A Belated Rant about Modern Art

[Yamino]

Copied from my LJ. I thought some people might find it interesting.

(Pic more or less related)

I have some qualms with most of the modern art I've seen.  I went on an off-campus, Art History trip to NYC one summer, and as it turned out my professor was a specialist in modern art, so that was all we got to see.  I like to think of myself as very open to all different mediums and styles.  However, I found myself rapidly getting very frustrated with the professor as he praised other students for coming up with "interpretations" of the art we saw, when they were clearly bullshitting off the top of their head.  I did all of the required work for the class, so the professor had to to give me an "A."  But it was clear that he despised me for not kissing up like everyone else by pretending I enjoyed to artwork we visited.

To give you an example of the art galleries we visited, here are some of the pieces I remember most vividly:

A giant tub of cat litter the size of a kiddy pool,
A dead shark suspended in gel,
A pile of rotted furniture seemingly tossed unthinkingly into a pile,
A series of "charcoal drawings" which were just plain pieces of paper covered completely with black,
A huge room dedicated to scribbles some fool had made with his foot.

Throughout the trip the teacher and I argued bitterly, with him insisting that I was not willing to "think" and thus completely missing the point of this artwork, which is meant to be interpreted by the viewer.  I think the point where I really lost it was when he took us down to Chelsea where we spent an entire hour in a room filled with at least a hundred jars of moldy urine, which the "artist" had "made" himself. 

I'm sorry. I did not go to college, spend thousands of dollars, and slave away at my craft (which involves writing, drawing, anatomy, architecture, fashion, and countless other considerations) just to accept that someone collecting their own piss in a jar is worthy of the same study.  This particular artist was also clearly under the influence of heavy drugs.  I cannot bring myself to respect someone like that, I cannot bring myself to assign value and meaning to their art.  At best they are reusing old materials, at worst they are an outright insult to people who put real time and dedication into their artwork.  It's because of people like them that artists have a bad name as lazy, insane, drug-addicted, burdens on society.

Art is a very subjective thing, I will admit this.  Just because I don't like contemplating the meaning of a moldy jar of piss doesn't mean my art history professor might not get something truly valuable out of the experience.  But what truly insulted me was his repeated accusation that I was unwilling to think about it, and that was why I didn't have the same level of appreciation.  To which I responded that I could easily make the same sort of abstract, nonsensical "art" for people to try to get a meaning out of.  To which he responded, "Then why don't you?"  To which I responded, "Because I have better things to do!"

This professor mocked me for the type of art I like.  He made it clear that he thought comics were a child's medium, that they were far too self-explanatory, and that anyone with a shred of intelligence would prefer art that forces you to come up with made-up explanations for the work.

For me, art is all about storytelling, which is why I love making comics.  But my favorite artwork isn't always in comic form, I can also appreciate art that has symbolic meaning, or illustrations with a metaphorical message.  I like figures with expressions that tell you who they are and what they are feeling.  My goal as an artist is to connect with my readers/viewers somehow.  If my message gets across, then I feel I have succeeded.

Most modern art, on the other hand, offers very little to work with as far as understanding what the artist's intent was.  In my opinion, if you need a guide to explain the artwork, then you have failed as an artist.  Moreover, it seems somehow elitist to me to expect people to grasp at straws to understand what the hell you're getting at, as if you are some kind of genius they could never possibly understand.  It seems to me that these types of artists are actually lacking in the most important value of being an artist, which is that of communication.

Anyway, those are my two (biased) cents.

[Nuke]

I would argue that Jarate is a valid, albeit truly diabolical, form of art.

But yeah, modern art is a bunch of bull paddies. If there was artistic validity to a pile of garbage you wouldn't be able to get from home to work in your average city without having your world rocked every step of the way. Transferring aforementioned junk from the street to a museum does not change it's artistic value, after all. Why would you go to a museum to see this crap when you could just pick through your neighbor's garbage on yer own?

I don't have a problem with abstraction or surrealism. But modern art drives me up a wall.

