How a gray painting can break your heart
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I hate this style of "art", though. If modern art should exist at all, it should be only at the fringes of the art world, as an occasional novelty, rather than the main attraction.
For some reason, I feel unusually, viscerally, strongly about this topic. My first instinct was to just declare that this art is absolute fucking garbage (which feels like an indisputable fact to me, not just an opinion). But I thought I should try to analyze why I feel that way.
I have a fine-arts education and passion. I spent several years attending art schools, and working at art schools and galleries. I've been exposed to plenty of modern art and the artists who make it. But I absolutely loathe it. And, in surveys, the public agrees: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2016/...
I think art should have to pass a test: If you saw it in an alleyway, would you think it was art or trash? Or: Could a child have made it by accidentally smearing paint on a canvas?
Art should generally display technical skill and years of practice. Viewers should think "I would never be able to make something as precise and beautiful as this", not "I could make five of these in an hour."
If not technically demanding, art should at least be somehow clever, expressive, or interesting... And in a self-evident manner that doesn't require a backstory on a placard.
The talent required for modern art is not in creating it, but in describing it. I consider modern artists (and critics) frauds, whose main skill is writing snooty descriptions of garbage, convincing people that it's valuable, like the tailor in "the emperor has no clothes".
Finding something that no one has ever called art, and being the first to call it art, is not making art; it's just calling shit art.
I understand modern artists are trying to be creative and unique, to push the limits of what can be called art, and maybe to show us beauty in where we haven't looked before... But most of their experiments fail.
Modern art tries so hard to be original that it forgets to be appealing to viewers. Many traits can make a work of art appealing; originality is only one of them (other traits include technical skill, composition, realism, and subject matter.) Modern art sacrifices (or purposely sabotages) all other possibly-appealing traits in pursuit of originality, forgetting that appeal--not originality--is the ultimate goal. This generally results in an ugly piece of junk that anyone COULD have made, but no one else DID make yet... And that's if the artist is lucky.
Art is capable of being naturally appealing to viewers. This documentary lays out a case for beauty in art, and how the intentional ugliness of modern art is demoralizing: https://vimeo.com/128428182
Not incidentally, it's by a conservative-leaning host; apparently, opinions of modern art are closely tied to opinions on politics: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20856316/p...
I'm high in openness, and usually lean left, but not in this regard, somehow.
A big part of the reason "realistic", "traditional", or "classical" artwork is traditional or classic is that those styles are naturally appealing; that's why they survived so long. I think modern artists tend to consciously and intentionally reject anything related to traditional values. Of course classical art can be boring, has all been done before, was replaced by photography, etc., but it's still intrinsically appealing in a way modern art isn't.
I guess a big part of why I dislike modern art is its success. If the music world was the same as the art world, Brian Eno would be the most popular musician of all time. It just feels wrong. I like Brian Eno and other minimalist/expressionist/experimental music, but only because it's so different compared to the norm. It shouldn't be the norm.
I've probably had a lot more fun drawing furry porn for money than Johns has had producing turgid masses of grey noodling, though. I regularly giggle with delight at the things people pay me to draw. If I was more stoned I'd consider extemporizing furry porn as a fascinating proletarian genre that is aggressively ignored by the art world. And then consider putting together a portfolio of nothing but to throw at some of the local galleries. But instead I think I'll just turn off the internet and get some work done.
And trust me, that stuff is colorful. Lots of cartoon animal people in bright, unnatural cartoon colors.
It's really strange to me that you've allegedly spent so much time in the art world and still think this is a valid dichotomy. Part of art is context, which should be clear given that's exclusively what you're responding to here. It's also strange that you correlate popularity with some kind of moral authority about the right of a particular art to exist. What does it matter whether it's popular or not, as if that's a ruling on its alleged correctness to some imagined standard? I hope one day you can open yourself to having a genuine experience with a work of art and worry less about whether too many people like it or not.
> I hope one day you can open yourself to having a genuine experience with a work of art and worry less about whether too many people like it or not.
I like plenty of abstract art but I find plenty irritating and I agree with the parent poster that it shouldn't be the norm.
Of course, it's impossible to entirely decontextualize an artwork, because every viewer will bring their own backstory and interpretation... But the art should be able to appeal to viewers despite the context. Maybe that's the point: Art which is universally appealing to all humans, despite their backgrounds, would be the most magical type.
I once read a book which discussed how humans are universally attracted to landscapes which would be good for human habitation: Trees, a river, a temperate climate, hills and mountains to shelter in, flora and fauna... The average human from any time, any place, any religion, any language will appreciate such a painting. The same applies to nudes, still life of flowers and fruit, and other universally-understood and appealing (but kitsch) subjects. The same could not be said about the grey flag in this article.
And, of course, no artwork will completely meet that universal Platonic ideal, but the attempt to meet it is what creates the intrinsic beauty which modern art abhors.
