Modern art
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=43814
Printed Date: July 19 2025 at 17:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Modern art
Posted By: Gamemako
Subject: Modern art
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 22:12
|
Inspired by a comment I made in another thread, I'm curious how many people consider "modern" art (such as minimalist art -- drawing a line on a canvas and calling it art) to be art at all? I personally am a subscriber to ARC, a site dedicated to classical art. I believe that modern art is more an affront to good sense than rap is an insult to music. And so I ask, in good faith, what the prog community thinks of "modern" art. The following is a link to ARC and then a link to The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer -- an example of what I consider to be true art. http://www.artrenewal.org/ - http://www.artrenewal.org/ http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=97&hires=1 - http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=97&hires=1 |
Replies:
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 15:00
Yes, modern art is art. And, out-bloody-rageous, contemporary art is art, too. 
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 17:18
|
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/PicassoGuernica.jpg -
This...
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 17:25
|
Prog is modern art. Make of that what you will.
EDIT: Respectfully, IMO that painting you linked to in the first post is, well... let's just say that I'm surprised you chose it to represent 'classical art' (whatever that is)... |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 17:33
Jesus.... and I thought I had pretty concervative tastes in art myself! You're opinions on modern art and rap are insults to modern art and rap. The modern art scene is as broad as the modern music scene. You can find just about anything within it. You're example of true art is highly entertaining over the top kitsch. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Gamemako wrote:Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 18:09
Can I please replace your line drawn on a canvas with a stroke, painted on a canvas, just for the sake of my little argument: Let us assume that Gérôme's painting you linked to was started with a single painted stroke. Was the painter creating art when he painted the first stroke? Let us assume that the painting you was finished with a single painted stroke. Before that line, was the painting art? |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 18:12
|
Personally I'm a fan of progress away from something that, however grandiose and thrilling it may appear to start with, becomes turgid and banal if repeated and copied ad nauseum. I tend to favour progressive music over Prog Rock (that's not to say that a group can't be both, of course!) Why bother doing something that was done the same way yesterday, let alone a century or more ago? |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 18:19
|
Modern art is art. If some one made it to be looked at then its art. If someone made sound to be listened its music.
How can you decide where art stops? Does it stop with the impressionists making fuzzy realities that arnt quite perfect? does it end with Picassoes twisted visions? or does it end with Jackson Polluck's splatter paintings? the fact is art never stops.
------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 18:38
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 20:32
|
You confuse "modern" and "contemporary" -- http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=2750 - Daniel F. Gerhartz is contemporary, but not modern.
It still isn't art. It's a line on a canvas. I hand you a bar. Is that art? If so, then the question is not "what is art?" but "what is not art?" and you have at best proven that your interpretation of art is that everything is art, therefore there is absolutely no point in looking at a line on a canvas because the white wall behind it is just as much art as the painting.
Refer to above. Calling everything art to justify "modern art" is an exercise in futility. You ultimately have to admit that everything is art, and there is therefore no art but just existence. Then what are you looking at your "modern art" for? Alternatively, you assign levels of art, at which point you admit that superiority exists, which is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of preference and demands objective determination of value (and that principle runs minimalist art straight into the ground).
|
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 20:41
|
^^^
You want to hear modern art in music try listening to Merzbow.
Not evrything is art, only what was made with the intention of being art is art, the canvas was made to be sold as a canvass, that line on the canvass was made to be seen as art, therefore it is art.
Whether or not superiority exists is unimportant, I find that pretty much any line that I can draw on a paper would be more appealing to me then that silly over the top picture that you used as an example of "classic art"
when I was comparing art I was comparing in realisticness not in how good it is, therfore you misunderstood me, because you see realistic as good, I don't
Edit: note that I may be at a slight bias because I paint modern art. (I paint landscapes too, in a more traditional style) ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 20:42
|
Modern art is art, and is actually my favorite kind.
-------------  <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 21:07
To rebut, I made art.  And as a pre-empt to anyone who agrees,  (Every thread needs kittens.) |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: November 27 2007 at 03:13
A man called John Cage would say pretty much the same thing about music. If one calls everything art, then one is basically saying that art is a pointless label, and is free instead to look at what one finds interesting or intellectually stimulating. I like to look out of the window of my house onto unspoilt Dartmoor, because it is beautiful. Pollock has lots of nice exciting textures to look at, a blank wall doesn't. Some people may prefer looking at blank walls. That's a bit weird, but I'm not going to kick up a fuss about them.
