Yet people (not necessarily critics, but Man on the Street)are still shocked by a Piss Christ or Elephant Dung Madonna or Chocolate Jesus or Decomposing Sheep Foetus or whatever. Kind of gives the lie to the notion it’s all so “First Half of the 20th C.” doesn’t it?
Sure, there are rip-offs of Mondrian or Rothko in every lawyer’s reception room or hotel lobby. Doesn’t make them not art, just bad art. Still valid, just valueless.
Look, I agree that a part of Modern Art is the business side of things (I blame that cunt Saatchi) - I’m totally with the Stuckists on this - but that doesn’t mean Modern Art in-and-of-itself is soulless or valueless. It means Saatchi is a parasite, and his favourites are responding to the market. Doesn’t invalidate all MA work outright, though.
Don’t agree. Some ‘average men in the street’ may be shocked by Piss Christ and the like, but increasingly I don’t even think that is true - because it has been done and done again. You would have to have been living under a rock not to at least know this stuff goes on.
Moreover, to my mind at least the point of art (of this variety at least) is not to offend the uncultured, an enterprise of dubious worth, but to shock the self into increased conciousness. Walking through a gallery now, there is little that has this effect.
I also do not think “all of modern art” is invalid. I do however think that we are in a period of significantly diminished creativity in this respect. Many truly creative people are simply doing other things, because by and large MA of the ‘high art’ variety is moribund as a creative enterprise.
Every endeavour has its golden ages and its doldrums. We are in the doldrums of high art right now, where the best use many can think of the enterpise is, seemingly, to mock the plebes.
For me it’s all about technique and effect. The art (of all ages) that impresses me the most is art that shows a mastery of both. It provokes something in me, makes me pause. Then I wonder how they did it, and then upon inspection (or some reading) there is clear evidence of ingenious and sophisticated craftsmanship.
Some of the contemporary artists who do this best, for me, are:
Richter
Gursky
Jeff Wall
Serra
Chihuly (duck & run)
previously:
Chagall
Hopper
Rothko
The most successful artists, IMO, are those able to develop new techniques to provoke specific effects.
I’m also able to appreciate a lot of art that doesn’t have that immediate “effect”, after I learn more about their intentions. But I invariably see them as less successful because they didn’t grab me in the first place.
Technique without effect is utterly unimpressive (Donald Judd, etc.).
CJJ*, when you talk about items “assembled randomly”, what do you mean? Are you talking about Andy Warhol’s Brillo boxes? My aesthetics professor said that, too, that it was just a random group of boxes. I remember banging my head on my desk in reply – there IS a visual experience to be had, with that kind of art. A question of context, of color, of scale; the choices that Warhol made when he picked that particular box, that number of them, arranged them in that way. It IS a visual experience, NOT just an act of irony or mocking or whatever.
Doesn’t that, in itself, speak to the value of his work?
You may be right about the doldrums. But which galleries are you going to? Is the toilet in the corner still packin 'em in (so to speak)? Artnet keeps a list of the “Top 300” selling artists – really interesting, to see where the money is being spent. The New York wannabees may indeed be wasting everyone’s time.
Does this guy say basically the same thing you’re saying, CJJ*? I don’t know if its his tone or specificity, but for some reason I find it easier to accept his complaints than I do yours.
I don’t see how. Are you saying noteriety is in itself validation?
If that is the case, isn’t Paris Hilton the greatest artist ever?
No-one argues that Kinkade is “high art”. He, and those like him, produce works that appeal to some, yes, just like kitchy religious art appeals to some. They don’t pretend it is anything other than sentiment and decoration, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that (albeit not my taste).
The problem as I see it with MA is that it is supposed to be doing some conciousness-raising, introducing the educated audience to ideas, forms, textures, and experiences that leave them excited, inspired, moved in some manner emotionally or intellectually. Truly great art creates awe at the capacity of humanity to transend its limitations of time and place - while art is a product of culture, truly great art may transend culture, projecting a power that can effect people at great removes from those who created it even when its meaning is totally obscure to the viewer (think of the Cro-Magnon rock paintings, great Chinese calligraphy, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or even the work of M.C. Escher).
There is little ‘high art’ created these days which has the power to do this, and to my mind this is a shame. I honestly cannot think that people a thousand or ten thousand years from now are going to look back on “Piss Christ” and experience anything approaching awe.
I don’t necessarily agree. If a person can look at a sunset, and decide to impart some meaning to it regardless of any “intent” in the sunset, then a person can look at a picture of a sunset, and decide to impart meaning to it regardless of the intent in the picture.
Sorry, but it seems you’ve just ended back up at what you disavowed at the beginning of your paragraph. If I can’t change the consensus, then my interpretation is incorrect, because it disagrees with the commonality of interpretation.
