Correcting some misconceptions about art, especially modern

[Peregrin Toker]

I first thought of writing this essay when I was browsing old threads on these forums out of sheer nostalgia factor and came across those threads denouncing modern art. I am, of course, usually the first person on this forum to defend modern and post-modern art's status as art. I do not automatically defend modern and post-modern art as a whole, because I see nothing wrong with criticizing individual movements, artists or even works within the wide umbrellae that are modern and postmodern art, if the criticisms regard either the ideals and philosophies expressed, or the method of execution.

However, most of the people on SDN who decry modern+postmodern art are contesting the idea that modern and post-modern art is art at all.

As I have pointed out in a few of those threads such as this one and this one (which is a bit older), it appears that most of those who cry "this is not art!" either have faulty definitions of art or expect art to be either entertainment or craftsmanship.

Allow me to elaborate. The most common arguments for modern and postmodern art not being actual art are:

1. It is not pleasing to the senses, ergo it is not art. Those who say this are judging art as if it was supposed to be entertainment. If something is created with the primary intent of merely looking or sounding good, it is entertainment first and foremost. What distinguishes art from entertainment is that one of the central purposes of art is the promotion of one or more clearly defined ideals, in some cases even a complex philosophy. These ideals can be directly philosophical or aesthethical (though aesthetic ideals usually are rooted in a philosophy). They can be the personal ideals of the artist, or if the art is commissioned and paid for, also the ideals of the customer. Those who consider this definition of art tailor-made to defend modern art may want to know that this definition was also that held by Friedrich Nietzsche and Richard Wagner.
2. It took little effort to make, ergo it is not art. The people who say this are either confusing art and craftsmanship with each other, or they hold art to the same standards as craftsmanship. In other words, it is a classic apples and oranges situation. Craftsmanship, not art, is about the display of technical skill. Something can be a intended as a showcase of great talent without having any distinct ideals or message behind them. Of course, it can be argued that the respect for great talent is an ideal in itself, which is why art and craftsmanship often overlap. However, this does not mean that the two terms are interchangeable.
3. I do not understand what it means, ergo it is not art. I can accept this to an extent if they mean "the artwork in question does not do justice to the ideals it is supposed to represent", but most often (such as in the thread about Duchamp's Fountain) those who say this have already decided beforehand that it does not mean anything and do not even want to find a meaning in it. Case in point - when I pointed out to Pcm979 that Duchamp's Fountain could be a metaphor or a symbol for something, he appeared to actively reject that idea. In short, these people, most bizarrely enough, mean that modern art is not art because it forces the audience to think. (Noone needs to point out the irony of this) Some even go as far as saying that modern art has no purpose other than being intentionally unaccessible and meaningless. Though this applies to Dadaism (funnily enough, the Daddaists repeatedly stated that what they were produced was not art, occassionally using the term "anti-art"), it could just as well argued that the intentional inaccessibility of much art gives it an esoteric dimension of mysteries which the viewer is invited to unlock.

I am not arguing that modern and post-modern art necessarily is good art, or that it is superior to pre-modern art, I am merely arguing that it is art. Nor am I proposing that art and entertainment are mutually exclusive.



(To be honest, I have never figured out exactly what H. R. Giger is trying to say with his paintings of biomechanical landscapes - is he denouncing or praising technology? Or is he just aiming to scare the fuck out of people?)

[DPDarkPrimus]

The thing is that one doesn't have to say ANYTHING with art. You can just create a work of art for the heck of it.

The bullshit about modern art happens when people start spewing nonsense about what their paint spatters are supposed to represent.

[Pick]

As someone who is very interested in and piddles around with more traditional media and stuff, I still think modern art is art. Sometimes better than others, but art nonetheless.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

As a huge fan of experimental and Avant-Garde (as well as minimalism), I have no problem with notions of art being purely for its own sake or that virtually anything can be art.

Many surrealist artists revelled in creating art that had no meaning, while the entire Dadaist movement actually had a hostile anti-art approach to their mediums and spectators.

And FYI Simon: most of Giger's source material comes from his dreams and thoughts, while there isn't any sort of underlying message to be read into his work.

[DPDarkPrimus]

And FYI Simon: most of Giger's source material comes from his dreams and thoughts, while there isn't any sort of underlying message to be read into his work.

Except that he has a thing for penises.

[Peregrin Toker]

Many surrealist artists revelled in creating art that had no meaning

Hm? I thought that the central premise of surrealism was that the supernatural was more beautiful than reality, meaning that all surrealist art would have the inherent meaning of praising the supernatural.

BTW, Spanky, how do you like my new Shamshiel avatar?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Shamshel, and I'm mostly indifferent to it.

