Modern Art

[rusmeister]

Also, if "modern" art refers to art from a defined period, then would current art be called "post modern" art?

No, I'd mean by it "the art of our time", stretching back roughly 100 years, its modernity (characteristic of being temporary) increasing as it approaches the present. Ultimately, philosophy- that is, world view, drives art. If people have an insane or skewed view of the world, their art will be insane or skewed.

 

[inconsequential]

Rus, you mentioned degradation wrt Impressionism. I get what you are saying and couldn't help but think of things you have written about the changes in language that blur meanings. It looks to be the same principle at work or am I missing something?

 

[truefiction1]

Ultimately, philosophy- that is, world view, drives art. If people have an insane or skewed view of the world, their art will be insane or skewed.

"No wonder that historically art and psychosis have had such an intimate relationship, that the road to creativity passes so close to the madhouse and often detours or ends there." -- Becker

 

[Photini]

Also, if "modern" art refers to art from a defined period, then would current art be called "post modern" art?

Some are calling it "post-modern" art. But ultimately it is future generations that will "define" the period of art we are currently in. It is generally accepted that the "modern art" period ended around 1970.

 

[Photini]

I hope that my own position isn't seen as so simplistic as all that.

I would neither support "an academy of experts" nor the formation of hasty judgements.

I would attempt to say that Impressionism, for example, has some very complex works that took a good deal of skill to produce.

Nevertheless, I think they represent a degradation from the realism that came before, never mind medieval art. The chief degradation, to my mind, is philosophical, and a test which Impressionism (to take it as an example of a better modern art) demonstrates this in is its elimination of lines, which is really an elimination of definitions. Everything becomes pantheistically wedded to everything else, and like the very best lies, it is still recognizably close to truth. The fuzziness of the picture of the impression, which is already a replacement of truth with a subjective impression, reflects the fuzziness of modern thought, which increasingly fudges definitions and understandings.

So the result can still contain beauty, and perhaps even truth, though the truth becomes doubtful, which can make the impression itself a false one. Impressionism does not remove us so far from clarity as cubism and other, more degraded forms.

If I were to try to put it into one sentence, I would say that in general, modern art promotes subjectivism, the general denial of objective truth that we all ought to recognize. Truth and beauty are NOT merely subjective, and art that does not communicate truth or beauty is not art, and if it speaks in a private language known only to the artist, then the failure to understand is not in us, but in the thing that fails the test of art.

Yours is a position that I can respect, Rus, because it is clear that you have put thought into what you are saying. You are not merely dismissing anything with a wave of the hand simply because you don't "like" it.

I largely disagree with you though, and most artists can & do explain the "language" of their work. It is a shame when people dismiss something as "trash" simply because they wish to look only at things that are unchallenging and "beautiful" (which I do believe is highly subjective).

 

[Dorothea]

I love some modern art, and then there is some that I don't get. Sometimes after you actually take the time to learn about the artist and what they were attempting to do, then you at least gain an appreciation for their work. I really think it is unfortunate for people to just dismiss it all as "garbage". Some of the Cubist work blows my mind (i.e. Georges Braque, The Portuguese). I love Impressionism too. I stood in front of Monet's Water Lilies triptych this summer and it took my breath away.

And FWIW, the "modernist" art movement extended from the 1860s to about 1970.

I guess I never considered Monet "modern art."

Modern art, imo, is scribbles and abstract shapes describing some scene one can make head nor tails of.

 

[Photini]

I guess I never considered Monet "modern art."

Modern art, imo, is scribbles and abstract shapes describing some scene one can make head nor tails of.

Modern art entails a wide range of different types of art. Abstract art and minimalist art is certainly a part of that, but so is Impressionism, Cubism, Symbolism, Fauvism, and many, many others.

 

[MariaRegina]

Monet's art is awesome.

He has had a tremendous influence which you can see in Quilter's shows.
Some quilts are absolute masterpieces ... pieces sewn together much like Monet used brush strokes.
Has anyone attended a quilting show recently?