Sex is primal, art is intellectual. There's a pretty enormous psychological difference there. However, personally I don't like the idea of sleeping with someone just because he or she happens to be attractive any more than I like the idea of buying a painting just because it happens to conform to an archaic view of aesthetics.
I'm pretty sure I don't understand what you're saying here, because if you're saying what I think you are, it basically disagrees with all of your arguments. It sounds like you're saying that art has existence outside of its physicality, which is a neat way of looking at it but would mean that a line drawn on a canvas has depth beyond its aesthetics. Obviously that's not what you're saying, because that's not what you think, so can I have some clarification on what you actually mean?
I've never seen a single line on a canvas that has interested me or that I've wanted to gaze it, but I'm sure other people have. Doesn't bother me.
I must admit to having next to no knowlege of contemporary literature, having read very little that has been written in the last century. So I'm not really in a position to judge. But I love lots of Zeuhl and RIO, and I find groups like ELP and Yes (except for the Relayer album) pretty overblown and dull. But other people like them, so I know there must be something in them to like (in all honesty they were two of my favourite bands when I was about 14, so I do know a little about their music, but it doesn't interest me in the least any more except as an exercise in kitsch.)
Why would anyone ever listen to old music? Because there is some great old music which I love listening to (nothing like a bit of Stravinsky, King Crimson, Debussy, Webern, Miles Davis etc.!) Why retread their steps when we can just go and listen to the source? Bands today that haven't progressed since the '70s are no more interesting to me than Starcastle. Why are we still using time signatures and clefs? Well, not everyone is. Noise music and free improv certainly don't, wheras bands like Meshuggah use several at the same time. But they offer a useful way of organising sounds in time, which is the point of music. Time signatures and clefs are a tool for creating music, not a cage to be bound by. For a halfway example, Michael Giles' drum fill just before the chorus of In the Court. It's clearly completely out of time, and that's what makes it so exciting and fitting! It wouldn't make any sense to anyone listening two centuries ago, just like modern art wouldn't make any sense to someone whose idea of aesthetics came from two centuries ago. I don't see the relevance of Cartesian co-ordinates. I use them because they are valid for the calculations I do, not for any other reason. Again, they are a tool, but I think the value of a static mathematical model is rather more than the value of a static idea of aesthetics (I am using the word aesthetics far too much.) I might have missed bits out of this post, it got a bit long and unwieldly. Oh well, I need some breakfast. |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: November 27 2007 at 04:32
|
Wait, so the wall behind the line on a canvas or behind the Mona Lisa isn't as interesting as the line or the Mona Lisa? I must be one of the weird people who like staring at walls.
Here's another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma#Nine_years_of_gazing_at_a_wall - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma#Nine_years_of_gazing_at_a_wall Walls are actually quite imaginatively textured, no matter what anyone says. And thanks for the kitten, Gamemako. And for the cool picture, and for NOT making me pay to see it - not least because of that it is a work of art. EDIT: Points to ponder: 1. What is 'classical', 'traditional', 'modern' or 'contemporary' art? If I am to take further part in this discussion, I would like to know what I'm talking about. 2. When is a work of art finished? "When I look back at my work I see that I'd do it differently now..." or "(groan) The deadline for my work is up, but it's still so raw! Oh well, my sponsor won't be able to tell that, he'll pay me anyway..." or "I give up. I've tried and tried, and I simply can't adequately express what I want to express. My work is a failure, I must destroy it (has a heart attack/stroke/whatever and dies before he can harm his work). |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 27 2007 at 05:15
Oh the irony. You made that non-art pretending to be art pretending to be non-art as a statement, which is in itself an artistic intent that has both context and (for you) meaning beyond what has been randomly produced using no artistic skill and with a total disregard and distain for art in every form, which is in itself an artistic statement, just not a very good one. You cannot parody Modern or Post-modern Art - you can attempt to ridicule it, but that also is a self-defeating action. The bottom line is: you can dislike Modern Art, you are allowed to not understand Modern Art, but you cannot pretend that it is not Art just because it does not fit your comfortable view of what is pretty.