I don't know where the hell you got your definition of surrealism, because the real definition is that it's mostly based on expressing the subconscious, not the supernatural. Reading through definitions and historical overviews, I see nothing even relating surrealism to the supernatural, and have no idea where you got such a notion other than your own warped, geekish brain.

[Sir Sirius]

I bet that most people who say that modern isn't "art at all" mean in the same sense as people who say that Dr. Mengele wasn't human, or at least I do so. The later certainly do not claim that Dr. Mengele was not a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, but rather that he was such a worthless piece of bottom feeding scum that he doesn't deserve to be called human. Likewise some/much of modern art is such crap it doesn't deserve to be called art at all.

Personally I'm inclined to think that artists were once simply exceptionally skilled artisans, today they are all too often pretentious talentless windbags with good publicists.

While we are at this I'd like to know why you insist that "What distinguishes art from entertainment is that one of the central purposes of art is the promotion of one or more clearly defined ideals..."? Bartleby's The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (linky) definition of the word "art" says nothing of the sort. Infact definition 2a directily contradicts your claim that "If something is created with the primary intent of merely looking or sounding good, it is entertainment first and foremost. ".

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Personally I'm inclined to think that artists were once simply exceptionally skilled artisans, today they are all too often pretentious talentless windbags with good publicists.

Well, what about modern and experimental artists that aren't pretentious windbags? There are quite a few of those out there, you know.

Andy Warhol really was probably the worst thing to happen to art, though, frankly giving the Avant-Garde a bad image and expectation. Art, celebrity, and star power just don't go together...

[The Grim Squeaker]

Some types/examples of modern art and sculpture are good and innovative.

The problem is that as always 98% of everything is crap and in art the other 5% is divided between actually visually or ascetically pleasing art and meaningless blotches that are'nt interesting.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Art should convey an explicit message which is instantly recognizeable to all human beings, traversing cultural and societal grounds. A large variety of art from many cultures--Japanese, Chinese, Indochinan, Hindu, Persian, Turkish, European, etc, does this, not just the traditional European art movements. All of this art seeks to convey a transcendental message, and is an embodiment of the Greek ideal of a form of knowledge which is given as a whole, something which, when looked upon, is conveyed immediately, whereas what we think of as logical, scientific knowledge is conveyed in a linear fashion. In short, True Art, as we shall call it, conveys an holistic form of knowledge.

Modern "art" does not do this. Period. The form and philosophy of modern "art" has proven itself incapable of conveying transcendental ideas, has no holistic context, and in fact prides itself in being open to "interpretation", a claim which in fact renders it not art at all, as art is something which should be understood, in a sublime and primal (or if you will, holistic) fashion. One grants that art must be evaluated piece-by-piece for legitimacy, but the simple fact of the matter is that there been effectively no art recognized by the world "art" literati as-such produced since Gorbachev ended the institutional dominance of Socialist Realism (which was one of the truly good things to come out of Communism) in the USSR in the mid-1980s, and virtually none outside of the Socialist Realist school since the effective end of the Impressionist movement.

[Sir Sirius]

Personally I'm inclined to think that artists were once simply exceptionally skilled artisans, today they are all too often pretentious talentless windbags with good publicists.

Well, what about modern and experimental artists that aren't pretentious windbags? There are quite a few of those out there, you know.

I'm sorry... I can't locate the part where I claimed that all modern artists are pretentious, perhaps you could highlight it for me.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I never said that you said that all of them were pretentious.

Bah, nevermind. I still stand by my claim that Warhol did horrendous damage to modern and experimental art.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

The form and philosophy of modern "art" has proven itself incapable of conveying transcendental ideas, has no holistic context, and in fact prides itself in being open to "interpretation", a claim which in fact renders it not art at all, as art is something which should be understood, in a sublime and primal (or if you will, holistic) fashion.

Exactly. Sometimes that's the best thing about it.

[Nephtys]

The problem with a lot of modern art is that it's well... pretty random. If I kick over my garbage can, yet have the can placed on a pedestal, it's art suddenly. Hell, I've seen peices of BLANK CANVAS, and they were on display as 'modern art'.

With stuff like that, if I walk through a hardware store, is the place also a 'modern art gallery'? There is no hard and fast definition of art, but if you include a lot of modern art in the definition... then practically anything is art.

[Rye]

The way I see it is that modern art is art after a fashion, but that fashion sucks all manner of ass. The same way dropping some musical instruments on the floor is not "truly" music, modern art is not "truly" art.

You can call dropping a drum kit off a rooftop an exploration in musical endeavour if you want, I won't, I'll call it dropping a drum kit off a roof.

[PrinceofLowLight]

Art is entertainment, it's just that fucking simple.

I'm not saying that art with a message to be interpreted is inherently evil. What I am saying is that it's just another form of entertainment. Its artistic is in the fact people enjoy analyzing it.

