What do you think about contemporary art and why?
I'm an artist in a graduate school that is very engaged in the theory of contemporary art and how it relates to other disciplines as well as art theory/history. I'm trying to gauge the general perspective/understanding that other communities have of contemporary art.
Also, feel free to ask me any questions related to contemporary art.
/ic/ doesn't count for shit bro, this board is full of teenagers who are weaning themselves off of anime as they dream of becoming MtG card illustrators once they're out of high school.
generally speaking /ic/ has no appreciation for modern or post-modern art, and has 0 appreciation for art history. you honestly will have much better luck on the art history subreddit.
Generalization bruh, there are some non illustrators here, I'm trying to get my fine arts on, taking some courses at the Uni painting and reading studies on the side attending receptions discovering the contemporary in my local context. Don't write off ic
Anyway, my issue is these 400level courses relate to art at a higher non medium specific level. Have any texts or artists / resources you can drop in regard to painting?
I've been digging the screen works of Dave Stonhouse as of late, fucker has like 30 of these bitches done. Was just on exhibit at PAVEsD in Saskatoon here.
>What do you think about contemporary art and why?
LIKE BRUH LOOK AT THE PAINT I JUST LIKE PUT ON THIS CANVAS BRUH YEAH I'M DEEP LIKE THAT BRUH JUST PUTTING PAINT EVERYWHERE BRUH ITS LIKE MY ORIGINAL STYLE THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS LIKE EVER DONE BEFORE BRUH I'M SO LIKE UNIQUE AND PROFOUND BRUH JUST DIG THE TOTALLY LIKE SINGULAR EXPRESSION OF THIS DEEP PROFOUND UNIQUE POWERFUL SINGULAR RESOUNDING PAINTING LIKE BRUH
Sorry for shitposting but I couldn't think of any other way to answer the question honestly
Mine involves finding some way to riff on contemporary painters while being aware of the cannon. I never expect to be exhibited routinely, but I've got art dick buddies and we do art dick things. Fuck, right now I'm trying to apply cubist painting to motion. That and fucking around with Mondrian esque pieces, great excuse to sharpen my color knowledge. I'm an idiot but the mass moves, so I move with it. It's fun watching the community riff on each other.
But the act of painting and the object of the painting processs is absurd in 2016. This much I know. But I like filling canvas and drinking wine with goons, so fuck it. Colour effects more then form. Piocasso was a Hack, Rothko hit the nail on the head, he was delusional though. Paint paint pain!
>Fuck, right now I'm trying to apply cubist painting to motion.
>I never expect to be exhibited routinely
Do you? i've been on a holding pattern for a while now, but I'm getting back into things. I'll have a small exhibition as soon as I develop a body of work I'm happy with, family friend has a small gallery that I've scouted* a couple of artists to exhibit in.
*met at uni or at pubs
Nah, those fuckers romanticized shit way to hard. That and it's discrete not continuous. The Vorticists were closer to what I'm going for. Those goons couldn't colour for shit though. But I dig their ideology, even if they ended up a bunch of fascist dinks. I'm trying to work my abstract skills up to par so I can use various colour contrasts to create turbulent push/pull forces. That's hard to do with flat Vort forms though. Need to find a way to reconcile, more watercolour experiments!
>hurr hurr not real art
It was playing on the art object, it served it's purpose and drew attention. Can we move on?
We live in a day where screens and tin sound dominate 90% of interactions. Walk on a bus and look at everyone on their phones. Look at the earbuds silencing environment. If the majority of people need quick one second images floating by in rapid succession to hold interest what hope does a painting have? When the environment itself is silenced to the point of just being perceptible enough to be navigated, why is a painting going to be looked at for more then 20 seconds, let alone viewed for minutes to achieve an effect? Unless you enjoy looking at paintings, it's not given a second thought. Because Instagram.
This is some old jazz, meant to go with a poem and these.