I left the art world and went into STEM because of my opinions :)
When I go to a modern art museum, I consider it a success if 90% of what I see is forgettable and 10% of it, or even 2%, is really powerful/sticks with me somehow. I’d much prefer this to 100% bland pictures of flowers and trees of which 0% will be memorable.
IMHO, modern art tends to be less popular with the public because it primarily references other art. In other words, it's art made by artists, for artists. You have to have a deep understanding of the theories of art, the history of art, and the specific works the particular piece you are contemplating references in order to understand it.
Art did not used to be made primarily for other artists. It was made for everyone. And that art, today, still tends to be widely popular.
This does not mean that it is in any meaningful sense lesser art. Rembrandt cannot be said to be a lesser artist than Johns. But his paintings are definitely more accessible.
Architecture is much the same. Brutalist and modern architecture tends to be very popular with other architects. But a brutalist home usually sucks to actually live in. Whereas more traditional forms -- southern farmhouses, traditional German cottages, etc. -- non-architects find to be charming and comfortable.
The parent post here is getting at something real, which is whether nearly all high art should be self-referential. The art world, today, is pretty insular. That doesn't seem healthy to me.
There's a short, funny book called The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe that goes into this quite nicely, that it's not about art at all in today's contemporary art world.
It would only be fair to force traditional art to pass a similar test - if you saw it being sold by a street painter, would you think it was art or kitsch?
I think other replies to your comment have already pointed out the biggest flaw in this argument - the experience of art leans heavily on things outside the artwork. The Mona Lisa might be sublime, but copies of it are essentially worthless, no matter if they required the same level of technical talent.
Lots of people feel that art is decided by aesthetics, but not in a logically consistent way. Art is purely aesthetic, until they consider forgeries or copies. Art is decided by realism, except that some of the most popular and well-known art in the modern world comes from post-realist movements like cubism or surrealism (which have become mainstream despite setting out to challenge conservative views of aesthetics). Art is decided by technical skill, except that the technical skills responsible for classical artworks have never been more prolific than they are right now (as evidenced by the number of street hawkers), yet classically-styled artworks don't really interest people anymore.
Conversely, I guess museums showcase modern art instead of kitsch art because the average museum buyer prefers modern art. I don't know whether the average museum goer prefers modern art, although that's a chicken-and-egg situation; maybe more people would go if the art was more kitsch.
It's understandable that laypeople would enjoy kitsch, while enthusiasts might become bored of it, want something new, and seek out experimental modern art. There's a place for each type; I just feel that their places have flipped, and the art world focuses on what only a minority actually enjoy. This unfortunately spills out into public spaces (architecture, public parks, etc.)
Regarding forgeries, I guess we can separate artistic value into historical value and aesthetic value. The original Mona Lisa has more historical value than its copies, but equal aesthetic value.
But does that mean that the average street buyer considers street-vendor kitsch art? Not necessarily, since street vendors don't have to produce art in order to sell paintings - they just have to make things people will buy. I would say that consumerist, mass-produced products like street-hawked paintings can't really be art in the commonly-understood sense.
The issue I have with what you're saying is that you seem to consider "enjoyment" and "appeal" the be-all and end-all of the definition of art. I sincerely doubt that most people would agree with you; most people can probably distinguish between media they enjoy and media they consider art. I would bet that most people would define art as needing to contain something of the sublime (even if they don't use that word.) It seems unlikely to me that you could successfully fill museums with kitsch.
>Regarding forgeries, I guess we can separate artistic value into historical value and aesthetic value. The original Mona Lisa has more historical value than its copies, but equal aesthetic value.
But do they have equal artistic value? Or does the historical value of the original somehow factor in to its artistic value - hence explaining why people don't flock to see copies of the Mona Lisa in other museums?
Maybe art is undefinable, like pornography ("I know it when I see it"). Any limits on what is and isn't art will be immediately and intentionally explored by modern artists. But those explorations are likely to be unappealing. It's fine to have some artists exploring new ideas, but not in the mainstream.
To put it in context: I live in Houston, and I have relatives staying from China. I took them to one of the few outdoor activities here: The Cullen Sculpture Garden, which is next to the art museums. I've been there a bunch of times, but not since it was renovated a few years back. The whole museum, in fact, was renovated in your standard minimalist modern architecture style.
And, well, they were unimpressed. Most of the sculptures are just simple abstract shapes; you can see what I mean on a Google Image Search. My least favorite are what I call the "trash bags" (https://www.schindlermetalworks.com/mfah-fontana-sculpture.h...). There are some decent humanoid bronze statues, but overall, my relatives found it boring, as did I, and I noticed it was mostly empty of people. I felt like my relatives were thinking: "This is it? A bronze triangle nailed to the wall? This is the best sculpture in town? You think this is cool enough to put on display over here? I traveled around the planet for this?"
There's only one place in Texas they've actually said was beautiful, and it's the State Capitol building in Austin. I noticed it was crowded with people hanging out and appreciating it. It's just a typical neoclassical structure, nothing special if you're used to Europe, but it's actually a nice-looking building.
