I believe celebrated or art that is showcased in a museum shoul have had some thought, skill, emotion, and time into its creation. And be done well.

Certain pieces of art I think should be as celebrated as a child's finger paint by their parents. Their proud of their child but everyone else is just like....... its ok, but their not going to mount it up in the local park or something.

Thiers a difference between a personal valuie of art and actual value.

I now aesthetics is one of the worst places to debate perspectives but thats my To the point opinion on the topic. I had a mch long winded opinion that had plenty of examples but somehow it was delted thanks to my slippery fingers. I'll type it out later once I hve times to recollect my thoughts and the time to type in one go.

Opinions?

Oh and gives examples of what you deem to not be skillful art and art that is well not that skillful.

Not skillful: http://www.artbylt.com/modern-art-5.htm
Sure no one could recreate it but it doesn't seem that hard or thought provoking to create either. I bet it means alot to the artist and it does have an appeal to it throught the mix of colors and shapes, but it is not skillful in my opinion.

Skillful: http://en.artoffer.com/Jan-Vermeer-van-Delft/Image-Large-View/?imagenr=23599
A Baroque, I think its well done. Even though I don't find it aesthetically pleasing.

An of course beaty is in the eye of the beholder, and many people's tastes are different.

To me, there has to be a number of key elements in any work for me to appreciate it as 'art'.

composition, use of color -or lack of, use of negative space, that stuff. If I can see it in the work, or at least see what the artist was trying to do without having to read the little card underneath, then it gets merit.

of course, what my son makes is pure genius

This. Period. Art is too subjective to be judged in absolutes. I can only say what I like and don't like, take note of stylistic similarity, make guesses regarding originality, etc. I cannot judge pieces of art or music as "good" or "bad." If it evokes a response, then it has done something.

http://www.brandonbird.com/sega_ford.html, apparently to me, evokes the "coffee spewing out of nose" response.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/modern_art.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/the-doom-of-modern-art/&usg=__GGu7yp1kBO2rM33buWctbj7By5Y=&h=375&w=500&sz=25&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=Lch8Vi0Xrn7T9M:&tbnh=116&tbnw=165&ei=_NQDToGELtCitgf21aySDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmodern%2Bart%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DTVF%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Dnp%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D776%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=829&vpy=262&dur=3974&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=96&ty=214&page=1&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0&biw=1440&bih=776

It's ok, but the kid's head is too small for his body. Is his head size intended to make a statement? What are his shoelaces saying to you?

Even uncertain people have taste in art. At least they think they like it...

This is pure poetry in visual delight. I could look at this all day hanging on my wall. Yes. I must have it.


This... not so much.

With modern art I find myself wondering what brought them to create it more than I do with the more classical stuff. What they were trying to say, as opposed to what they were trying to capture, if that makes sense. I find the more classical (is that even the right word? Maybe I mean literal, Idk), aesthetically pleasing, but I probably linger more over things which I don't quite understand at a first glance. Although some of it is quite pretty - paintings especially; those art installations are what comes to mind for me when I think of modern art instead of pictures.

I don't know what you mean by 'Modern Art', if you mean that crap Hipsters do, the ones that you just splatter paint randomly on the canvas and make some bullcrap metephor of how it 'captures the trapped feeling we all feel by modern society' and all that crap, no I don't. If you mean actual paintings, meh, depends on their work I suppose. The only artstyles I've got a true love for are Art Deco and Googie architecture.

One modren art installation I saw once was utter crap if looked at from one angle, and spelled out 'crap' if looked at from the 'correct' angle.

go figure :shrug:

I'm by no means an art connoisseur, but I've never been fond of realism artistically speaking. Don't get me wrong, I fully acknowledge the skill needed to create it, but I fully acknowledge athletes have great skill while simultaneously hating all professional sports.

Basically, I see the world every day, so a painting that is of the every-day world does nothing for me. Between the two linked, I'm much more visually fond of the modern art one.

I agree. I mean, yes it's impressive for people to paint realistically, but, they waste their life painting real things that a picture can do in a nanosecond. I myself am in love with Art Deco designs because of their glorious and beautiful imagery.

The trend of these paintings started around the inventon of the camera. so there was less emphasis on creating realistic looking figures and Impressionism and Post impressionism developed which emphasized showing life through a different lens so to speak, you see paintings very blurry or somewhat alien in textures and woth wild brush strokes and such. Then Modern Art which could be more of understanding things and what the thing means more than actual skill is involved.

Least thats my understanding.

The term modern art is pretty loosely depicted and explained but I usually compare it with paint splattering and such.