My older oils are shit, I'm figuring out how to properly into abstract. 70% of my work isn't on there yada yada yada
Have a shitty photo of a 2x5ft collage I'm working on.
And because I'm feeling like I need to show stuff now and I hate it. Here's a underpainting for a oil work. Spray stencil, collaged newsprint (oil gel) and my overpainting will get slammed on top.
Here's a weight.
>What do you think about contemporary art and why?
It's art that is perfectly adapted to the age we live in, which is an age of total apathy. Modern art isn't for or against anything. It's just meaningless shapes that get rid entirely of the idea that art should have a point.
It's no surprise that bankers and politicians love modern art. It's as inoffensive and as free of risk as art possibly can be
I think it's lame, but like someone else said, I'm just an edgy teenager and haven't grown to appreciate contemporary, but I do like art history. I don't know, I like a lot of renaissance paintings because i like seeing depictions of different humans doing stuff like regular jack offs and fucking whatever. Human form is just more interesting than basic shapes and colours because it's essentially a far more complex form of contemporary art.
I love contemporary art, a lot of fresh ideas, innovative designs and material. I think social media makes it much easier to find people who are actually good.
I like contemporary Russian painters like Serge Marshennikov.
Doubles followed by the trips don't lie.
Most underrated post right here. This pretty much sums up a lot, and even if contrived meanings that are too deep for you are applied to the painting, since the art itself is meaningless, it's likely that no two people will be able to describe the same things.
(This thread is playing a little loose with art genre terms though)
>conflating modernism and contemporary art
>assuming that they both mean solely abstract expressionism and edgy conceptual works
I know its 4chan and I shouldn't expect better, but for fuck's sake...
Had to leave this comment in a circlejerk about picasso
I think I can count with my left hand fingers the pieces of "modern art" I actually like.
I am an amateur oil painter. I haven't had a formal education, but I love art history. To me, the picture you posted is slowly moving away from what is becoming contemporary. I appreciate what it was. It served a purpose, but I feel the art market moving on. I live in the Pacific North West and people here are losing their collective shit over plein aire paintings. 30 minute 8 x 10 oil sketches are being sold for upwards of $300 in many of the galleries I go to.
The market is moving away from complete abstraction back to the representational. What was a movement about expanding what art could be and pushing the boundaries of form turned into an army of crap artists pushing out crap work and justifying their paintings as legit because the market relied on great artists having a story and philosophy behind their work. Jackson Pollock's work was just a fucked up mess of spilled paint, until you learned that it represented his emotional pain and battling addiction. Then the art has a real meaning.
I see this kind of work fading because the people who are buying the majority of art now want the painting to communicate some kind of meaning itself. they don't want to be told what the art represents. I fit into this idea myself. To me art is about communication. If the art fails to communicate an idea on its own, then it is a failure of an artwork.
19th century art FTW.
As popular as plein air is, I have a sneaking suspicion abstraction will swing back around somewhat soon. Realism and naturalism have been surging in popularity for about 8 years In conservative groups, and there's already some bloat.
I'm simply echoing observation from some well known painters who I happen to be close with.
'Hope there's room for both--you couldn't pay me to give shits about post-modernism.
I like Takashi Murakami colours.
What would you call my art?
I had an art professor from Berkely U and several other established artists look at it and ask me how I would classify this. I have my own classification but, I never thought about it in the sense of art movements. And I am curious, since you claim to be a student or someone learning about art, what would this be categorized as?
I refer to it as Islamic Art, since I'm Muslim. Aside from that, I don't have another classification for it and am curious as to what you think.
Or anyone as a matter of fact that has knowledge on art history/movements.
I like this
It reminds me of some japanese street art I saw maybe 7 years ago, and I haven't seen it since.
It was a lot simpler, only simple shapes but very colorful and yeah, sort of meaningful patterns in a way...
Does anyone know what I'm talking about? would like to see it again. Japanese artist.