 

[Dorothea]

Modern art entails a wide range of different types of art. Abstract art and minimalist art is certainly a part of that, but so is Impressionism, Cubism, Symbolism, Fauvism, and many, many others.

Well, I'm no expert, for sure, on all the different types of art. I just know I don't like abstract art. I don't know what cubism or Fauvism is. I do like Monet.

I tend to like the art that I saw at the Louvre in Paris and on the 5th story of the Colorado Art Museum - realism paintings...I don't know if that's what they're called, but I think so. Here's a link to realism art:

http://www.huntfor.com/absoluteig/samples/1.jpg

Realism - Realism Art

 

[rusmeister]

Yours is a position that I can respect, Rus, because it is clear that you have put thought into what you are saying. You are not merely dismissing anything with a wave of the hand simply because you don't "like" it.

I largely disagree with you though, and most artists can & do explain the "language" of their work. It is a shame when people dismiss something as "trash" simply because they wish to look only at things that are unchallenging and "beautiful" (which I do believe is highly subjective).

Well, I've put less than 2% the thought into it than Chesterton did. As I said, his higher education was specifically art school, so I think it's much more worth considering his thoughts. Any thoughts on the few that I posted? I deliberately picked short statements that make what I hope are clear points.

The angle I think most worth considering Is the philosophical one - when subjectivism came into vogue, and nihilists were taken seriously - this is when we see the rise of movements to present everything as it is not.

When I was a Russian language student, I spent a semester in Moscow (that was the semester I got married), and our conversation instructor used the history of Russian art as a major topic and issued us all books. I fell in love with Russian art the, particularly the period of realism - from Briullov to Repin (who is simply Russia's Rembrandt imo), and though there was plenty of good stuff before that period (such as Rublev), what I saw afterward was a clear downward spiral, as Vrubel, Serebryakova (who I think particularly talented) and Shagall produced stuff that simply couldn't match up in terms of effort, beauty, clarity. Oh sure, beauty there was, still, but in comparing over time I could see a line of progression, so that by the time you hit the Soviet period it just gets downright depressing, with only a few remarkable works contrasting the general tendencies - precisely because they bucked the modern trends and "regressed" back to realism, though the talent was not as great.

The main thing is that artistic changes don't happen in a vacuum. There is a general atmosphere, a spirit of the age, which influences the art of an age, and our time is a time of unbelief, just as the Renaissance coincided with a resurgence of belief in the West. Ours is an age of pluralism, of a general abolishment of standards, and modern education has replaced classical education, and so schools can only teach "schools of thought", and do not school in the kind of discipline that produced holistic artists who were philosophical as well as artists. Rublev was great because his vision was guided by Truth. To the extent that truth is abandoned or rejected art must degrade, and the visions more and more insane, until we praise black squares and spattered colors across a canvass, and none are left to cry that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[TheVarangian]

Yours is a position that I can respect, Rus, because it is clear that you have put thought into what you are saying. You are not merely dismissing anything with a wave of the hand simply because you don't "like" it.

I largely disagree with you though, and most artists can & do explain the "language" of their work. It is a shame when people dismiss something as "trash" simply because they wish to look only at things that are unchallenging and "beautiful" (which I do believe is highly subjective).

All the intellectual pretentiousness in the world can't hide the fact that deconstructivist artists demonstrate an appalling lack of technical skill. I can't decide whether or not they simply lack talent or are cynically pandering to the cocooned world of art critics and buyers who long ago lost touch with reality. Look up Disumbrationist in google.

 

[Dorothea]

Well, I've put less than 2% the thought into it than Chesterton did. As I said, his higher education was specifically art school, so I think it's much more worth considering his thoughts. Any thoughts on the few that I posted? I deliberately picked short statements that make what I hope are clear points.

The angle I think most worth considering Is the philosophical one - when subjectivism came into vogue, and nihilists were taken seriously - this is when we see the rise of movements to present everything as it is not.