[Dr. BlkKnight]

I remember once seeing on 20/20 or one of those shows a story where they wanted to see if modern art experts could tell the difference between modern art and a child's fingerpainting. They couldn't. Need I say more?

[GaborBoth]

Agreed. *wise nodding*
On a related note, read the Sheldon strips about modern art starting here: http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/030104.html

[jeffa]

Heh! I love the Picasso comment.

I worked as a contractor at The Coca-Cola Company back in the '90s and they have an original Picasso (they have a lot of really good art there), but my thought about the Picasso was exactly like the comment in Sheldon. The picture was a bunch of stick figures holding hands in a circle. I'm sure they paid a king's ransom for it. I'm guessing the master spent 15 seconds making it.

I liked the Andy Warhols they have in one building. Each floor has a collection of Warhols. Well it did back in '96-'98... Haven't been back over there since. They also had some early Chinese sculptures that were cool.

One of the projects I helped on was a database of their memorabilia that various business units could use to request stuff for their collections (like The World Of Coca-Cola). We got to tour the storage area and I was blown away by the stacks of oil painting ON THE FLOOR. Most were used for ads during the 20th century. I flipped through some and saw names like NC Wyeth. Amazing. For the record at the time their most expensive pieces were the 19th century ceramic urns used to hold Coca-Cola syrup at soda fountains.

OK, now that I'm stuck in major reminiscence mode... (and Coke trivia too): My favorite slogan used in Coke advertising? "Coca-Cola: The Drink Of Temperance". Zing!

[TheCow]

I was an art major that hated "art."

I can't remember the actual quote so I'll paraphrase, but someone I know had a nice definition of Art: "Art is something that moves a man and touches his soul. It inspires him, even subtly, to live to his potential."

That is my definition of Art.

There's also a difference between art (little "a") and Art (big "A.") I argued with so many teachers about this . . . A little kid scribbling with a crayon is art (little "a,") on a technical level, but cannot be compared to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (Art, big "A.")

I don't think jars of urine can be considered art either way, but "Picasso stick figures" are art, but not necessarily "Art."

(Apologies if I've rambled. I've just woken up.)

[jeffa]

I agree. My take on the stick figures was that it was "little a" art, "BIG C" cashing in...

[Pete]

In regards to the OP, I didn't go to art school or anything, but isn't the stuff you described more related to post-modern art than modern art?  Or am I completely wrong (and if so, what's the different)?

This post resonates with me because I just went to an art gallery/studio this past weekend.  And while it was really cool to see the wide array of things, I couldn't help but wonder the age-old question - "What makes this stuff art?"

Not to mention, why would I want to spend $2,000 on a painting of grotesque, improperly-proportioned figures?  Just to show it off and make people think I know something about art?

But I feel for you, because I went to school for film and video, only it was at a college that put its focus on the avant-garde and "art for art's sake".  Which ultimately meant when I moved out to LA to pursue a career in the film industry, I found out that I had learned nothing but how to make crap that no one in their right minds would pay money to see (but it's art, so it's all good).  Rrrgh.

[amanda]

I remember seeing the Museum of Modern Art in Washington DC, and here's the one exhibit that stood out the most (and the one I use most often as a modern art example):

Outside the building near the sidewalk, there were several (five or six, maybe) roughly cut rectangular slabs of cement kind of randomly strewn about.  There was a little sign (the only thing to indicate it wasn't just construction debris) that said "Wandering Rocks."

Awesome.

[KidGalactus]

Haha. What is it, silly season in here?

Part of the appeal of 'modern' art initially was that it challenged previously held conventions about what art was and what could be considered art. A lot of the innovators of modern art, surrealism, and dadaism were fairly accomplished 'regular' artists before employing their gimmick.