As was stated in a thread a few months back, art is an inherently inferior method of communicating an actual idea. It's overly complex when compared to a logical explanation. There's a reason why ideas are exchanged in journals and not art pieces. It's like jigging down a sidewalk: It's a more entertaining, but less useful way of doing something.

Now, art can certainly convey an emotion better than a detailed explanation, but to say its primary purpose is as a vessel for an idea is ridiculous.

I remember a modern art exhibition at the Guggenheim a year or two back. My friend kept going on about how profound this convoluted schtick was whose final point was that in the first stages of development, a baby has no gender. What value does that have?

If you looked it up in a medical book (or a free online encyclopedia), not only would it take less time, you would understand the concept more.

[Frank Hipper]

Art should convey an explicit message which is instantly recognizeable to all human beings, traversing cultural and societal grounds. A large variety of art from many cultures--Japanese, Chinese, Indochinan, Hindu, Persian, Turkish, European, etc, does this, not just the traditional European art movements. All of this art seeks to convey a transcendental message, and is an embodiment of the Greek ideal of a form of knowledge which is given as a whole, something which, when looked upon, is conveyed immediately, whereas what we think of as logical, scientific knowledge is conveyed in a linear fashion. In short, True Art, as we shall call it, conveys an holistic form of knowledge.

Modern "art" does not do this. Period. The form and philosophy of modern "art" has proven itself incapable of conveying transcendental ideas, has no holistic context, and in fact prides itself in being open to "interpretation", a claim which in fact renders it not art at all, as art is something which should be understood, in a sublime and primal (or if you will, holistic) fashion. One grants that art must be evaluated piece-by-piece for legitimacy, but the simple fact of the matter is that there been effectively no art recognized by the world "art" literati as-such produced since Gorbachev ended the institutional dominance of Socialist Realism (which was one of the truly good things to come out of Communism) in the USSR in the mid-1980s, and virtually none outside of the Socialist Realist school since the effective end of the Impressionist movement.

I'd argue that instead of being open to interpretation, much modern art requires an "education" for a person to even be able to interpret it; this snob appeal is the ultimate in elitism and limits interpretations, as if the material itself didn't achieve that already.

Then again, not all modern art is created equal; Robert William's "Girl With A Faberge Ass".

[Chmee]

I'd argue that instead of being open to interpretation, much modern art requires an "education" for a person to even be able to interpret it; this snob appeal is the ultimate in elitism and limits interpretations, as if the material itself didn't achieve that already.

Which is nothing new, many art forms required an education to be properly interpreted ... wander around the Vatican Museum or the Louvre and try to interpret the symbolism in Renaissance paintings without a knowledge of Christian theology ....

[Peregrin Toker]

I bet that most people who say that modern isn't "art at all" mean in the same sense as people who say that Dr. Mengele wasn't human, or at least I do so. The later certainly do not claim that Dr. Mengele was not a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, but rather that he was such a worthless piece of bottom feeding scum that he doesn't deserve to be called human. Likewise some/much of modern art is such crap it doesn't deserve to be called art at all.

In other words, bad art does not deserve to be calleda rt?

While we are at this I'd like to know why you insist that "What distinguishes art from entertainment is that one of the central purposes of art is the promotion of one or more clearly defined ideals..."? Bartleby's The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (linky) definition of the word "art" says nothing of the sort. Infact definition 2a directily contradicts your claim that "If something is created with the primary intent of merely looking or sounding good, it is entertainment first and foremost. ".

Perhaps I should rephrase myself - if something is created with the sole purpose of being pleasing to the senses, it is merely entertainment.

As for that dictionary's definition, my definition of art is one developed by Nietzsche and shared by Richard Wagner, and it has been a common definition among intellectuals since their time. I have picked it up from discussions about the definition of art on the Metal Archives forums. However, I can defend my definition through other means than appeals to authority:

Most pop music today is created with primary intend of being pleasing to the senses, yet it can hardly be considered art.

I don't know where the hell you got your definition of surrealism, because the real definition is that it's mostly based on expressing the subconscious, not the supernatural. Reading through definitions and historical overviews, I see nothing even relating surrealism to the supernatural, and have no idea where you got such a notion other than your own warped, geekish brain.

I remember reading in either the first or the second Surrealist Manifesto that "not only is the supernatural beautiful, in fact only the supernatural beautiful". Of course, it could be a bad translation which I read.

Modern "art" does not do this. Period. The form and philosophy of modern "art" has proven itself incapable of conveying transcendental ideas, has no holistic context, and in fact prides itself in being open to "interpretation", a claim which in fact renders it not art at all, as art is something which should be understood, in a sublime and primal (or if you will, holistic) fashion. One grants that art must be evaluated piece-by-piece for legitimacy, but the simple fact of the matter is that there been effectively no art recognized by the world "art" literati as-such produced since Gorbachev ended the institutional dominance of Socialist Realism (which was one of the truly good things to come out of Communism) in the USSR in the mid-1980s, and virtually none outside of the Socialist Realist school since the effective end of the Impressionist movement.

