me but I'm not sure what the point of building a pastiche of the past is either. Presumable they used modern standards and materials internally. It reminds me of the estate my parents live on with mock Tudor windows and beams. It's just as hideous as your first image. It is possible to build attractive and liveable yet modern buildings.
  - growlist 7y ago
    As opposed to a pastiche of the present...

itronitron 7y ago

There is nothing wrong with you, you just have no stake in propping up its value. There was an artist in the '90's that did a short questionnaire asking people their preferences for certain types of art. The artist then created one painting representing what everyone wanted in a painting, it was a cabin in the woods. They also painted one representing what people didn't like, it was a geometric modern-style painting.

kristiandupont 7y ago

I've been in relationships with two artists who were both very opinionated on this topic and we had long (and pleasant) discussions. I am not sure they would agree with me but this is the take that I have: Art "works" for you if it makes you feel something. That's all. It can be joy, melancholy, curiosity or it might even be repulsive to you. Do you like The Big Lebowski? I remember seeing this question on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/f5hvt/what_do_so_many_people_find_enjoyable_in_the_big/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/f5hvt/what_do_so... -- the person wants to understand it. But to me like many, I am sure, it's clear that there is not really something deep to understand. Either you enjoy it as a funny movie, or it does nothing for you. The type of art that most of us appreciate without trying to "understand" is music. It can evoke a spectrum of feelings and a lot of it just doesn't. Most people don't have issues with this the way they do with "modern art". So if you see an abstract painting and you feel nothing, probably just let it go. Don't try and decipher it.

martopix 7y ago
I think this is precisely the issue. A lot of contemporary art not only "means" nothing to a lot of people, but also "feels" like nothing to a lot of people. The problem I have with that kind of art is not it being non-beautiful or non-interpretable. It's just that it doesn't make me feel anything. Music does. Photography does. Cinema does. Some art certainly does, but a lot of it doesn't.
- itronitron 7y ago
  I think this is why 'Street Art' is gaining momentum, it's accessible, part of people's everyday environment, and doesn't need to be mediated by a collector, curator, or museum.
  - Melting_Harps 7y ago
    > I think this is why 'Street Art' is gaining momentum That's hard thing to say, I mean graffiti has been a cultural ingrained thing in popular media since at least the 80s. Its competitive subculture took to 'bombing' as turf wars and one-uping for street cred since I was a kid in the 90s. And then you look at places like Berlin, London or Bristol all with DEEP underground music cultures and its hard to envision a time without that street art. With that said, I wish I had spent more time in Modena, I only had 1/2 a day off when I lived there, as one of the things I really enjoyed doing with my gf at the time was go look for these type of murals in the back alleys and abandoned buildings. Here are some examples of the those that I saw while out for aperativo and a stroll around town https://duckduckgo.com/?q=modena+street+art&t=lm&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=modena+street+art&t=lm&iax=images&... It's a lot sketchier during the night, which is normally when we were off, but it was like an Easter Egg hunt (on a bike) I used to do for first time guests in my hometown where large Surf or Ocean based murals were commissioned by local artists and sanctioned by the municipality and local business owners, they served as cultural icons all throughout out town--many of them were actually not easily visible unless you actually went looking for them. > satoshi Funny, you should mention that; several Bitcoin street artists have actually been paid by observers in Bitcoin for their art throughout the years, here is just one example: https://bitcoinist.com/street-artistincorporating-bitcoin-qr-code-artwork/ https://bitcoinist.com/street-artistincorporating-bitcoin-qr... I'm sure this is how a Banksy should actually be validated, rather than being a 'social status' vanity piece hanging in someones living room.

