What do you think about modern art? especially after the second war...about sixties and seventies...like fluxus, mail art, body art, happenings and so on???? these are bullshit or real art?
i don't think that they are bullshit at all. i am only mildly familiar with the movements you named, but took a class in conceptual art, which i think most movements in the 70's kind of came out of conceptualism...or at least vaguely had something to do with the concept. didn't duchamp start mail art in like 1915, and duchamp basically laid the ground rules for all of post-modernism if you ask me... i had the 20th century art book on my coffee table in college and was always defending pieces in the book and trying to convince friends that they were art, like vito acconci masturbating under a platform in a gallery (that spired some interesting conversations) but all in all i think most modern art has some artistic value, whether it be in new materials or just a new way of creating art...i think there's something to be said for that... i think any art that is new always goes through the "is it art" question but eventually those pieces and movements which have "value" will sustain and those that were just made for shock value and simply nothing else will receive their 15 minutes of fame and then sort of become a stepping stone to art that utilizes the same "shock" but actually says something...(therefore its not so shocking and i think swallowed more easily by mass society-which allows the message to come through...) but you always need those first pioneers... ok, now i'm just off on a tangent and i will stop... in conclusion: modern art=good
is that sarcasm or do you actually enjoy the ramblings of an art history student whose friends are entirely too bored of listening about the political ramifications of post modernist art?
I good way to juge if you like modern art of not is to look at postmorden art. We just started studing postmordern art, and i find it very interesting...the doors so far open to any thing!
i see youre a glutton for punishment... give me another topic... i'll be happy to tirade on that as well... but what are your thoughts on modern art? i guess you would have argued with me if you had thought it was bullshit...
Modern art, postmodern art, conceptualiasm, realism, cubism, its all different FORMS of art. I'm a live art student at university. We study experimental and cross art forms artists. A lot of "modern" art is created for its meaning and not its aesthetics. In some respectcs its the process of creating the art, the research, thought, theories, that becomes the art itself. The final piece is just a representation of all these thoughts, images and research that has been collected.
i'm just asking if it bullshit or different...i think modern art is necessary..that means it's enough to see and think about corpses (you know what i mean). in my opinion there is no crime here so there is no punishment!if i think that modern art is a bullshit i say "modern art is a bullshit!" ..
Thats like saying that al greek pottery is crap. And all rock music os generic and all pop art is stupid. You cant generalise all modern art under the examples of what Saatchi buys.
i against only deify simple and old things. i don't say that all the old things are rubbish. i said that "i against the deify!!"
i think art is art, then you have to decipher if its "good art" or "bad art" and that distinction is a very personal thing. i love ab-ex and pop artists like rauschenberg, and i love saatchi's collection except damien hirst, and my roomate has up posters of the impressionists and gustave klimt's the kiss...pieces i loathe. so i think art is art...and then we have to ask do we like it and i think most importantly, why do we like it? you can't really justify somethings, you just like it, finding something aesthetically pleasing is one of those things it think... i think conceptual art and the movements from the 60's and 70's are hard to understand because the public has been told what art is for so long, we have held up this canon where academic oil painting is at the top of the hierarchy of art and then comes sculpture and then photography...if a work doesn't fit in those categories, people get confused. the american public at least, does not like to be confused. also there is the concept of materiality. conceptual art dematerialized works of art. sometimes there was no actual "work" per say. sometimes the work was simply a thought in an artists' mind, donald judd made plans and blueprints for sculptures but never materialized the work...people didn't like this. whenever a work is created and someone says "i could have done that" that just means they don't understand the work. people like to see that work has been put into a piece, they want to think that everyone is michelangelo laying prostrate painting the sistine chapel...they hold artists to a standard, one that was established long before duchamp exhibited a urinal. and about no crime, no punishment. there have been a lot of people that thought some postmodern works were crimes and they have certainly tried to punish the artist. the culture wars of the 80's, mapplethorpe and serrano and then the sensation exhibit at the brooklyn museum in the 90's, even giuliani tried to get the exhibit shutdown because there was a virgin mary with elephant dung on it...i think that just showed how closeminded americans are about art...we'll take waterlilies over a piss christ anyday...the director of the metropolitian museum of art was against the exhibit...i mean when the guy in charge of one of the largest institutes for art in the world is saying that valid work is not art, that speaks volumes to a larger social problem... ok, tirade complete...going to apply this to work for class now...
um, i don't really know anything about neo-tonality, that's a 20th century musical movement right? i pretty much only know about art, i'm getting my master's in art history and i think it has consumed me, all former knowledge has retreated to the nether regions of my brain. i do know about neo-classicism in 19th century france, i think it was mostly a political campaign used by napoleon to reinforce him as this great emperor like leader and david was his lap dog painter... not really too interested in it though... and your thoughts?
classicism or tonality is not important right here...i'm just askin about the "idea of "neo"" whay people need it or use it...
well i think neo is just used for a revival of some former art movement...or a new movement that closely resembles a movement of the past. neo-conceptualism in the 80's seems to me to be more of a continuation of the movement from the 60's and 70's than any sort of revival, they were using the same basic concepts and fundamentals of the former movement. neo-classicism makes more sense since they were reviving fundamentals derived from ancient greek and roman art, an era that was far removed from the 19th century. i think pretty much everything could be considered a "neo" of something else...there hasn't been anything truly new since Duchamp...and maybe robert rauschenberg's combines in the 50's...i think that's a probelm artists today struggle with, is there any way to create something truly original...
What? There haven't been ANY truly new developments? Don't be ridiculous...what about video art and computer-based works? I think that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Sometimes i think modern art is judged on innovation rather than quality. But however it DOES get annoying when everything is too similar. I agree with much of what you say though. I hate the "I could do that" attitude. I've also heard people express the opinion that the public don't enjoy modern art because they dont spend enough time in galleries and other places of art. If they can understand fairly complicated patterns and codes in books, films and especially advertising then why not Art? Worse still, i hate when people suggest that serious artists should "dumb down" their work for the public. Eyecandy art is readily available elsewhere to buy and look at. This i swhat gives rise to the phenomnon known as "kitsch" Basically when people dont have time for real art and just need a quick fix. i forget where im gong with this... Erm, anyway I think its important to not view art as a period of succesive movements. because artists constantly seem to leap forward and back over the years, borrowing different ideas from here and there.
ok, yes there have been advancements in art since duchamp, but video and digital art are more technologically advanced than artistically, i think. so you paint a still life with your mouse instead of a paintbrush...that's not that innovative, to me at least. the medium changed but not much else as far as i can tell...i get your point, i really do maybe i should re-phrase, i was saying that i don't think there has been anyone or anything as innovative as duchamp since duchamp... i think the public doesn't like modern art because it intimidates them. they don't think they will understand it and they don't want to take the chance and find out that they may not be "cultured" enough to get it... have you read greenberg's avant-garde or kitsch? good essay, groundbreaking i'd say, it has a lot to do with what youre talking about...
Im a "live art student" too, and I two know all the diffrent foarms of art....i was just saing modern and postmodern are a good contratst to each other. so in turn when put togeter you could compear them to see if you like one better then the other.
