To: macamadamia
How about artists like Whistler, Turner, Henry Moore, Gauguin, Edward Weston, Richard Estes, Dali, etc. etc.? You do know they, among others, are all considered modernists You know the ones I'm talking about. The ones who couldn't draw so they came up with a scam, like Picasso, Pollock, Lichtenstein, Warhol, Calder, Miro, Klee, Haring, Johns, Mondrian, Kandinsky, Modigliani and the biggest joke of them all, Rothko.
To: Aquinasfan
A list of artists you believe couldnt draw is not a definition of modern art. Your qualifiers undermine your statement that modern art is worthless. Im more on the same page with you than you think. But, you simply cant lump all of these artists together. Picasso, Pollock, Kandinsky, Miro, Mondrian, Klee, for example, sure as hell could draw; have you seen their early work? Theres no scam going onthis is a ridiculous assertion. They simply rejected their early styles, arrived at new ones and found admirers. Wheres the deception. I get queasy looking at a Thomas Kincaid, but I wouldnt for a second accuse him of pulling a scam simply because he found an audience. Also, it is wrong to speak about modern art as if it were monolithic. It simply isntthere never was a unified aesthetic and scholars cant even agree upon a definition of modernism. Its a knee jerk reaction to dismiss anything you dont like as modern art unless you can provide a comprehensive definition of modernism that everyone else seems to be struggling with. The problem IMO is that art history scholars think that theyre scientists and hence believe they can impose a nifty taxonomy upon all this cultural stuff that simply cannot be categorized. Also, I assume that you dont believe that art museums are sanctified spaces and that curators are high priests. Its all marketing, sometimes offensive sometimes palatable, but wheres the scam?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson