What is your take on modern art?

For the first time in my life I recently went to a museum and art gallery out of choice and I had a wonder round on my own. The last time I went to an art gallery was when I was like ten and all I wanted was to leave and go to Disney Land on my holiday to France. The museum was not much to my liking other than the history of my city but the paintings were brilliant.

I saw countless paintings some bigger than the wall of my room and many where I got lost in and could look at for hours, the level of detail amazes me, however as I get near the end of the art gallery as we move more into the modern era art seems to have a very big sudden shift and suddenly a few coloured squares on a blank canvas is considered a masterpiece, I saw one piece of art which was just symmetry of triangles mirrored.

I know what most people will say is art is a individual thing and what some see as art others will not etc. But what does everyone think, has art got better? Do these masterpieces of today take more talent than they did a thousand years ago. What is your favourite art period? Who is your favourite painter?

[MIND POWER]

Pathetic.

Marketing is the new art.

It depends on the art.

The purpose of art is to evoke an emotion. If it makes you hate it, then it still worked as art. Now, if you are indifferent to it, then it didn't work at all. And there's plenty of both modern and even "classics" to which I'm indifferent.

As you mentioned, some I could stare at for hours (Jackson Pollack, for instance.) There's one such place like that here in Houston called the Rothko Chapel. It features many of Rothko's black or dark gray panels inside of a building that completely cuts one off from the outside world. It's a place of contemplation, thus the designation as a chapel, and it is perfect for that

A friend, who is past president of a large watercolor society and I have had many discussions on this topic. She is a serious artist and her creations depict real world moments from her point of view. You may have to interpret them somewhat but they are largely understandable as a moment in time.

Abstract art, IMO, requires context to understand. Who was the artist, what were the influences, when were they, what is their relationship to color and form, yada yada.

So for me it takes work to get what someone in that field is doing. That said, a Japanese artist whose abstract work was shown at the Frye Museum in Seattle last month seemed to expose the power and straightforwardness of water lilies that made a much broader statement, and I could understand and appreciate it.

However canvases with a swipe across a field of color, I let others enjoy.

[Squatchit]

I reckon those with a good imagination would appreciate modern art more than those without. And yes, that is a generalised statement. There will be exceptions.

I'm quite fond of Klee and Kandinsky in regards to modern art.

[dream jo]

luv art luv wtre colors or aqrilal but do not luv oil pans i dont dnt mnd oil pastls i dont luv papr masha coz u can mk all soets frm paper masha u cam

[Tobi]

That's really strange dream jo. I was thinking about papier mache today, and wondering how it's done....and if maybe I could make little trinket boxes, to paint and stick rhinestones on....?

Well, in all honestly I'm not into a lot of what constitutes modern art. I'm more of a Pre-Raphaelite, Impressionist, kind of person. Every now and again I see a piece I like but overall it's not my favorite kind of art, particularly when there is a lot of minimalism involved. I used to live in NYC. I loved the Met and visited quite often but one trip to the MOMA was more than enough for me.

That being said I'm now a professional photographer and I am beginning to relate to certain things better now than I did then. I see a lot of stylistically modern work in photography, photographs that are basically just made out of shapes and lines, where the emphasis is on that and there is no particular subject story-wise and I often do like them particularly when the work is in black and white.

I was the same way about dance when I was a kid taking it. I liked the old classical ballets with plots. The work of people like Balanchine and Graham just didn't appeal to me much. As I get older though I find myself more appreciative of their modernistic style. I get what they were trying to do more than I did when I was 15 and studying dance. I still prefer old style ballets, but now I will watch stuff like that too.

I still feel that way about art too. Mostly I like older art, but I do find some modern art interesting and worth studying. I'm very people centric in my own work. I think most of the reason that the older works appeal to me is that I like portraiture so much. I'm a face person. A lot of modern art it's about form, shape, color, line, but not about people quite so much. I always miss that in modern art, the emotion, the faces...

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by Melancholy

.

I know what most people will say is art is a individual thing and what some see as art others will not etc. But what does everyone think, has art got better? Do these masterpieces of today take more talent than they did a thousand years ago.

yes, I believe so .... art is an individual thing, definitely ! And there is enough variety for everyone to enjoy something, if that is their choice. Can't say that art has gotten better or takes more talent than years ago, it is just, shall we say " modernized ".... using different techniques that either weren't available way back when, or weren't even thought of.

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by MIND POWER

Pathetic.

Marketing is the new art.

LOL Tiger !! no appreciation for any art ?