3 ms·
I wouldn't call Guernica modern art, as there's certainly not much doubt as to which end goes up.
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoArt 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?