Interesting theory. In other words, what you are saying is that modern art (save for that produced by the Soviet Union) is too vague in its expression to be considered art?

I can understand your reasoning; if the underlying ideals are not expressed clearly enough (or the art otherwise fails to support said ideals) then it is clearly a failure as art.

As was stated in a thread a few months back, art is an inherently inferior method of communicating an actual idea. It's overly complex when compared to a logical explanation. There's a reason why ideas are exchanged in journals and not art pieces. It's like jigging down a sidewalk: It's a more entertaining, but less useful way of doing something.

I agree with that, but can't it be argued that visual art is a way of expressing that which the artist cannot express with words? After all, many artists are people who think mostly in pictures.





Oh, speaking of Duchamp's infamous Fountain, that upside-down urinal declared the most influental art of the 21st century, my current theory about its meaning is that it actually is a practical joke where the joke is on those who think it is art - possibly intended as a parody of Dadaism. Somewhere in the afterlife, Duchamp is not only smiling, but rolling on the floor laughing.[/url]

[Sir Sirius]

In other words, bad art does not deserve to be calleda rt?

You might be missing the point. When I say that some modern art isn't art at all, I do so to belittle the work or to insult the artist, not to claim that modern art really isn't art.

Perhaps I should rephrase myself - if something is created with the sole purpose of being pleasing to the senses, it is merely entertainment.

Except that The American Heritage Dictionary's definition 2a of the word "art" directly contradicts this interpretation by specifically defining something that is created to effect to the sense of beauty as art.

As for that dictionary's definition, my definition of art is one developed by Nietzsche and shared by Richard Wagner, and it has been a common definition among intellectuals since their time. I have picked it up from discussions about the definition of art on the Metal Archives forums.

If you are claiming that Nietzsche and Wagner are authorities on what the meaning of the word "art" is you have simply committed appeal to authority fallacy. Or are you saying that meaning of the word "art" depends on the context in which it is used, that is that the common usage of the word differs from the artsy fartsy crowd's usage of the word (rather like "theory" in science and common parlance has different connotations)?

However, I can defend my definition through other means than appeals to authority:

Most pop music today is created with primary intend of being pleasing to the senses, yet it can hardly be considered art.

Pop music obviously is art according to the dictionary definition of the word. Actually since most pop musicians do claim that their work does contain a message, statement, reflects an ideology etc. most pop music would be art even according to your definition.

[Peregrin Toker]

As for that dictionary's definition, my definition of art is one developed by Nietzsche and shared by Richard Wagner, and it has been a common definition among intellectuals since their time. I have picked it up from discussions about the definition of art on the Metal Archives forums.

If you are claiming that Nietzsche and Wagner are authorities on what the meaning of the word "art" is you have simply committed appeal to authority fallacy. Or are you saying that meaning of the word "art" depends on the context in which it is used, that is that the common usage of the word differs from the artsy fartsy crowd's usage of the word (rather like "theory" in science and common parlance has different connotations)?

Good question. My answer would be the latter one, since I have assumed that people who know a lot about art would be the ones better suited to define art.

[Frank Hipper]

I'd argue that instead of being open to interpretation, much modern art requires an "education" for a person to even be able to interpret it; this snob appeal is the ultimate in elitism and limits interpretations, as if the material itself didn't achieve that already.

Which is nothing new, many art forms required an education to be properly interpreted ... wander around the Vatican Museum or the Louvre and try to interpret the symbolism in Renaissance paintings without a knowledge of Christian theology ....

Modern art requires interpretation to be appreciated, the symbolism in Renaisance art and it's interpretation have no bearing on whether or not a painting is beautiful, inspiring, skillfully executed or moving; to be appreciated a Jackson Pollock painting requires interpretation as a function of a mere viewing.

Ultimate.
Snob.
Appeal.

[Peregrin Toker]

You could say that modern and postmodern art is what happens when the artists place the too much focus upon the message and the ideals at the expense of the craftsmanship and the actual execution of the ideals in question, thusly making the end result vague.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

You could say that modern and postmodern art is what happens when the artists place the too much focus upon the message and the ideals at the expense of the craftsmanship and the actual execution of the ideals in question, thusly making the end result vague.

Maybe, as long as you're just making up definitions and reasons out of thin air...

Seriously, Simon, maybe you should try actually learning about art history and theory (and in an academic environment, not just reading stuff online or in kook books) before trying to construct reasons and disect theories to fit into your pre-determined conclusions and half-assed analysis...