For example, Picasso could probably draw circles around you, or anyone you know by the time he was 16:

http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm
http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/torsofs.htm

The thing is, years of academic rigor and flawless draftsmanship gave way to procedure, which made art boring and sucked that sort of intangible passion that a lot of classicists chased out of it altogether. Picasso's of note because he... and it wasn't just him, by the way, but he's the freak in the freakshow that everybody remembers... but my point is, he directly challenged those notions of what art was and what could be accepted as legitimate. Picasso is the kind of guy that could literally draw anything he wanted and make it beautiful, but he didn't want to draw that crap anymore, so he didn't.

And in a way not drawing that stuff was the thing that he became passionate about. It's not so much about the finished piece, though sometimes there's merit there as well. It's more about 1) the creating of the thing, or 2) the conceptual value that the piece has, when juxtaposed with a more traditional value assessment of art.

Now, it's a point that's been made over and over and most people don't even remember why it's an important statement in the first place. This is a side effect, in general and it's what inevitably happens once counter-culture becomes accepted or god forbid, exalted by the masses or higher society.

[Rob]

So what you are saying... Jars of pee is art? Because I'm not sure I'm willing to purchase that particular brand of goods. What you said was a very concise and articulate explanation/reason for an accomplished artist to deviate from a standard. And if someone with that sort of mastery decides to explore beyond the accepted norm to stretch the boundaries try and discover new forms of art then I can definitely get on board with that trip and see where it goes. It will probably spend a lot of time in "not really art land" but that's cool. For someone on that level that's part of the journey.

I would suspect however that many folks who end up in the "Jars o' pee" area or modern art could hardly call themselves masters of any other medium like the big P everyone is mentioning.

My personal philosophy on what is and is not art... if anyone cares about my opinion; is that we carry a circle with us and within that circle are all the things in life we have experienced. That circle sort of defines for us what is and what is not art. The circle can be expanded by exposure to artistic product (which is a great reason to expose your self to art) but ultimately it defines for each of us what we are willing to consider as art from moment to moment.

Encircling all of our little circles is a larger circle that encompasses everything that society in general considers art. Almost no one's circle is as big as the one that encompasses all of society.

And around that circle is a slightly larger circle made up of things that people want society to believe is art either because that's what they are selling, or it makes them feel important about themselves but isn't really art. Jars of pee is in that outer circle. In my humble opinion.

Now if someone were to paint a mural of Jars of Pee.... well.... now that would be ART! A commentary on how modern art can and cannot be art at the some time.

I think my head just exploded.  :D

[TTallan]

I've seen this kind of thing-- the crazy modern art pieces-- lampooned so often in sitcoms and movies that I admit I started to believe it was all hyperbole. Jars of pee, are you serious?? I guess it's been awhile since I've been to an art museum! Aaaaand it looks like that trend will continue!  :P

[Nuke]

The thing is, years of academic rigor and flawless draftsmanship gave way to procedure, which made art boring and sucked that sort of intangible passion that a lot of classicists chased out of it altogether. Picasso's of note because he... and it wasn't just him, by the way, but he's the freak in the freakshow that everybody remembers... but my point is, he directly challenged those notions of what art was and what could be accepted as legitimate. Picasso is the kind of guy that could literally draw anything he wanted and make it beautiful, but he didn't want to draw that crap anymore, so he didn't.

The shame of it all is that modern art largely occupies the attention of the elitists that dadaism was basically invented to directly oppose. Around the time modern art became it's own genre superseding surrealism or abstraction, it had become a thematic abomination. I don't relate artists like Dali or Picasso to modern art.

[KidGalactus]

I think that's a fair distinction... in ideology. The fact remains that they are modern artists and impacted/inspired the movement that bears the name severely.

[Funderbunk]

I've never gotten modern art. I've never gotten some old art. Back in high school I took a short art class which started with talking about Dutch masters. Vincent van Gogh, Rembrandt van Rijn and... Piet Mondriaan.

Now, for those who don't know, Mondriaan was the creator of pieces such as this:



Everything he did was like this. Just squares, grids and occasionally a square colored in a primary color. This is one of his more involved ones - most of them don't get more than ten squares and two colors.

I spent most of the class arguing with the teacher that while it might have merit, he had no business naming him in one breath with people like Van Gogh.