>>22136 Modern art is more about context and interpretation; it may never surpass classical art in terms of technique or detail, but modern art has almost never been about those.
Artists like Duchamp or Warhol were challenging what people think of as "aesthetically pleasing" by placing the mundane in a elevated status. It might seem like nothing in retrospect, but that is because our conception of art has changed.
I do agree, however, a lot of modern artists fail to bring any new ideas to the table and just rehash old ideas with their uninventive twists.
>>22354 This, combined with a heavy dose of elite status signalling.
It's not the level of skill that goes into the art it counts, it's how you can spin the interpretation of its meaning so that you - and other initiates - can bask in how much better you are than the common plebs who can't understand the deep meaning of Rothko paintings
That's the later stuff, early stuff like Kandinsky and Malevich is great. Albert Gleizes, Fernand Leger, Juan Gris, Bracques, all them dudes.
Idk, I just like the way the colours interact and fit together. Like even Josef Albers' colour pieces are comfy and nice to look at for me, or Robert Delaunay's circles and cubes, and the similar things Hilma af Klint did.
The art I really object to is most post-1980s 'conceptual' art. Like Duchamp was funny and fresh but nowadays it's mostly garbage, unless it's witty or funny or interesting just for the surface-level thrill of it, like Claes Oldenburg's 'Big Versions of Shit In Parks', and doesn't try to be profound.
It's really just lack of originality and effort that I hate.
There are some modern artists I enjoy, but not because they're modern. Yves Klein (pic related) would be interesting even if he'd been born in an earlier era. His treatment of surface and movement was informed by his understanding of bodily movement he learned from actual contact sport, being a professional judo instructor. If some circlejerking dweeb had tried to pull off something like his Anthropometries, they would've been shallow and trite. Modern and contemporary art works when done by people who have influences from outside the art world. That's why data art, for instance, is interesting. Most contemporary art is too incestuous to have outside influence and modern university education makes it very difficult to have the kind of multidisciplinary knowledge to pull it off. Most interesting media art comes from outside the art establishment, like the demoscene and self-published comics.
The Bauhaus movement was wonderful, attempting to once again bring science, art and industry together to improve the quality of life for everyone. Too bad it got either subsumed into Marxist ethos or co-opted by the bourgeois desire for premium goods. Today "designer goods" mean expensive collector's items, almost perfectly opposed to what good design set out to do.
I'm a big fan of Gerd Arntz. Less about his fine art and more about his contribution to visual storytelling and diagrams. Maybe that's the problem with modern and contemporary art. A guy does something useful and he's no longer considered an artist.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.