How do people digest modern art?

[chound]

How do people digest modern art? I mean its so ugly and still people pay big bucks for it. Do they just do it to show that they are more cultured or something like that? The paintings are painings rather. They are so uncky.
One thing:
Michelangelo, etc paintings of nude people is treated with respect. But the porn photographs are ... u know. Why?

 

[Kerrie]

Art is subjective. What you may think is ugly others may think is beautiful. For example, I love Dali prints, but others find them odd and weird.

 

[Justinius]

There is a certain objective beauty to art, just as there is to cars, even people. However, the aesthetic beauty of art isn't all objective. The taste of people also comes into play. As Kerrie said, what one person likes may not tickle another's fancy. But there must be SOME beauty to all art, otherwise we wouldn't like it at all.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is a certain objective beauty to art, just as there is to cars, even people. However, the aesthetic beauty of art isn't all objective. The taste of people also comes into play. As Kerrie said, what one person likes may not tickle another's fancy. But there must be SOME beauty to all art, otherwise we wouldn't like it at all.

This is circular: We (some of us) like it because it's beautiful. It is beautiful because we (some of us) like it.

 

[cragwolf]

How do people digest modern art? I mean its so ugly and still people pay big bucks for it.

There are two different things here: appreciating art and paying big bucks for it. Ignoring the subjective nature of beauty, is there some law that says art should be beautiful?

Do they just do it to show that they are more cultured or something like that?

I suspect some do, and some don't. Why don't you ask them or read what they have to say about their works?

One thing:
Michelangelo, etc paintings of nude people is treated with respect. But the porn photographs are ... u know. Why?

Actually, Michangelo did not treat nude women with respect in his paintings. If he did, he would have used them as models for his female painting subjects, rather than using men, which explains why all the females in his paintings are rather masculine in appearance. No religious, social, or financial reasons excuse the fact that he should have used female models. If he truly respected them he would have done so.

Now, as for art works which feature nude people in explicit poses (call it "porn" if you like), why is that automatically disrespectful? Sex is part of life, and it can be an exploitative act. If art wants to explore this aspect of it, or even to celebrate it, that has nothing to do with disrespect. In fact, I find it rather respectful because it's showing how humans really are, warts and all, and not producing some glamourised or romanticised or sanitised caricature.

Norman Rockwell sucks.

 

[motai]

How do people digest modern art? I mean its so ugly and still people pay big bucks for it. Do they just do it to show that they are more cultured or something like that? The paintings are painings rather. They are so uncky.

What about that one guy whose artistic masterpiece is really just a large (unpainted) white canvas? I'm not even sure how he managed to pass that off as art. Perhaps the white canvas conveyed emotions?

I think some of the scientific diagrams that are found in articles are more artistic than some of these, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Most people outside of this forum wouldn't consider Cloud-chamber tracings as art.

 

[dekoi]

No one at all is reading above posts.

I'm also suprised to see even supposedly educated individuals making such blatanly wrong statements.

Perhaps you should read up on Adler's chapter on Consciousness and its Objects, which explains the flaw behind Locke's idea that everyone's 'ideas' are subjective.

 

[the number 42]

No one at all is reading above posts.

I'm also suprised to see even supposedly educated individuals making such blatanly wrong statements.

How do you know they are wrong statements if nobody (which logically includes you) has read them? Are you trying to prove that you don't exist?

Perhaps you should read up on Adler's chapter on Consciousness and its Objects, which explains the flaw behind Locke's idea that everyone's 'ideas' are subjective.

Perhaps you should quote us a little of it. I hope its better than Otto Rank's Art & Artist, the wonderfully knotty preface of which I will quote from here:

"As this book treats of the relation between artist and art, the field of its investigations is naturally a frontier strip. Consequently it requires not only an introduction but, even before that, a negative delimitation for the purpose of excluding what is not, and is purposely not meant to be included".

