Modern art looks like crap. But, we have been looking at it for so long, have we forgotten what good art is?
No, the camera made realistic art for realism's sake obsolete. Real expression is more than technical ability.
Then how do you explain the Mona Lisa? The greatest painting on Earth - technically brilliant - and yet not an expression?
To each their own.. I like realistic paintings more than modern art. Much more skills necessary to produce it too. Maybe I just appreciate the skills and work that goes in to it..
The only art I really can't stand is this modern abstract stuff. Like this one Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Epic fail?
How can you really claim to have an artistic talent, when all you're doing is scibbling on a canvas? Come on - this is b.s.
If you don't like the stuff, don't bother with it. You can have the Mona Lisa, and I'll take Picasso's Guernica for my "wallpaper", or one of Jackson Pollock's better efforts. http://www.nga.gov/feature/pollock/lm1024.jpg
Well see now, what makes that effort any better than the next? How do you artisticly judge a piece like that?
I have much more respect for this sort of paintings: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or even this, at least there is some effort there LOL Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So don't. Those of us who do value and respect that painting will not interfere with your own choices of wall decoration. I too find those paintings respectable.
big difference between abstract art and colorful wallpaper is the price and increasing market value Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! cost in 1973 - $2 000 000 current cost - $150 000 000 + no prize for guessing what lies in the eye of the beholder Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I like modern art. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Realism was never art's sake. It was first the ancient Greeks who achieved realism by making the first absolutely anatomically precise sculptures. They abandoned it soon after, because they wanted humans that were more than humans. Humans don't like reality. If art was about realism you could just go around looking at stuff. The aesthetic appeal in art comes from careful exaggeration and distortion of reality. Modern art has taken it to the extremes, but it is still art. Oh, and look at this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Think this is realistic? And not modern at all. Stone age.
You can't go looking around for the Mona Lisa. That was a staged portrait. You can't go looking around for the Last Supper - unless you have a time machine - and even then it wouldn't look anything like the painting.
But certainly not simply realistic. Put the Mona Lisa next to photorealist paintings and you can see how much Da Vinci skewed light and form in expressive ways. Notice how different the 'realist' painters are from each other. And where do we draw the line? How realist does something have to be to be OK? Van Gogh Where in Mondrian's career did he cross the line? Or Picasso? Or the surrealists who sometimes painted using realist techniques but painted impossible scenes? Which a lot of the neo-classical painters do also. Are these not art? Can one exhibit great technical skills and aesthetic vision without representing visually objects in a painting? I sure think so.
Yes, beautiful. I guess my favorite painters do tend to have vestige of objects in their paintings, but they are hardly realists. I used to love Chagall - but actually have lately missed warmer colors like the ones I found in the Rothko link. I love his forms and imagination. http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/foreign/russian/art/chagall-village.html Hardly realist, but there are recognizible creatures and things.