Consider the difference between Gérôme's "The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer" and Picasso's "Guernica" that I showed in my first post: The Gérôme depicts a truly horrific scene of people dying and people preparing to die, yet is shown in the most romantic, unemotional and "beautifuf" way imaginable and is, in my opinion, an utterly disgusting piece of "art". The Picasso, on the otherhand, depicts an equally brutal and horrific event, but in a honest, unromanticised form that does not attempt to beautify or be in any way realistic, yet carries more emotion in one figarative line than in a thousand brushstokes of the Gérôme. Both are Art, but in my opinion of Good Art, I'll take Picasso in this instance.
However, omg! a kitten! That's sooooo cute. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: November 27 2007 at 05:41
^ 
And I still find it surprising you chose that Gerome painting as an example of truly great art. I think it's rubbish - obviously you have the right to disagree and you have the right to your own interpretation - but there's a truckload of other artists with much less 'controversial' paintings you could have chosen to illustrate your point. Even the Mona Lisa would have worked. "Guernica" is truly powerful stuff. I don't think that even a highly naturalistic depiction of the same scene could surpass it in expressiveness - although it would probably equal it. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: November 27 2007 at 06:30
You seem to confuse painters who has no originality and nothing to tell, that simply copies artists that has been before them, with real art. I don't mind you liking them, but to me these paintings are just as vulgar and pointless, as lots of the modern art you (and I) strongly dislike. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 27 2007 at 06:54
|
My judgment of 'modern' art is mainly based on my personal aesthetic reaction to it. To make myself clearer, I don't think that something must be naturalistic in order to be beautiful in my eyes - for instance, I find Kandinsky's art absolutely breathtaking (and I've seen quite a bit of it), though his best work is mainly abstract. As a matter of fact, art that is too precise a reproduction of reality can be somewhat offputting to me - such as paintings that are perfect down to the very last detail, but ultimately soulless. That said, there is a lot of contemporary art that I find aesthetically displeasing, or just leave me cold. However, I've always been willing to explore, and visit modern art museums all over the world in order to get acquainted with the newest tendencies. Just like in music, I do have my preferences, but I also like to keep an open mind. |
Posted By: Okocha
Date Posted: December 16 2007 at 18:33
| It depends on the artist and his work.... |
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: December 17 2007 at 05:50
|
These discussions never get anywhere, but do I have something better to do? I think minimalism can get so minimal that it's nothing at all (i.e. "Lights turning on and off"--a white room in which the lights automatically turn on and off every 5 minutes, or 4:33, which isn't music), but modern art is art because the artist is using a technique to attempt to convey something (although I am iffy on that. Pollock I have accepted now that I know his paintings are fractals, so it's not just random gibberish). Now I think it's usually terrible, and of course I find it funny that a monkey's painting was praised by a critic for having "depth of emotion" (that really happened, there was some sort of mistake and he thought it was by some famous painter. I don't have the link, sorry).