Boy should that guy get a D minus

 

[Philocrat]

How do people digest modern art? I mean its so ugly and still people pay big bucks for it. Do they just do it to show that they are more cultured or something like that? The paintings are painings rather. They are so uncky.
One thing:
Michelangelo, etc paintings of nude people is treated with respect. But the porn photographs are ... u know. Why?

The problem is dirtier and uglier than it seems. Not only are modern arts getting uglier and filthier, they are also getting more and more criminalised by unscrupulous and 'thiefy' business world. These thieves would buy arts at rock-bottom poverty-prices from the artists who slaved and spent sleepless nights to create all these artworks and they would sell them at extortionist sky-rocked prices, often running into hundreds of millions of pounds. And the longer these artworks exchange hands within this heavilly unjust art world, the more extortionist they become. From the the very first moment that these artists parted with their artworks, both them and their families would never see a penny again as these artworks change hands from one shrewed individual and institution to the next.

We know that all the classical artists whose works are very famous today and becoming the most expensive in the art industry, not even a single benevolence fund has been set up by the art institutions to benefit their families. Both these classical artists and their families have been robbed of their fortunes that are now in the hands of these unscrupolous elements.

One would have thought that the modern artists who are still living would have at least noticed this kind of injustice and made some effort to end it. Oh no,...instead, they turn a blind eye and allow themselves to be cheated out of their valuable artworks and fortunes.


WHAT AN INJUSTICE! HOW, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, CAN A BUSINESS MAN BUY AN ARTWORK FROM AN ARTIST FOR £20,000 AND SELL IT FOR £8,000,000 SIX MONTHS LATE? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?

The BIG question now is:

What are the modern and still-living artists going to do take back their industry and run it themselves in their own terms? What are they going to do? Protest by not making arts any more? Cry? For christ's sake, what are they going to do?

SUGGESTION:

All new arts deals must come with a clause which allows artists to earn royalties on their artworks forever. When these artists die their families continue to earn royalities on their artworks. That is, artists must continue to earn royalties every step of the way. Regardless of who is the current owner or holder of any of their artworks, they must earn money everytime any of their artworks exchanges hands for these criminal amounts of money.

We also need, a proper independent, non-governmental, non-business, body to regulate this industry, decriminalise it, and enforce upholdment of all payment clauses.


On the issue of the increasing ugliness of modern arts, well, I have no idea what should be done. That artists have got spookier and spookier in recent times is beyond dispute. With what I have personally seen in recent years (from artworks made with human and animal corpses to paintings with human excrements), the only thing I can recommend for some of these artists is for them to get their heads examined. I just don't know what to say. But I love some of their inovations though!

 

[Dayle Record]

These are Wolflins Modes...They are the technical discussion of fine art.

Unity, Harmony, Rhythm, Balance, Contrast, Variation, Emphasis, Proportion, Transition

Color, Line, Form, Value, Texture, Space, Shape.

Art is a three fold process involving the Artist, The Art, and The Viewer of the art. Junk in Junk out, they say in the computer world. Artists view this world, or their dreams, or their emotions, or random imagery from this beautiful world, this chaotic world, this orderly world, this hateful world, this loving world; what ever the artist projects what ever the artist can make, record, witness and record. For every ideation, there is an expression, and then a viewer.

Norman Rockwell had a very affectionate eye in regards, to innocent Americana of his era. He comforts the American psyche. Edvard Muench was having some sort of day, when he painted The Scream. According to experts, the Mona Lisa is Michaelangelo's self portrait in drag.

There is a positive viewer for every object and a negative one, and an indifferent one. Find what you like, make a world that you like to look at, attract people to it that you like, and be happy. Don't worry if you feel alienated from Modern Art, a lot of Modern Art is about alienation. But, Modern Art is anything recently made, so there is Modern Art of every sort.

 

[selfAdjoint]

According to experts, the Mona Lisa is Michaelangelo's self portrait in drag.

Some experts! La Gioconda was painted by Leonardo.

 

[Dayle Record]

Thank you, I got lost among the words and the Italian masters.