When I was a Russian language student, I spent a semester in Moscow (that was the semester I got married), and our conversation instructor used the history of Russian art as a major topic and issued us all books. I fell in love with Russian art the, particularly the period of realism - from Briullov to Repin (who is simply Russia's Rembrandt imo), and though there was plenty of good stuff before that period (such as Rublev), what I saw afterward was a clear downward spiral, as Vrubel, Serebryakova (who I think particularly talented) and Shagall produced stuff that simply couldn't match up in terms of effort, beauty, clarity. Oh sure, beauty there was, still, but in comparing over time I could see a line of progression, so that by the time you hit the Soviet period it just gets downright depressing, with only a few remarkable works contrasting the general tendencies - precisely because they bucked the modern trends and "regressed" back to realism, though the talent was not as great.

The main thing is that artistic changes don't happen in a vacuum. There is a general atmosphere, a spirit of the age, which influences the art of an age, and our time is a time of unbelief, just as the Renaissance coincided with a resurgence of belief in the West. Ours is an age of pluralism, of a general abolishment of standards, and modern education has replaced classical education, and so schools can only teach "schools of thought", and do not school in the kind of discipline that produced holistic artists who were philosophical as well as artists. Rublev was great because his vision was guided by Truth. To the extent that truth is abandoned or rejected art must degrade, and the visions more and more insane, until we praise black squares and spattered colors across a canvass, and none are left to cry that the emperor has no clothes.

I don't know how true this is, but looking at the info below the information provided shows sources, but I remembered this when you brought up what you said. Number 23 in the communist manifesto:

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

For the full list (which really isn't a stretch and has already happened in this country long ago), here's the link:

Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

 

[Mariya116]

Okay, so the point of this thread is for a bunch of holier-than-thou folks with little to no knowledge of art history to get together and dismiss a whole century of art as "degenerate" or (oh, horror!) "Communist"? Okay, have fun.

 

[gracefullamb]

Okay, so the point of this thread is for a bunch of holier-than-thou folks with little to no knowledge of art history to get together and dismiss a whole century of art as "degenerate" or (oh, horror!) "Communist"? Okay, have fun.

Pot meet kettle...

 

[Sidheil]

Some thoughts for your consideration on modern art:

- "Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere." - ILN, 5/5/28

- "The decay of society is praised by artists as the decay of a corpse is praised by worms." - Shaw, 1909

- "The artistic temperament is a disease that afflicts amateurs." - Chapter 16, Heretics, 1905

- "Savages and modern artists are alike strangely driven to create something uglier than themselves. But the artists find it harder." - ILN, 11/25/05

- "By a curious confusion, many modern critics have passed from the proposition that a masterpiece may be unpopular to the other proposition that unless it is unpopular it cannot be a masterpiece." - On Detective Novels, Generally Speaking

- "And all over the world, the old literature, the popular literature, is the same. It consists of very dignified sorrow and very undignified fun. Its sad tales are of broken hearts; its happy tales are of broken heads." - Charles Dickens

- "The aim of good prose words is to mean what they say. The aim of good poetical words is to mean what they do not say." - Daily News, 4-22-05

This is how GK Chesterton writes about everything. Generally thinking much deeper than we do. If that's not a good reason to discover him, that you can take any topic and find stuff like this, that is completely relevant today, then I don't know what is.

You seem to be dying for someone to engage in Chesterton's thoughts here, and I hope you don't find me too presumptuous should I attempt. Oh, and I'm not Orthodox, so if I say anything not kosher here (irony fully intended), just let me know.

Obvious observations first, it would seem he's not a fan of modern art. A few of the quotes stuck out to me though. For example:

By a curious confusion, many modern critics have passed from the proposition that a masterpiece may be unpopular to the other proposition that unless it is unpopular it cannot be a masterpiece." - On Detective Novels, Generally Speaking