Then again, I am a huge fan of avant-garde music that others might call noise (although I still hate minimalism), so maybe I just don't "get" it. I do recognize the hypocrisy inherent in liking John Zorn and having great difficulty calling Merzbow music, but I don't see any way to reconcile that. ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: December 17 2007 at 07:08
|
The term "modern art" covers a wide range and, yes, some of it is nonsense. I really don't like Tracey Emin's art, a lot of Damien Hirst's work leaves me as cold as the animals he put in formaldehyde, and Jake and Dinos Chapman make me feel really uncomfortable. But I see much more creativity in modern art than I do in traditional representational art. ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: December 17 2007 at 08:31
Merzbow isn't music, Merzbow is Noise. No, I'm not being a smartass, it's just that you don't call the stuff you make 'Noise' if you think it's music. Though I guess you could argue that early jazz musicians accepted the name 'jazz' (which was colloquial for 'noise' back then) and still thought of themselves as musicians - but Merzbow seems quite insistent on NOT being perceived as a musician. |
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: December 17 2007 at 11:58
|
Does he say that explicitly? Because that would fix some of my problems. I really want to call him noise (manipulated noise, but still noise), but the Zappa quote about music keeps coming back to me (Only thing you need is someone making it and someone listening to it calling it music). ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: December 17 2007 at 12:39
Hmm, looks like it's a bit more complicated than I thought. I've dug up an old interview I forgot about and he does indeed call his work 'music': http://www.furious.com/perfect/merzbow.html - http://www.furious.com/perfect/merzbow.html But then again he is bent on breaking away from any other music: My music is not only my reaction against other music. It's just my way. Hence 'Noise' and not 'musical noise', 'noisy music', 'noise rock' or whatever. 'Noise' with a capital 'N' - noise with an intentional aesthetic quality as opposed to your regular, natural, random noise. And 'Noise' as an opposite of 'music' deriving from the natural contrast between 'noise' and 'music'. So I think that it's safe to call his work 'manipulated noise' and that his use of the word 'music' is mostly a conversational simplification and habit (since he collaborates with musicians and is interviewed by music journalists). Obviously the Zappa quote is still relevant here, and since Noise has an aesthetic intent, it could qualify as music. But if Merzbow really wants to go that far to separate himself from other music, I think he really does think of his work as 'noise', to a significant extent. Whatever aesthetic quality he infuses the sounds he makes with are enough to turn the noise into 'Noise', but not enough to turn it into music. And I think that's just his intent - he doesn't really want to be perceived as a maker of 'music' but as a maker of 'Noise'. I hope that made sense. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 02:25
|
The quality of art is subjective. One could just as easily look at a Pollock piece and say "That is good" as he could look at the same piece and say "That is art." They cannot be wrong because it is subjective. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 03:13
The abillity of the person behind a piece of art is not subjective, though. It either is there or it isn't. AFAIK Pollock had plenty of conventional painting ability, he just used it in a manner that was unconventional (and unreadable for most people). Obviously everyone is entitled to artistic self-expression, whatever their level of ability. But not everyone is entitled to getting paid the same sum of money (or paid at all) for the fruits of that self-expression. It wouldn't be fair 
So you won't see me buying a ticket to see Robert Rauschenberg's blank canvas, or a 'painting' of a single dot, as much as I appreciate the ideas. Which I really do - there's plenty of detail to seemingly the simplest things.It's just that I can see the same things at home for free. |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 03:56
I think the ideas behind modern art are the really important part, in some cases more important than the execution. ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 03:59
Certainly - but if I can witness the execution at home (and read about the ideas in a library), I won't pay to witness it in a gallery. |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 04:13
Me too, but I was surprised by a Claes Oldenberg sculpture of an electrical plug when I visited the Tate Modern in London a few years ago. I already appreciated the idea but the sheer size of the sculpture was, I suppose, the whole point of it and could only be fully appreciated by actually seeing it.
At the same time, seeing Anish Kapoor's installation in the Tate Modern's Turbine Room ( http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/kapoor/default.htm - http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/kapoor/default.htm ) in the flesh was so much better than seeing it on TV or the interweb. It was HUGE.
And I didn't have to pay to see them!  ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 04:15
|
I don't know, I think that saying beauty is subjective may be a potentially dangerous position. Because if there is no standard whatsoever, is there a standard for anything?
There was an article in Scientific American that showed that all of Pollock's paintings were natural fractals (like a coastline), and he painted before fractals were even discovered. I still don't like it, but that impresses me greatly, and I don't think you can call something with that much order not art. ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 04:17
Heh, you're right, you can't really experience these things at home, the Internet/TV only give you a taste of the real thing. And I would pay to see these sculptures. Whereas something a blank canvas can easily be reproduced. |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 04:20
EDIT: Nevermind, I completely missed your point, sorry. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 18 2007 at 04:43
I think all things benefit with seeing them "in the flesh" as it shifts your whole perception of the "art" in the piece to see it in relation to its suroundings. A blank canvas in a gallery has a different meaning to one in your home, on the tv or still in the art supply shop. John Constable's "The Hay Wain" will affect you differently seeing it in the National Gallery than reproduced on a chocolate box lid or as a jigsaw puzzle and the same is true for Modern Art. ------------- What? |