I don’t believe I ever said you should not incorporate other people’s ideas into your own interpretation.
I agree entirely, except where you equate plausibility with objectivity.
And this makes modern art different from classical art… how, exactly? I mean, with quacks and faith healers, there is an objective standard against which you can measure their claims: does the sick person under their care get better? The claim being made by an artist is, at it’s base, “You’ll like my painting.” If this claim is false, obviously, no one’s going to buy the painting. So where does fraud come into it?
Your complaint here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So, Picasso used a postcard as a reference for one of his paintings. How does this invalidate his painting? Are you suggesting that Picasso was unique, or at least unusual, in this practice? I assure you, he was not. Most representational artists use models or photographs of models in their work.
I assume you’re refering to the Todd Goldman incident? I’m passingly familiar with it myself. I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove about modern art, though. Goldman’s fraud doesn’t invalidate the critical praise he received, it just means that the praise was misdirected, and should have gone to the artists whose original works he was stealing.
Wait a minute, postmodernism has been disproven? Er… how did that work, exactly? How does one disprove an abstract philosophical approach to interpretation? I don’t see how that would even be possible.
Man, people keep using the term “masturbation” like it’s a bad thing. What’s up with that?
Anyway, I don’t believe that you need to have an education in modern art in order to appreciate modern art. I know this, because I don’t have an education in modern art, and I love the stuff.
Who are the people making the rules? What rules are they making? What sort of test do you suggest be used? Who would administer it? What do you do to people who don’t pass the test, but still insist on having opinions about art? Are you thinking prison terms, or just stiff fines?
How could they appreciate it? Well… they looked at it… and they decided wether or not they liked it. Sorry, but your question doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
What do you mean by “appreciate?” The way you’re using the word doesn’t make any sense to me.
No. No one is supposed to have any reaction in art. However, just because you didn’t have a particular reaction doesn’t mean that no one could ever have that reaction. Art is subjective. People value different things in it. Some people place a high value on concept and intellectualism. If you don’t value those things, then you’re not going to care for works that emphsis those elements. But it doesn’t mean that people who do value those elements are deluded or fraudulent. It just means they value different things than you do.
You’re really hung up on this education thing, which is, IMO, a red herring, but let’s say that it’s true. How does that make it less worthy of respect? A Stephen Hawking dissertation doesn’t make much sense without a whole hell of a lot of education. Does that mean that quantum physics, as a whole, is unworthy of respect?
And yet, not just anyone did. Even simple ideas need someone to think of them first, and the fact that we had so many centuries of art before anyone thought to create these particular works indicates, to me, that they’re not really so simple after all.
Surprise, no, but it does slightly depress me. Modern art really isn’t that hard to understand, but there are so many people who simply refuse to even try, prefering instead to issue blanket insults against anyone who disagrees with them, implying that they must be either stupid, or dishonest. This sentiment is so common among people who dislike modern art that it remains a constant source of amazement to me that it is the* pro-art* crowd that somehow gets tarred as elitist.
Let me clarify once again that a person most definitely can move the consensus. Conversely, consensus opinion can move the personal interpretation; that is the whole point to exploring the meaning or intent of a work.
But if it’s all just personal, subjective experiences, how does that occur? If I have my interpretation, and someone else comes along with a substantially different interpretation, why should I take their opinion more seriously than my own if it is entirely based on subjective experience? At the risk of being offensive, let me quote back a few things you’ve said in this thread:
I don’t see how these statements can be reconciled with the practical task of “incorporat(ing) other people’s ideas into your own interpretation.” Now, I don’t doubt that you probably do incorporate other people’s ideas into your own interpretation, but you do this according to some criteria. Maybe it’s because the person airing the opinion has an air of intelligence or is sexually attractive, but I would really hope that it’s because you compare what they’re saying to what you see in the objective artwork the person is ostensibly discussing, and you recognize the thing they’re describing.
So two different people then have a shared interpretation, based on some objective criteria agreed upon in the work of art. How is this process then–the appreciation of a work of art–entirely subjective?
The art critic’s expertise lies in explaining their viewpoint in an interesting and intelligent manner. It does not lie in a superior facility at liking art.
This post is the first place I’ve ever heard that the primary purpose of modern art is to increase conciousness. I’m not ever entirely sure what that’s supposed to mean. Are you talking about art, or Starbucks?
Perhaps part of this dispute has come about because we are using different definitions for “appreciation” with respect to art.
I’m claiming that “appreciate” and “like” are two different things. I can certainly recognize and appreciate the artistic qualities of Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, but I don’t necessarily want a copy of it hanging in my home, nor would I go out of my way to see it in person if I happened to visit New York. OK, that last statement may not be completely true, as I do like looking at art in person and think the experience is much richer than viewing a print, but I don’t really have a longing for it, as opposed to the enjoyment I get browsing thru the Impressionist and post-Impressionist wing of the Chicago Art Institute.