04091948 7y ago

I think it's based on two factors: - The emperors' new clothes: liking it makes you look sophisticated, disliking it exposes you to mockery (as someone inferior that doesn't get it). it also allows people to feel that they are better than the out-group ( and being evil while feeling good about is appealing to humans). These social dynamics need not be conscious decisions. - These social dynamics can be exploited by third parties to suit their own ideology. Propaganda is powerful.and it was used as a CIA weapon: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-... - financial incentives: if I pay a higher price for an art piece. my collection from the same artist will appreciate in value. In addition, it can be used as a mean for money laundering and for tunneling money for illegal purposes. therefore the value of a piece need not match it's artistic merit.

jmkd 7y ago

There's nothing wrong with you at all! As a precursor another couple of useful misconceptions to discard: 4. Art must be beautiful, or crafted, or at least 'good'. 5. Art has to have meaning. It's useful to look at the early part of the 20th Century to understand modern art. A good painting to start this conversation is The Treachery of Images by Magritte[1] from 1929. On one level it is a simple, acceptable painting of a pipe, with the handwritten label in the painting "This is not a pipe". What is that label doing? It is in some ways telling the truth, this is not a pipe, it is a painting of a pipe. Already we have opened a useful void between object and reality. It is also creating a tension in the painting that was not there before. We have an obvious pipe, and we have a counterclaim immediately following. But both the painting of the pipe and the label disclaiming its pipeness are 'true' in that they were put there by the artist and they are unambiguous in their own right. So the pairing creates an ambiguity that is difficult to resolve. What does the label mean? Do I understand it properly? Is one true and not the other, if so which? What is the sum total of them both? How am I meant to 'read' this, whatever is meant by 'reading'. Many questions emerge, inhabiting a place outside the painting, in the mind of the viewer. Are these questions part of the artwork? Where does the artwork start and stop? Is my reaction part of it? Why couldn't it just say "This is a pipe"? Is this treachery of some kind? (hence the title of the work). Once you have seen that this is something a little different to a 'normal' painting, that it in some way occupies a broader space than simply the dimensions of the physical object, then the door of modern art is ajar and cannot be closed again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

CerebralCerb 7y ago
"4. Art must be beautiful, or crafted, or at least 'good'. 5. Art has to have meaning." By whose authority can these conceptions be labelled as misconceptions? If art is neither beautiful nor crafted or good in any way, and also has no meaning, it can be argued that it also has no intrinsic value. In that case it is merely an object that is meant to inspire pompous rambling, but so can any object if put on display for the right observers, like in an art exhibit.
- coldtea 7y ago

pgcj_poster 7y ago

Could you be more specific? "Modern art" can mean almost anything, going as far back as Impressionists in the 1850s.

coldtea 7y ago

No, just uncultured. Not as in uneducated, but as in not introduced (which should best happen at an early age) to certain cultural environment, ideas, and tastes. It's like someone only liking McDonalds who can't understand why people would ever eat Chinese food. Or someone liking pop who can't understand why someone will listen to jazz or classical. It's a cultural thing, and it's limiting themselves, even though nominally they don't appear to / have to suffer anything for this self-limiting (it's a free country, anybody can like whatever they want, but it's still some kind of loss). That is, if you speak about all kinds of modern art, from 1900 to 2020 say. Because sure, there are lots of crap within it, and easy for-the-money, by-the-book boring works, but also lots of wonderful works in there, so to dismiss it all is problematic.

brazzy 7y ago

No, it's probably just that you see art as something to casually consume which you expect to provide some form of enjoyment to you. And there's nothing wrong with that. But if you invest some time into studying art, its history and what has been done in the past centuries as an ever increasing share of mankind's time has been freed from satisfying basic needs, you soon realize that "it's all been done before". Doing anything that hasn't alreadly been done, and done better, by some prodigy 200 years ago, is almost impossible. At least if you work in a traditional medium like paint or theater. So if you're an artist who wants to do something truly original, you can either switch to a technologically new medium (and realize that quite often you're still riffing off something existing), or you can start to question the "needs to be realistic, pretty or otherwise enjoyable" requirements. So what modern and postmodern art does is, very roughly, to drop those requirements and instead ask questions like "what other crazy things can we do with this medium?" or "What other emotions can we provoke in the audience, how and why?" As the audience, it's best approached like a puzzle.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]