Why it's OK not to like modern art

The Times (UK) ^ | 5/8/03 | Julian Spalding

[PaulJ]

Just out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Andrew Wyeth? Artist or illustrator?

Hey, you really want to take some heat? Just remark that Norman Rockwell was not an "artist" per se, but was simply an illusrator.Here, in New England, that could get you shot!

[AlbionGirl]

the artists proceeded by averting their eyes from whatever their predecessors, from da Vinci on, had discovered, shrinking from it, terrified,...

It's probably natural to shrink from such divine and awesome talent as da Vinci and Michelangelo, they're the Jefferson, and Franklin of the Art sphere, but still van Gogh didn't shrink from it, Andrew Wyeth doesn't appear to have either. Beauty matters no matter what the nihilists say.

[Mamzelle]

Redux-wait

You mean Thomas Kincaid? Thought you were referring to someone else, then I proceeded to include his name in my own reference.

That's greeting-card stuff. Can't stand it. But how're the good artists to rise beyond the tyranny of the Emporer's New Art?

[Ditter]

bump for later

[Richard Kimball]

Bump for later

[Chancellor Palpatine]

A big problem with canvas "art" today is that are too many illustrators posing as artists.

Thank you for saying that. There is a difference, and while I might not be able to describe it in words, my eyes can sure tell.

There are those that can capture the essence of a subject, whther that be by photography, oil, watercolor, charcoal or ink, and those are the artists.

There is another group, that can faithfully follow a mechanical process, and those are mere illustrators.

[my right]

I can't stand modern art. I am of the philosophy that good art really ought to objectively represent something- an idea, an emotion, an object, etc. Modern art is all about subjectivism. It is reflective of the emergence of relativism as the mainstream philosophy, which strikes me as dangerous.

What he said... I think the greatest artist of this century was Norman Rockwell..He not only painted a beautiful picture but it always told a story that anyone could understand.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Because even a camera can be used artistically in the right hands (Ansel Adams comes to mind here). Capturing the right light, the right look, making the right composition at just the right moment makes the purveyor of any visual representation a true artist, as opposed to the recorder of detail.

[cibco]

"I was one of them."

I guess we are "art ignorant".

[Chancellor Palpatine]

My verdict is official - that one is just crap. Whoever did it has a little skill as an illustrator, but is not an artist.

[wardaddy]

Yes a Bev Doolittle with all the Indian Ponies...again greeting card stuff but not as bad as Kincaid....big yuck on Kincaid....hell I'd rather have a Velvet Elvis..lol There is a living landscape(impressionist) artist in Chicago whose name escapes me but he works heavily in purply/periwinkle shades. He owns part of a gallery in Banner Elk North Carolina and I love his work but it's quite pricey. On the Indian "style", I like Frank Howell (I think he passed away). I like Terpning too but he's way overplayed. There is a german fellow who does Indian subject matter which I love and he really does great Michaleangelo style "hands" (doing good hands is a benchmark in rep. art) anyhow, I've been trying to remember his damned name and it's escaped me. I have not been in the business in 7 years and don't keep up admittedly. I was just looking for what has "frequently" been my all time favorite portraiture:

Real Art

[MarkL]

In my case, I guess I just don't get it... But then, even though my mother tried with all her might to get me to appreciate art, I never did, and would up the "heathen" that I am today...

One of many pieces of "modern art" that I've never "gotten" are the shuttle cocks on the lawn of the Nelson-Atkins museum of art in KC.

This may look like it's been retouched, but it's not! There are actually a bunch of big shuttle cocks (AKA badmitton birdies) laying at different angles on the lawn of the museum. While it's somewhat amusing, as I said, I just don't get it.

Or, for that matter, the Bartle Hall Convention Center "Sky Stations." Although they do look sort of cool when lit up at night.

Mark

[wardaddy]

Modern art functions like a prestigious wallpaper or fabric, making a colorful decorative statement.

Indeed....I'd rather have a Flemish tapestry or a large impressionst landscape...wouldn't you?

[MEG33]

I was waiting for someone to bring that building up..any architecture critics out there!

[wardaddy]

good description.

[uglybiker]

"Modern Art" finally exposed to be the fraud that it is!

[Twinkie]

When you see "art" that consists of a few carelessly
scribbled black lines and green splatters that my dog,
Dixie, could do, if you consider buying it let me know
and I'll have Dixie paint one for you for free. It's
such a slap at true artists that spend hours really
using real techniques and painting something genuine.
If you want to see real work, look at some of Jim
Gray's art. This isn't advertising, it's just truth.

[kstewskis]

"It isn't about art. It is about how much BS you can spin to explain the 'meaning' of whatever piece of dreck you hang on the wall."

That's the darn truth. That's why the only "modern" art that hangs on my wall are from the likes of Chuck Jones and Friz Freling. Not much spin you can put on Bugs or Daffy.

[JudgemAll]

Well, certain things are seen with the hand and not the eye. Other things cannot be seen at all, like emotions, hardwiring experiences, rythms, jurisdiction, time and truth. Of course, conveying these abstract texture onto a painting is difficult work and does require some programation of the viewer, but once the language is acquired for a certain cult following, it works.

Of course there is a difference between genuine abstract art and modern art, modern art being this replacement of pure pristine youth beauty with something utterly sterile, as if sterility was synonymous with purity. Modern artist are utterly deranged and castrated and it shows in their autistic works. The omnivorous extravagant consumption sought ends up being like eating brown herbs in a bowl of cold water as a diet.

What is worse is that the obsession of modernity with the seeking of eternal life through technologies or make up masks of sterility only accentuate the necrosis despite the attempt to hide it. No doctor can produce a miracle cure the way a pregnant woman can produce a miracle child with young cells coming out of the old.

As for having a Ph.D to comment art or blaming ignorance, this is preposterous, since accreditation is not synonymous with truth. Quite the contrary, accreditation is most often used effectively to hide the truth. Modern art would be the epitomy of modern progressist superstition in people and in their art, denying God, yet pretending to be this iconoclasm that is in fact very idolatrous.

Gives credence to seeing with your heart and not your eyes and hence God can take any eye visible shape form.

[JudgemAll]

I love those Warner Bros type cartoon art.