Also, that pic is a detail of a page that is 13in x 13in
>full page (1/92)
Doodling. It has nothing to do with religion and there is nothing more to it. Seems like your interpretation of your work is getting a little top heavy. It's very cool, and I would be happy to hang it on my wall but it ends there, mate.
So you define the purpose behind an artists work? If this is the case, which I am not necessarily arguing completely, then all drawings, and paintings are just that, doodles.
I never said that the art had anything to do with religion, but neither does any art attached to religion except for the artist, as I mentioned.
I can draw realism, I can draw cartoons but even then, those are doodles, technically speaking. What makes them any different? When does the barrier between doodle and "actual" art disappear?
Is it possible to have have art that is visually "Non-representative" with a specific or defined intent behind it?
Also, by "representative", what is implied? Visual representation of a thing, or representation of an idea or belief? Or representation of a process?
>Seems like your interpretation of your work is getting a little top heavy
I don't interpret my work, I just do it (with a purpose). I have a purpose and an intent. Is this why it seems "top-heavy"? Because I am doing it for something other than doodling on paper, from my position and point of view[?]
I mean, I doodle, but they look like
>pic related, my doodling from a class last night (don't mind my poor handwriting)
>what is implied
I'd say that the term "non-representative" characterises a work that does not explicitly represent a thing.
But I don't know what I'm talking about 2bh
I think you are correct to suggest that Islamic art is instead perhaps a representation of a belief. Islamic artists make the choice not to represent things or characters, because the act of doing so is considered idolatry. So it follows that Islamic art represents a belief that is hostile to idolatry.
>So it follows that Islamic art represents a belief that is hostile to idolatry.
The majority of Islamic art seems to be geometry ("sacred" geometry), caligraphy and other work that is visually abstract (though, I don't see much of that). That Islam is hostile towards idolatry, this is true. Who worships a created thing and why? (A rhetorical question). Though I don't think Islamic art represents that specifically.
>Islamic artists make the choice not to represent things or characters, because the act of doing so is considered idolatry.
This is incorrect. A [practicing] Muslim [that happens to be an] artist, doesn't depict images of people or animals because it is prohibited by Allaah. The act of doing so falls into a sin. The product could become idolized and elevated (like hanging portraits and drawings of people and animals on the wall). In Islam, the act of doing that is a form of elevation and elevating a thing is, in Islam, an act of worship, which, due to the nature of art being an object bearing an image can become a subtle form of idol worship, knowningly or unknowingly.
>"non-representative" characterises a work that does not explicitly represent a thing.
This makes sense, and if it is the case, then perhaps it should be more specifically defined (maybe?)
I should clarify that I am speaking for myself.
>A [practicing] Muslim [that happens to be an] artist, doesn't depict images of people or animals because it is prohibited by Allaah. The act of doing so falls into a sin.
What would be left of your picture if you were taken out of the context?
A doodle of a starry sky. A cool picture but it has zip to do with religion. And that is not up to you or your intentions to decide. It has to be a part of the picture, literally.
hello friend, I am an apostate.
>Though I don't think Islamic art represents that specifically.
>This is incorrect
I did actually mean to suggest that creating representations of characters or animals is indeed a sin (the sin of idol worship)
>then perhaps it should be more specifically defined
One could try, but I couldn't, like I said
>I don't know what I'm talking about 2bh
One could also argue that legitimate Islamic art taken out of context would have zip to do with religion. Have you seen some? Aside from being passionately non-representative, there's nothing that explicitly relates pic related with Islam.
It's just some aesthetically pleasing geometric arrangements of complex shapes and colors. There are a lot of stars though.