It’s my contention that this facility to “appreciate” art can be developed in an intellectual way (not necessarily that it favors intellectualism, but rather that it’s something that can be honed by the usual tools of the intellect). The rest is simply taste, and as Juvenal said de gustibus non est disputandum.
I understand that, but moving the consensus is generally not going to happen overnight. Let’s say that I have a decidedly minority view on a particular work of art. I attempt to convince other people to see it the way that I do. How long can I work at moving the consensus before my position becomes objectively incorrect? If one wants to change the consensus, obviously, one has to take a position in opposition to the consensus. But you’re saying that the validity of any opinion of art can only be measured by how many people agree with it, so any interpretation that doesn’t agree with the consensus is invalid, and therefore can be discounted, so that the consensus can never move. You’ve set up a perfect Catch-22.
Simple. If you like their interpretation better than your own, you adopt as much of their interpretation as you care for, either incorporating it into your own interpretation, or replacing it entirely. And if you don’t like their interpretation at all, you ignore all of it. The point is, the other person can’t prove, in an objective sense, that their interpretation is more valid than mine. The closest they can come is to create an interpretation that is more suited to my entirely subjective criteria than the one I was able to create on my own.
Because the shared interpretation is not based on objective criteria. It’s based on subjective criteria that both people happen to have in common. If you like asparagus, and I like asparagus, we haven’t just demonstrated that asparagus is objectively good. We’ve just discovered that we share some of the same subjective biases.
Don’t know what you mean. Where did I say the expertise of art critics lies in “liking art”?
The point is that, unlike other “experts” whose opinion is based on mastery of an objective body of knowledge, there is no particular reason to favour the views of such critics over those of anyone else.
Not sure what this snark is. Starbucks? I don’t get the attempted humour here.
And yet Sweet Jesus gets Cavallaro a quasi-death threat from the Catholic League on live TV this year. So no, it is true, people can still get their buttons pushed very easily.
Dubious worth to you - to others, holding up a mirror to Society’s foibles is the point. Neither of you has a monopoly on meaning.
I’ll agree that for gallery/competition art this isn’t the most exciting time (again I blame that prick Saatchi) - I think a lot more exciting things are happening in lowbrow and related art fields, like ICC. But there is still exciting stuff happening if you know where to look for it.
Plus this sort of criticism (not you, in general) never confines itself to just current works, but all of Modern Art - witness Blake’s opinion of Picasso. You can say what you like about Pablo, but “moribund” would only get you laughed at. Never mind that we are out of the Modern Art period by several decades.
It’s the Postmodern Preoccupation, Plebemockery. Why should fine artists let musicians, directors and writers have all the fun?
Say a group of friends get together in the park to play football. They decide that each side gets three downs instead of four and that the ball is dead when it hits the ground – no fumbles.
Are they still playing football? The NFL would say no. The players in the park would say yes.
That’s what a lot of this “THAT’s not art!” talk boils down to. A passerby stops and looks at a group of people playing football in a park. He doesn’t know their history, he doesn’t know the rule discussions they’ve had in the past, and he doesn’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing. All he knows is that the game they’re playing violates the rules of football as he understands them.
“THAT’S not football!”
We ALL get to decide what the rules of art are. But if you start looking at art made with a very different audience in mind you may discover that they’ve decided that the rules are different than what you think they are. Or even what you think they should be. But that doesn’t mean that their rules are a scam. Or that they’re poseurs or elitists.
You may well say that someone can be as moved, inspired, enlightened, and awestruck by an instillation art featuring a vial of piss as by the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or by random screeting as by a composition by Mozart, but I find it very difficult to believe.
Yes, there is a great deal in subjectivity in art. Just as one may prefer asparagus over brussels sprouts, one may prefer one style in art over another … but those pushing for total subjectivity without any possible objective component are in effect arguing that one may equally well prefer the taste of shit, and thus that there is no reason not to eat shit on a regular basis (or have it hanging in our art galleries).
So someone managed to offend the feeble-minded into getting a death threat. That makes it all worthwhile?
I disagree. I have a monopoly on meaning, as far as I’m concerned. It pisses me off that high art is crap these days, and I would very much like to see this not be the case.
I know there is exciting stuff happening. Just not very much of it, and it is out of the mainstream.
I’m obviously not using the term “modern” in its narrow meaning in reference to art.
If a person tells you he likes the vial of piss better… well, so what? Why would he lie about that?
Well, one good reason not to eat shit everyday is because you, personally, don’t like the taste of shit. But if someone comes along and says there’s nothing they love more than sitting down to a big bowl of poo… well, who are you to tell them their wrong?
It should “wake you up” to new possibilities, to awe, to new experiences. 