Personally, I think that one of the most important aspects of a peice is the way the viewer's eyes are guided. When looking at, say, a painting or a photo, lines should guide my eyes through the image, taking me through the intricacies of the overall image first from the larger details and then to the minutiae that sells the image. Paintings and photos shouldn't be so chaotic that the viewer is left confused, randomly picking areas to focus their view on in the vain hope of finding something notable in the image.


With sculptures, I've always had an appreciation for sculptures which only make sense when viewed from a certain perspective. It's a neat, if simple trick that only works with 3-dimensional works. For sculptures that don't use such tricks, the ones I consider the worst are usually the ones that could be described as "bits of metal stuck together." Sculptures are great when they create a sense of the depicted thing being alive, like they could move from their spot at the slightest moment. Even if an inanimate object is being depicted, it can be shown in such a way that one could almost imagine it moving on it's own volition, and such depictions are probably the most interesting in my opinion.

This.

"Modern" art is actually from the 60s. The word you're probably looking for is "contemporary."

[/artschoolnerd :nerd: ]

I see, and, on some level agree with, the "it doesn't look like its hard" approach to criticizing contemporary art. But the fact is that its not easy to do well. If you spend enough time, you can draw a perfect pomegranate (or you can just whip out a camera and take a picture, rendering the whole point moot). However, capturing the essence of a pomegranate (or happiness, or the state of Maryland) is much, much more difficult. It requires more that just rote observation of what is in front of you, but rather a study of what is inside you (as well as a masterfull understanding and application of artistic principles [line, composition, balance, etc.]). In many ways, abandoning representation allows a more primal, direct connection to the viewer. A Rothko does things that a Vermeer simply can't.

The customary reply to "I could have done that" is, "yea, but you didn't." The reaction/intent of the viewer, artist, and space is very important to contemporary art. Oftentimes what looks easy and crappy on screen is very impressive in real life.

http://ultraorange.net/media/2007/12/art-pieter-bruegel-the-elder-the-fall-of-the-rebel-angels-1562.jpg

http://modernartphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/What-Is-Modern-Art.jpg


http://www.wallpaperphotoshare.com/files/original_photos/modern_art_wallpaper_colors_art11789.jpg

This would be true were it not that pomegranate tastes like [censored].

Thats the name I was looking for, Contemporary.

I'm sure it was difficult for the artist to create that piece of work and thats why its raise should be left to the artist itself not everyone elses interpretation. But with a well polished silver tongue a person can make a bag of crap into something else.

To me, most contemporary artists are Snake Oil Salesmen. There to fool the gullible with their amazing explanations with their wonderful concoctions but no facts or actual research to back it up.

Any fool can have emotion. A drunk can express his pent up rage by beating the crap out of some dog.

Modern (/contemporary/anything after ww1) art doesn't think art has to be pretty or beautiful or nice. Negative emotions are just as valid as positive ones. So a picture that embodies the feeling of tasting like [censored] is can still be a work of art.


For the sake of some sort of base metric, lets consider artists that you'd find in galleries and books rather than art school kids with a deadline or anyone on deviant art. Theres a ton of bad art out there, both contemporary and earlier (hell, the entirety of Mannerist style/movement can very well be considered a bad example of 'classical' art). "Modern" art tends to get a lot of crap precisely because people think "lol, I'll dribble some paint on a canvas, say its about important human themes, and call it art." Art-Art doesn't work that way, and I personally think you can tell (sometimes...)


An artist would film it and project it over the dog's hide in the middle of an otherwise blank gallery

Of course it doesn't and I'm not talking in these terms of my argument. It can be art to anyone if they feel something for it or it symbolizes something to them or affects them in some way. Art has many definitions.

But I'll be damned if this is considered skilled. When a man can photograph someone elses arts and call the photograph of the art of someone else his own art and using some "special meaning" or when someone paints something very easily done or copied onto a well known copy of a piece of art. It may mean something to people but it is easily done. Just because they put thought behind it does not fully merit it for everyone else.

I know there are plenty of people who create paintings with great splashes of color and odd shapes. Their probrably trying real hard to create what they feel about a particular subject, but I doubt someone else can really tell what was really emotionally involved and which ones were just made for what purpose.

http://tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/2011/06/21/the-art-of-puking/

It literally comes from within.

I hate traditional art..but at the same time, I don't condone it. Art is expression and i'm all about expression.

I just don't care for other people's expressions.

It depends. Some are just paint splashed onto a canvas, while others are pure works of genius.

In my opinion, art is something that conveys an idea.

Usually modern art is just a bunch of random items arranged in such a matter that it can be called art. No idea in mind, just letting people decide what it means.

I am all for people expressing themselves, but art should take some time and some talent to create.