This is interesting. But I am almost 100% certain that the depiction limits to humans or animals is wrong. The idolation of pictures or other aesthetically intended work (aka art) is what is prohibited. Simply because it gives emotions and aesthetic an abnormal significance, and taking up focus which should be placed elsewhere. Sacred geometry is the exception, as it is supposed to symbolize laws acting in the universe which people need to know in order to evolve as individuals. This is what is so wrong about people doing "mystical" symbols and whatnot with a religious spin, but don't even know it is considered a sin (free rhyme).
>What would be left of your picture if you were taken out of the context?
I would still be tattooing, doing comix and drawing nekkid BBW's (Big Booty Women). I would also probably still be high and trippin face. And this work would most likely be non-existent.
So technically, FOR ME, this work, as an artist evolving and as a citizen on the earth and as a person interacting with this reality, this work is heavily tied to my Post Islamic Identity, as opposed to my pre-Islamic identity.
Or is that irrelevant? And if so, why? Who decides that?
>it has zip to do with religion.
This is true, I do not deny that the content of the work is not in any way shape or form a representation of Islam.
>And that is not up to you or your intentions to decide.
I disagree with this 100% You can interpret it as you like BUT you cannot take away the artists perspective and intention and defined purpose away. I mean, you can repeat yourself over and over until you lose your senses but it won't change a thing.
>It has to be a part of the picture, literally.
I agree with this to some degree as well. Calligraphy is a visual and interactive form of this when people write the entire Qur'aan by hand (you can see them at The Met). But if you limit yourself like this, how far do you expect to go with your art (assuming you are an artist)
>I disagree with this 100% You can interpret it as you like BUT you cannot take away the artists perspective and intention and defined purpose away.
If the artist has an intention with the picture that is not easily understood, yes his intentions are important to the viewer, but I don't see how that is the case with yours. Or is it not a starry sky?
>The idolation of pictures or other aesthetically intended work (aka art) is what is prohibited
This is incorrect. What is clearly and explicitly stated is the prohibition of depiction of humans and animals (or things that contain a soul as defined in Islam, which are just humans and animals)
I posted a hadith that refutes your statement clearly:
>Imam Muslim said: I read this hadeeth to Nasr ibn 'Alee al-Jahdamee (the Shaykh of Imam Muslim) who heard the hadith from Abdul-A'laa ibn Abdul-A'laa, from Yahya ibn Abu Ishaaq, from Sa'eed ibn Abu'l-Hasan, who said: A man came to Ibn Abbaas رضى ﷲ عنهما and said: I am a person who makes these images (suwar); give me a religious verdict (fatwa) about them. He (Ibn Abbaas) said to him: come near me. The man came near to him. Then he (Ibn Abbaas) said (again): come near me. So, he came nearer to him, until he placed his hands on the man’s head and said: I am going to inform you of what I heard from Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ. I heard him say: every image-maker (musawwir) will be in the fire of Hell. A soul will be made for him for every image which he has made, and it will punish him in the Hell-fire.’ Ibn Abbass رضى ﷲ عنهما said: If you must do it (i.e., make these images), then make (images of) trees and lifeless things ('ash-shajarah wa maa laa nafs lahu’). Thereupon, Nasr ibn 'Alee al-Jahdamee (the Shaykh of Imam Muslim) confirmed this hadeeth. - [Sahih Muslim 3/1161, no. 5272]
>If you must do it (i.e., make these images), then make (images of) trees and lifeless things ('ash-shajarah wa maa laa nafs lahu’).
>Simply because it gives emotions and aesthetic an abnormal significance, and taking up focus which should be placed elsewhere.
This is incorrect. Art is not prohibited in Islam. Art can lead a person to contemplate the larger picture and to ponder upon Allaah's creation so long as it remains within the confines of what is permissible.
>Sacred geometry is the exception, as it is supposed to symbolize laws acting in the universe which people need to know in order to evolve as individuals
This is conjecture.
>This is what is so wrong about people doing "mystical" symbols and whatnot with a religious spin, but don't even know it is considered a sin (free rhyme).
Though I think I understand and agree (from what I gather), can you elaborate?