I just felt like the museum renovation and sculpture garden were such a waste. They could have gotten classical marble statues and put gargoyles all over the building like in Prague, Venice, Vienna, etc., which looks really cool. People visit those cities for their architecture, sculptures, and gardens. Houston had a chance to make something similar, but instead we got more modern crap. We don't have to copy those old styles verbatim, but we shouldn't throw them away, either. We could have done something syncretic that drew from traditional European, Asian, African, and American art traditions, but instead, we got more bland modernist abstract geometric stuff.
At the very least, I think people like to see realism, precision, intricacy, and skill in artwork and architecture. The worst part of modern art is the lack of effort it conveys.
Guess I'm just ranting by now, and should get back to work.
Or mixed media art that is more abstract ?
(I will admit, I have a bias as I tend to like things like tonalism, but I’m also very attracted to muted abstract at times. )
I love some abstract art, but hate others. I like Kandinsky and Picasso, but dislike the scribblers and color-field painters who cross the line into "my kid could have done that". One of my favorite artists is Xul Solar, but I like him for his surrealism rather than his cubism. I tend to like realism, surrealism, and symbolism.
I like tonalism a lot. It combines a realistic image (landscape) with an emotion (distance, calm), which is great. I understand tonalism is exploring the emotions in simple colors and shapes, in the same way a fully-abstract artist like Rothko or Twombly would, but it's also exploring landscapes and realism. It also looks like it took effort and care instead of random scribbles.
I guess I have a lot of interest in precise brush strokes, shading, etc. If I see a painting or drawing which looks sloppily-made, I get the urge to go in there and fix it.
I know art doesn't have to all be super complex and precise, and sometimes there is meditative beauty in simplicity. But there's usually more beauty in complexity. I always hated places like the Rothko Chapel, which just feel to me like zero effort was put in... I guess that counts as "muted abstract", sorry. I can kind of see the appeal, but it just feels like "not art" to me.
Even Rothko tries to be aesthetic, though. The worst is stuff like post-conceptualism and performance art. I'm sure there's somebody out there farting on a canvas and trying to charge $500k for it.
Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp?
Don't fall into this trap. Art does not need any objective, universal tests or categorizations. It is by its nature subjective and impossible to precisely define or measure. Yes, it is this subjectivity that modern art abuses, stretches far beyond the point of breaking, saying "if you can't precisely define it, then anything can be art!", so it's tempting to try and find a test that would exclude modern art, and validate the art we hold dear.
But this is a misguided effort. Like being told by film critics that the Minions movie is just as good or better than the Godfather, and then trying to find some objective, mathematical test to prove them wrong. That such a test doesn't exist doesn't make the two films equal, or their claim any less absurd.
This is true, and citing what's popular doesn't make it less true.
My point isn't to be hostile, it's just to point out that even as you strongly feel something, others can just as strongly feel something else. There is nothing "naturally" appealing, except with reference to a specific person at a specific moment.
I think some of these water color paintings are so beautiful that you might forget about the pretentious modern art ;)
Yet this is not what I meant by my comment.
That being said, I'm ready for my art to be taken into the MOMA representing my mental health.
Its a Standard A4 piece of paper with the word "fuck" 2/3 to the right side of the page and 1/4 down. It shall be titled "**"
Glory and riches come to me.
Abstracts of all sort have room for me in them; photorealism doesn't. SFMOMA had a piece on display at one point that was simply a giant, all red canvas. It was quite an unassuming piece at first, situated at the very entry of the gallery exhibit it was featured in. But, the more I stood and just took it in, the more in awe of it I became. I could never imagine feeling that while standing in front of a painting that very well could have been a photo.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
For example, I have never seen a photo that looks like https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-temple-of-dender...
And is a random photo taken by a tourist in Egypt as "good" as that painting? It's more photorealistic, after all!
That's in the spirit of Sol LeWitt! He literally did art like that, where the art is the text describing the concept itself, not the resulting piece: "Ten Geometric Figures (including right triangle cross X, diamond) with three-inch parallel bands of lines in two directions". And some do look really good.
My experience at MASS MoCA involved going back and forth between the description and the piece, so I could trace out the logic of the instructions on the wall. This even more so for pieces with the most detailed descriptions and most minimal appearances.
And as for the analysis, it's not woo-y. It's "simply" very cerebral art, with much less of a visceral impact. The downside of that kind of art is that it only makes sense in a much larger context, of both what the art world was thinking, and what the world at large was thinking, at the time you painted it. (So does representational art, but at least the first or second layer is immediately accessible)
Your picture's analysis will likely speak of the constant pressures of a pandemic and an inequal society, as well as a rampant, population-wide anti-intellectualism that at a very deep level was upset by artists getting lost in their mental landscape instead of being more direct and expressive.
Maybe you should make that art piece.