|
Post by Arachis on Aug 11, 2004 17:04:33 GMT -5
Now I dont know about most people on this forum, but I hate Modern Art..... However there are two modern artists who are exceptions to this rageing intolerance, Rene Magritte, and M.C. Escher.... who happen to be my favorite artists period. I was wondering what you guys thought of Modern art... If your interested in either of these two artists... for MC Escher, visit The Official MC Escher page I would reccomend his later works starting with his Metamorphases in the Belgium period For those who are really obssessed (like me) try MC Escher's Waterfall in LEGO and the other ones at the bottom of the page... (including Relativity, Ascending and Descending, Belvedere, and Balcony). For Magritte, their is no official site with all of his paintings, nor any unofficial site, so I must leave it up to you to check him out... I would reccomend a book from the library as the best source though... but google can find you enough pictures to get you interested (or disinterested...)
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Aug 13, 2004 20:42:53 GMT -5
I love modern art.... Though, my tastes in art are almost as wide as my tastes in music.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Aug 13, 2004 22:24:43 GMT -5
I like modern art, just not the excessively abstract stuff.
-What is it? >It's a bicycle. -No it isn't, it's a bicycle wheel with a bunch of squiggles. >That's how my 'inner mind' sees it. -Is your inner mind on drugs?
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Aug 14, 2004 9:37:54 GMT -5
-Is your inner mind on drugs? [/i][/quote] Probably.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Aug 14, 2004 21:21:51 GMT -5
My favorite piece of modern art would be a stolen gas station toilet. Just because ;D ;D ;D No, I'm not making this up, it did happen. If I could prove it, I would.
|
|
|
Post by >>The Neon One on Aug 16, 2004 0:21:12 GMT -5
I, as an art history student AND hardcore modern art fan must protest: Art began as a representation of real objects, or as physical manefestations of abstract ideas: as in cave paintings or idols of ancient gods and goddesses. Later, science came in and thus the obcession with perspective and proportion began. However, once you master these, art has a creativity all its own. Modern art, in many ways is a return to taking abstract ideas and placing them on a canvas. Art has always had an important role in social criticism, however, with more freedom of speech, it has been able to become even more overt. Modern life has a tendency to be impersonal. The art tries to capture this. Modern art is unsettling because, for the most part, it deals with unsettling themes. This is what makes it important and beautiful. Abstraction isn't necessarily the product of "drugs". Take my favorite painting in the world: Picasso's Guernica. Do not be fooled; the real Guernica takes up an entire wall in the gallery where it is displayed. The story behind Guernica is tragic; during WWII and the Spanish civil war, the fascist regime of Franco allowed Nazis to practice bombing over the little town of Guernica. Note the PRACTICE. This was utterly senseless killing. Picasso could have painted real-looking people dying; I can assure you he was perfectly capable of it (see later paragraph). Instead, he distorts the figures, makes them seem sub human, as they were being treated. The distortion also highlights the pain and agony. The horse and the bull, two symbols of Spain, show how while the attack was only on a small city, the entire country is effected by the horror of fascism. The rays of light, however, show hope for a better future. There's a lot more in here, but that's just some of the imagery you can find. Picasso COULD have used a photographic color scheme, but doesn't the black and white emphasize the horror far better than a full pallet ever could? This was not the product of drugs. This was a well thought-out mural. The myriad of sketches that people have uncovered can prove that if you still don't believe me. Picasso felt so strongly about this painting that he wouldn't allow it to return to Spain (it was in New York) until Franco was out of power. ALL of the famous modern artists received classical art training. If Pollock was alive, he could draw a portrait of a person just fine. He did plenty of paintings before his infamous splatter paintings. The point of those is the ACTION of the painting. For him, the action was more important than the actual product. His work captured the rhythms of jazz music. The pop artists may seem to just be copying pop culture, however, their art was designed to pose a question: In a world that is becoming more of a place for consumers, when everything is being bought and sold, when everything is becoming mass-produced, where exactly does creativity fit in?? As for Picasso, I've seen an extensive exhibit of his career as an artist. I'm talking pre-Blue Period. As in one of his earliest sketch books. He drew birds, he did oil paintings in the classic style of everyone else. But after awhile he branched out and tried working in different styles. The change was drastic. Why didn't he just stick to the