If this was a starry sky I would have said
>Hey anon, what do you think of my starry sky drawing?
That it LOOKS like a starry sky, I do not deny.
If the artist has an intention with the picture that is not easily understood, yes his intentions are important to the viewer
Do you understand why I am doing this? ( I am not asking this so that you ask me "why?" or say "Tell me")
>but I don't see how that is the case with yours
>Do you understand why I am doing this?
I'm guessing you think it looks cool, but I don't think you can read anything and everything into it. I could draw a line and read heaven and hell into it, but would that make it more than a line?
I can't go around and claim my line is "jewish art" just because I was jewish once and now I'm reading all this mystical jewish stuff into my line...?
Hm, people doing art that looks like it has some mystical meaning often linked to a religion, but in reality they just made some symbols that look cool but has no meaning at all. They don't even know about religious geometry, or for that matter what it represents.
>>(the sin of idol worship)
>This is incorrect.
I genuinely fail to understand how what I was trying to suggest was incorrect.
>doesn't depict images of people or animals because it is prohibited by Allaah. The act of doing so falls into a sin
>art being an object bearing an image can become a subtle form of idol worship
From what I'm reading, depictions of people or animals in art is prohibited by Allah, because it is a subtle form of idol worship. So it follows that idol worship is a sin, is it not? It ought to be.
I think you misspoke.
But because I like conversing about art, I will continue
>you think it looks cool
I would be lying if I didn't think the final product looked cool, but this is NOT why I'm doing it.
>but I don't think you can read anything and everything into it.
I agree with this from the perspective of an outside observer. But from my own perspective, this would not apply. Perhaps the work is too personal. it isn't commercially marketable that makes it seems like there is no point to it...which makes sense as this is the state of the art world today. A big business, and a drive to become "recognized" and paid.
>I could draw a line and read heaven and hell into it, but would that make it more than a line?
You could and no. Even I know my work is lines on paper like everyone else (or paint on canvas). It is nothing more than that. We can't take it with us when we die, and if a fire consumes it, it is gone. This is art.
>I can't go around and claim my line is "jewish art" just because I was jewish once and now I'm reading all this mystical jewish stuff into my line...?
Well, this is true if you were
Then no, whatever you do wouldn't be fall under Jewish art since you were and are no longer Jewish, making your line.
But I was non-Muslim doing haram art, and now I am Muslim doing this design, so technically speaking, it is Islamic art as it is done by a Muslim artist. It is definitely not Christian or Jewish or Chinese art. Perhaps it can also be Latino art since I am Latino (Hispanic). Maybe it can be seen as indigenous art since my roots are in the Maya/Inca people. But I identify as a Muslim, race and geography are irrelevant at this point so those options are null and void.
Even if you classify them as doodles it would be doodles by that Muslim guy, and then become, in effect, Islamic art work because there is a foundation and principle, especially when there is a deliberate strive to not depict humans and animals.
Okay, there are no rules in this game so it's up to anyone to decide what they think. I personally don't think a person being muslim makes everything he does "islamic art". It's just a way for a person to conjure up a mystical dimension to what is, to an objective viewer, doodling. It is cool tho, don't get me wrong on that.
>people doing art that looks like it has some mystical meaning often linked to a religion,
As far as I know and am concerned, in Islam, everything is clear cut. Sufism is deviation, so this idea of "mystical" meanings stem from deviation in Islam. So I agree, that is all poppycock. lol
>but in reality they just made some symbols that look cool but has no meaning at all.
Agreed. I studied symbolism before Islam, so I know what you mean. I agree totally, people, unfortunately, can be such massive tools.
>They don't even know about religious geometry, or for that matter what it represents.