This one I find interesting for several reasons, but must notably because the subject is not the artist, but the critic. And there seems to be a contradiction. If a critic truly believed that a necessary quality for a masterpiece is that it its unpopular, then it would seem the highest compliment he could pay it would be to rate it poorly. An odd reaction to a masterpiece! The other option is that the critic is not actually reviewing the art, but responding to how others view it. "It's unpopular? A masterpiece!" This is not much more rational, but the contradiction is less evident, so I believe this second scenario to be closer to the truth, if Chesterton had a valid insight. I'm assuming he did, since I know next to nothing about art. Anyway, if this sort of indirect review is indicative on how we view the works of those around us, then it really is a beneficial insight. What makes something good or bad, beautiful or ugly, true or false is not because of what others think, but because the object under consideration possesses these attributes. Final thought: the desire to be authentic in your thoughts, and dedicated to truth regardless of what others say is a good thing. But to believe you must always be against the grain in order to be correct is a gross error. And I think this is really what Chesterton was driving at.

Thanks for the quotes! Sorry for only getting to the point at the end.

 

[Azureknight 773]

Well... I don't contribute to articles... But I do like to send links from the site to people and watch them spend 3+ hours just because they decided to take a look.

I see. I on the otherhand do not intend to have them do such a spending there.

 

[rusmeister]

Rus, you mentioned degradation wrt Impressionism. I get what you are saying and couldn't help but think of things you have written about the changes in language that blur meanings. It looks to be the same principle at work or am I missing something?

Yes. They are both determined by the philosophy (world view) of the people promoting the changes.
The rule would naturally be degradation and not improvement. As we are Fallen, the tenedency to want to be our own gods would support changes toward godlessness, not away from it. Expression in language, art, historical views, interpretations of science, will all tend to prefer the one that approves our Fallen desires.

 

[Photini]

All the intellectual pretentiousness in the world can't hide the fact that deconstructivist artists demonstrate an appalling lack of technical skill. I can't decide whether or not they simply lack talent or are cynically pandering to the cocooned world of art critics and buyers who long ago lost touch with reality. Look up Disumbrationist in google.

Google some of Picasso's early work.

 

[Photini]

Well, I've put less than 2% the thought into it than Chesterton did. As I said, his higher education was specifically art school, so I think it's much more worth considering his thoughts. Any thoughts on the few that I posted? I deliberately picked short statements that make what I hope are clear points.

The angle I think most worth considering Is the philosophical one - when subjectivism came into vogue, and nihilists were taken seriously - this is when we see the rise of movements to present everything as it is not.

When I was a Russian language student, I spent a semester in Moscow (that was the semester I got married), and our conversation instructor used the history of Russian art as a major topic and issued us all books. I fell in love with Russian art the, particularly the period of realism - from Briullov to Repin (who is simply Russia's Rembrandt imo), and though there was plenty of good stuff before that period (such as Rublev), what I saw afterward was a clear downward spiral, as Vrubel, Serebryakova (who I think particularly talented) and Shagall produced stuff that simply couldn't match up in terms of effort, beauty, clarity. Oh sure, beauty there was, still, but in comparing over time I could see a line of progression, so that by the time you hit the Soviet period it just gets downright depressing, with only a few remarkable works contrasting the general tendencies - precisely because they bucked the modern trends and "regressed" back to realism, though the talent was not as great.

The main thing is that artistic changes don't happen in a vacuum. There is a general atmosphere, a spirit of the age, which influences the art of an age, and our time is a time of unbelief, just as the Renaissance coincided with a resurgence of belief in the West. Ours is an age of pluralism, of a general abolishment of standards, and modern education has replaced classical education, and so schools can only teach "schools of thought", and do not school in the kind of discipline that produced holistic artists who were philosophical as well as artists. Rublev was great because his vision was guided by Truth. To the extent that truth is abandoned or rejected art must degrade, and the visions more and more insane, until we praise black squares and spattered colors across a canvass, and none are left to cry that the emperor has no clothes.

well, it's good to know I am wasting my life away in art school. I wish I could say I feel enlightened by this thread... but actually I think it depressed me.

 

[Photini]

Okay, so the point of this thread is for a bunch of holier-than-thou folks with little to no knowledge of art history to get together and dismiss a whole century of art as "degenerate" or (oh, horror!) "Communist"? Okay, have fun.

Apparently so.

I'll be unsubscribing now.