3 ms·

Theory: modern art was promoted by the wealthy art world because it eliminates the ability of the artist to engage in potentially threatening or disturbing soci

Theory: modern art was promoted by the wealthy art world because it eliminates the ability of the artist to engage in potentially threatening or disturbing social or political commentary. Case example (relevant to our current world) - Henri Rousseau's War (1984 - oops, 1894), depicting a girl/woman riding a horse across a field of bodies with a sword in one hand and a torch in the other. There's nothing signifying nobility and glory; it's mostly madness and lunacy. It has historical significance, as wars had ravaged Europe for centuries and the 20th century, with industrialized warfare on a new scale, was about to break new records for battlefield savagery and violence against civilian populations. https://www.henrirousseau.net/war.jsp https://www.henrirousseau.net/war.jsp What would be the 'modern art' version of 'War'?

denton-scratch 4y ago
Guernica springs to mind.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  I wouldn't call Guernica modern art, as there's certainly not much doubt as to which end goes up.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    "Modern Art" does not mean "abstract art" or even "today's art." Picasso is absolutely one of the main names in the modern art movement. "Abstract art" is also not the same as "contemporary art" and is much more associated with the middle of the 20th century than art produced in the last several decades.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      I agree. But some people disagree rather vigourously; they believe that "modern" means the same as "contemporary". I believe that modern art is a series of movements that began mid-19thC, and ended in about 1960, to be replaced initially by pop art, and later by "contemporary art", like Unmade Bed and Pile Of Bricks. Even art described as "abstract" isn't always abstract. For example, I think Jack The Dripper's paintings are often figurative, although they're normally referred to as abstract.
      - dehrmann 4y ago
        I get a little annoyed by the audacity of an art movement to declare themselves the "modern" art movement. Clearly this is short-sighted and will only cause confusion in 50 years when something else comes along.
        UncleMeat 4y ago
        Art movements tend not to be named by the people making the art. Instead they are usually named by artists, art historians, curators, and critics with the power of hindsight.
        denton-scratch 4y ago
        ...and art dealers. But it's not just "modern". How arrogant is it to call yourself "futurist"? (and the futurists did explicitly choose that name). Is the term "dada" little more than a sharp elbow in the ribs of fancy-named art movements?
explorigin 4y ago
Modern art was promoted by the CIA. Don't take my word for it: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20161004-was-modern-art-...
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Or more specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Paid_the_Piper%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Paid_the_Piper%3F
munchler 4y ago
1984 is modern. That painting is from 1894.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  Thanks, fixed
aredox 4y ago
Lissitzky's "Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge"?[1] You miss the fact that despite the fact painters were very politically active before WW2, it made zero difference to the horrors that happened afterwards (and many artists, such as the futurists, were even complicit, or, like the Russian avant-garde, got purged). Also, photography killed realism in painting. Painting turned its eye inwards, trying to express inner feelings, rather than realistic things. (We also have a biased view because we only remember masterpieces from older times. For one Henri Rousseau, there were thousands of dull portraits of patrons and bland nature mortes) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_the_Whites_with_the_Red_Wedge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_the_Whites_with_the_Red...
pessimizer 4y ago
> Theory: modern art was promoted by the wealthy [...] because it eliminates the ability of the artist to engage in potentially threatening or disturbing social or political commentary. At the least, abstract expression was promoted in Europe in order to fight communism. It was "freer" than socialist realism (Stalin felt the same way about art as Hitler), and as you said, has no content. edit: abstract expression is literally purely authoritarian art. Its value fully lies in the arbitrary statements that authorities make about it. I'd love to see abstract expressionist art fans tested on written art critiques: all they would have to do is read the critique, and guess whether the person who wrote it had ever seen the piece being critiqued. No chance it would be more than a coinflip.

denton-scratch 4y ago

Guernica springs to mind.

photochemsyn 4y ago
I wouldn't call Guernica modern art, as there's certainly not much doubt as to which end goes up.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  "Modern Art" does not mean "abstract art" or even "today's art." Picasso is absolutely one of the main names in the modern art movement. "Abstract art" is also not the same as "contemporary art" and is much more associated with the middle of the 20th century than art produced in the last several decades.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    I agree. But some people disagree rather vigourously; they believe that "modern" means the same as "contemporary". I believe that modern art is a series of movements that began mid-19thC, and ended in about 1960, to be replaced initially by pop art, and later by "contemporary art", like Unmade Bed and Pile Of Bricks. Even art described as "abstract" isn't always abstract. For example, I think Jack The Dripper's paintings are often figurative, although they're normally referred to as abstract.
    - dehrmann 4y ago
      I get a little annoyed by the audacity of an art movement to declare themselves the "modern" art movement. Clearly this is short-sighted and will only cause confusion in 50 years when something else comes along.
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        Art movements tend not to be named by the people making the art. Instead they are usually named by artists, art historians, curators, and critics with the power of hindsight.
        denton-scratch 4y ago
        ...and art dealers. But it's not just "modern". How arrogant is it to call yourself "futurist"? (and the futurists did explicitly choose that name). Is the term "dada" little more than a sharp elbow in the ribs of fancy-named art movements?

explorigin 4y ago

Modern art was promoted by the CIA. Don't take my word for it: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20161004-was-modern-art-...

pessimizer 4y ago
Or more specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Paid_the_Piper%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Paid_the_Piper%3F

munchler 4y ago

1984 is modern. That painting is from 1894.

photochemsyn 4y ago
Thanks, fixed

aredox 4y ago

Lissitzky's "Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge"?[1] You miss the fact that despite the fact painters were very politically active before WW2, it made zero difference to the horrors that happened afterwards (and many artists, such as the futurists, were even complicit, or, like the Russian avant-garde, got purged). Also, photography killed realism in painting. Painting turned its eye inwards, trying to express inner feelings, rather than realistic things. (We also have a biased view because we only remember masterpieces from older times. For one Henri Rousseau, there were thousands of dull portraits of patrons and bland nature mortes) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_the_Whites_with_the_Red_Wedge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_the_Whites_with_the_Red...

pessimizer 4y ago

> Theory: modern art was promoted by the wealthy [...] because it eliminates the ability of the artist to engage in potentially threatening or disturbing social or political commentary. At the least, abstract expression was promoted in Europe in order to fight communism. It was "freer" than socialist realism (Stalin felt the same way about art as Hitler), and as you said, has no content. edit: abstract expression is literally purely authoritarian art. Its value fully lies in the arbitrary statements that authorities make about it. I'd love to see abstract expressionist art fans tested on written art critiques: all they would have to do is read the critique, and guess whether the person who wrote it had ever seen the piece being critiqued. No chance it would be more than a coinflip.