classical style? Because the works done in his personal style have an emotion and feel to them that the classic ones don't. The classic ones are TECHNICALLY good but are not genious. Technical skill can only count for so much. I could go on and on about various movements of modern art, however, I just want you to realize that works end up in a museum for a reason. Art IS there for athetics, however, it's also there for what it stands for. For example, out of all the paintings done of royal courts, why is the one by Goya so famous? Because he used his position as court painter to paint a social criticism of the royal family who was weak, inbred, and just overall not very good rulers. Amazingly, he was able to convey all this just by capturing the people in their portraits, and also by the way he placed them in the picture. A good work of art should not only be asthetically pleasing and have good color/balance/yadayadayada, but also somehow reflect the artist's passion. I don't know why, but from Pollock's Autumn Rhythm to Michaelangelo's David, you can tell that passion, love, and effort went into the work. I guess what I'm trying to say is that don't confuse skill with talent. Skill can be learned easily, but not everyone has talent. If you cannot tell, this is an extreme pet peve of mine. People seem to think that modern artists like to paint canvases blue without thought. PS- although Mondrian and Esscher are BOTH quite excellent =D
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Aug 16, 2004 1:18:06 GMT -5
sorry... you mentioned mondrian... but I do not know of him... also though you are correct, you must allow for tastes, and in my case, it is not that I dont appreciate what the other modern artists have done, it is that their pieces do not appeal to me as do Escher and Magritte.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Aug 20, 2004 23:37:30 GMT -5
btw if you want a picture that really looks like a childs drawing, check out Joan Miro's Personnage devant le soleil... although she did have multiple paintings under the same title... so it might take a while... the one Im referring to, should really stand out, but if you need something exact, it should be the only one done on newspaper...
|
|
|
Post by >>The Neon One on Dec 27, 2004 1:01:02 GMT -5
Jean Miró = male
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Dec 27, 2004 13:17:36 GMT -5
thats what I meant
|
|
|
Post by Haku on Dec 27, 2004 16:09:11 GMT -5
I hate modern art, in most cases. What's that you say Jenny and Nick? What? Most of the art I do in class could be considered modern? Well, maybe... ...um, no response.
|
|
|
Post by >>The Neon One on Dec 30, 2004 2:34:06 GMT -5
Why does everyone hate it so much!? :: honestly does not understand::
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Dec 30, 2004 3:08:56 GMT -5
Why does everyone hate it so much!? :: honestly does not understand:: As I said... There are some which I dont hate. Personally I dislike modern art because much though it has lots of symbolism, in my opinion it loses the original purpose of art... to look good and interesting. Some pieces are ok, but most of them are boring, or bland.
|
|
|
Post by >>The Neon One on Dec 30, 2004 3:59:12 GMT -5
It's fine not to like the way it looks, but if you don't like it because it "looses the original purpose of art" well...
The original purpose of art was NOT for decoration. Art was originally very symbolic. It originally was used to create a visual form of what was abstract: aka- gods (a lot of modern art similarly is based on visual representation of the abstract. Some. Not all.). Art was also originally used in story telling. The strive for visual beauty in the Renaissance was more an intent to perfect the SCIENCE of art, not to make something beautiful for the sake of it being beautiful. In any case, if you think the first paintings were just intended to look nice without any protest, message, or meaning, than I'm afraid you need to take art history.
(in any case, the "purpose" of art has evolved over time. Why are the most famous artists rarely appreciated in their lifetime? Because what makes it great is that they were visionary, doing something completely DIFFERENT from what was going on in the time. People were saying the exact same things you say about modern art to everyone's beloved impressionists. No one these days says that Monet, Degas, Manet, Cassat, Morrisot, etc. couldn't paint, yet when they were painting, people said the exact same things that you're saying about today's artists. It's silly to denounce evolution of culture)
It's fine to say "oh! I don't like how that looks" but don't blame it for breaking purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Dec 30, 2004 12:54:08 GMT -5
the only difference is that impressionists were not usually accepted in their lifetime. Those who practice modern art may not be accepted by most of the population, but at least all the art critics accept them, and at least everyone buys their works. Also, though art was used to convey a message, much of its purpose was also to please the viewer. Why else would people have bothered perfecting perspective, and the ability to paint well?
|
|