This is true, nor do people understand the religious beliefs to correctly apply geometric interpretations. Again, as far as Islam is concerned, there is an appreciation for balance and beauty and symmetry which can be represented in geometry. Along with the intricacies and details, but the meanings of such work are not synonymous with Christian or Jewish interpretations that extend beyond what is clearly stated in the doctrines of the religion. Though, that art has a therapeutic effect on the soul is without, in my opinion, doubt. Anyone who doubts that is an ignoramus. "Sacred" geometry provides that therapy because it forces us to create: Balance which in turn helps us become in tune with our selves and recognize our imbalance, focus, symmetry and the like. And the fact that it is, for the most part, free from depictions of human and animal forms, which I personally believe, cater to a base desire. If we analyze the strive to depict people and animals...
>I genuinely fail to understand how what I was trying to suggest was incorrect.
>>(the sin of idol worship)
In reference to drawing people. This is incorrect because drawing people or animals does not fall into the sin of idol worship. It falls into the sin of depicting living creatures that was forbidden by Allaah. The act of doing these drawings is not idolatry. maybe in your definition, but not in Islam. Elevating the drawings and asking the drawings and images for guidance and help and blessings (like I have seem many times with Catholics and Christians) is idolatry and this is a Major Sin (Shirk-ul-Akbar). But drawing people and animals alone does not fall into this category, it is a sin, but not the sin of idol worship.
>From what I'm reading, depictions of people or animals in art is prohibited by Allah, because it is a subtle form of idol worship.
Depictions of people and animals in general is prohibited by Allaah because IT CAN LEAD to subtle or full blown idol worship (Christians with depictions of what they THINK Jesus looks like, I mean my God, look at all the Christian Instagram profiles and the billion depictions of Jesus, and then attributing to him falsehoods from their desires. Or look at the Hindus. I have been in Hindu temples and have seen it). I am speaking about art because I am a Muslim and an artist, on an art forum.
>So it follows that idol worship is a sin, is it not? It ought to be.
Idol worship and polytheism are from the Major Sins and nullifiers of islam. Absolutely. BUT drawing people/animals is NOT idolatry, it is a sin transgressing the command of Allaah.
>I think you misspoke.
Perhaps, if Allaah Wills, this will clarify.
>it is an extremely subtle distinction
And this is were the danger hides, and one of the perceivable wisdom behind the prohibition (if you are a Monotheist)
Aside from that, depictions of animals and people can be seen as pure 'plagiarism' of something specifically "copyrighted".
And I look at it like this as well (for myself) based on the hadeeth:
>Aboo Hurayrah narrated that the prophet ﷺ said: Allaah, Exalted be He, Said, ‘Who would be more unjust than the one who tries to create the like of My creation? Let them create an ant or a grain of wheat or that of barley.’ - [Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree 5953; Saheeh Muslim 2111]
>Narrated ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar رضى ﷲ عنهما: Allaah’s Messenger ﷺ said: ‘Those who make these images (suwar) will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, 'Make alive what you have created.' - [Sahih Al-Bukhaaree 7/541, no. 835; Sahih Muslim 3/1160, no. 5268]
Anything else could be considered "public domain" as far as permissibly of depiction.
Again, just to clarify, this is MY PERSONAL position as a artist and Muslim.
> I personally don't think a person being muslim makes everything he does "islamic art".
Not everything. Especially if it contradicts that which has been clearly legislated.
>It's just a way for a person to conjure up a mystical dimension to what is
Like I mentioned, everything that is to be known in Islam is clear cut, and that which isn't, we do not delve into or interpret ourselves or we may fall into major deviation as Allaah Himself states:
It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Quran). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments, etc.), Al-Fara'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. [The Noble Qur'aan 3:7]
So, I agree with you about the whole "mystical" thing, and how people use religion to pander to that, which, in Islam, as Allaah has stated, deviation.
I appreciate the compliment. Thank you.
Honestly, I like discussing art in relation to personal identity and belief and in relation to the world around us, as much as I like creating it. It's even better when someone indulges me in that. It allows us to work out our brain, which seems to be one of the few muscles people seem to be working out.
This picture is, ironically enough, more suited as a criticism against drawing dicks on horses for cash, or churning out photobashed wallpapers for some literally who EA studio deep in former communist eastern Europe.
"Extraordinary art for extraordinary spaces™" Swarez site proclaims, his logo a generic, license free splash of red, which could just as easily be adorning a box of goon or toner or school acrylic. His pieces are displayed proudly accompanying furniture. Lounge suites, dining rooms, offices, all can have a Swarez made to suit.
Think about that, the mind-numbing soulless of your output, the next time you sell a little bit of yourself drawing two pre-teens from some shitty Jap cartoon rubbing each other off.
my view on contemporary art:
intellectually: every single piece of art has once been contemporary. the bloody Mona Lisa was contemporary art in 1510. reviewing current art from a current perspective is bound to fail. history will tell which styles will emerge as defining for our current age. mediocre people will be forgotten, legends will form. i wouldn't read too much into contemporary art before a 100 years have passed.
also, as >>2365851 has pointed out - contemporary art is a huge field. it's stupid to put recent abstract art, concept art installations, performance art, hyper realism and surrealism into one bag, just to name a few examples.
subjectively: some stuff is aesthetically pleasing. some stuff i'm genuinely impressed with or find very smart. some stuff i just find hilarious. i've spent over 8 years on 4chan. i love me a good troll. i see many contemporary concept artists as trolls and good on them for that. to be honest, i don't think my take on contemporary art is much different from my take on art in general: some stuff i like, some stuff i don't get or dislike (like Picasso or Munch for instance).
>It's no surprise that bankers and politicians love modern art.
i've actually been tracking that in my country for quite a while. i think they hate it or at least don't care for it. they just put it up to belong, to claim they're hip and modern. it's a tool for prestige and PR. bankers know it will appreciate. politicians know it gives them art cred. it's a very recent thing. just two decades back politics and art eyed each other with much more suspicion, even outright hostility. but now everyone tries to present themselves oh so liberal and progressive in the west and that entails putting up ugly art. it's a signal, nothing more.
contemporary or modern art is fucking wallpaper, but its to expensive to really be used as such.
just went to his page, i see it as having more art value than then the whole of contemporary and modern art.
google modern art, scroll to the bottom, i saw more than 10 pieces i liked, the fucking issue is those 10 pieces aren't the popular ones or even the ones that define the movement... modern art is overwhelmingly shit.
i like more contemporary art then i like modern but contemporary straddles a line between skill based and conceptual that's easy to fall on the wrong side of.
if i remember what oil goes for, that is fairly cheap
capped and saved for future references
Contemporary art can be interesting, but I will never look at it as passionately as I will at something like pic related.
I'm with them. Depictions of actual things need to be capturing an extremely aesthetically designed picture in order for it to make me feel anything or be interested at all. Even shit like pic related is more interesting, and well-done modern art is the best
this certainly describes a large swathe of contemporary artists, cf. a e s t h e t i c/ light and space movement
however there is a contingent of artists making work that has social relevance. Indeed there is a big chunk of artists making horrible, awful art that consists of nothing but shitty politics.
Most contemporary """"art"""" from any time period is pretty pointless without context.
Like at the MoMA, youll see 20 different paintings of grey squares by an artist from Europe during the 20s or something like that.
Taking the paintings at face value, they are just muddy grey squares on canvas. However, if you read the little info boxes on the sides of the art, youll see that these pieces were a big blocky middle finger to the art establishment and its standards at the time.
Most pieces of contemporary art, past or present, arent considered great because they were technically or skillfully exuberant, but because they pushed boundaries and got peoples panties in a twist.
Contemporary art should only ever be used as context to different time periods in art history.
I agree, honesty. modernism in particular was really more about politics and ideology than the art itself, which makes sense when you consider the world state at the time. looking at it from a technical standpoint is just an exercise in frustration.