I once saw a really beautiful piece of modern art. It was a bamboo stick with a glass globe that looked like a soap bubble attached to it. It was called ‘Imagination.’
Wouldn’t be surprised. Robert Crumb did a great comix story once about an “early ectomorph” protohominid – a sexually frustrated nerd whose hobby is carving Venus-of-Willendorf figurines for his own masturbatory enjoyment. The clan’s alpha-male finds out and plans to kill him – until he figures out there’s a market for these things, so the artist is drafted into turning out figurines for the chief. “And thus, lordly patronage of the arts was born!” (The story doesn’t end there but I won’t spoil it further.)
I really get the impression that a lot of conceptual art is like an Andy Kaufman routine: a joke at the expense of the audience.
bwahaha!
When I was pregnant my sister set up a website for my twins & included a picture of 'ol Venus on there, as I rapidly approached her dimensions. I always figured the market for them was cavewoman (or whatever) seeking fertility, sort of sweet and poignant. Now that image is blown!
Somebody already said this & I agree - what’s strange & sad about art is how the marketplace is confused with the object. The OP didn’t say - I don’t get Christi’s auctions, or Rich people are nuts. We’re all art-makers, to one degree or another. Our creativity shouldn’t be limited by these people.
Got it, and it won’t happen again. I’d like to apologize to Bosda also. I guess I just had a bad day, and then I overreacted.
By the way Bosda, I also like Art Nouveau, but personally prefer Gustav Klimt to Mucha. In Germany, Art Nouveau was called “Jugendstil”, and the city I grew up in (Darmstadt) was considered one of the main centers of Jugendstil in Germany. Many buildings in Darmstadt were built in the Jugendstil style, such as the train station, the famous “Hochzeitsturm” and the “Russian Chapel”. The “Russian Chapel” was built because Princess Alexandra of Hessen-Darmstadt married the last czar Nikolas II.
Indeed.
If you want to get a sense of scale, check out this image.
This site and this one have more about Mueck and his work.
He had an exhibition in the Hirshhorn about 2 or 3 years ago, which was really amazing, but the only piece of his work in the permanent collection is Big Man.
I agree that not all modern art sucks. I think the art I like has an emotional effect on me. To do that, there doesn’t have to be a complicated theory involved, but the effect might well be caused by the artist choosing a method that is not conventional.
Picasso’s Guernica was mentioned earlier, and even without knowing the history behind the picture, it will have an emotional effect. I first saw a print of Guernica when I was a child. I knew nothing about the Spanish Civil War or the bombing of Guernica, yet the picture frightened me somehow. That’s what I mean by an emotional effect. Another example would be Goya’s Saturn, or Munch’s Scream.
But, the stuff like “Ink on Paper” or “shitty cube”, just seem like juvenile pranks. A sort of thumbing the nose at those not in the know. That’s what I consider bad modern art. If I’m standing in front of it thinking: “OK, where’s the hidden camera? When’s the payoff?” it’s not the kind of art I like.
Personally, I don’t like representational art very much. Even though my own professional artistic endeavors are in the realm of photography, when it comes to paintings, I far prefer 20th Century works to the works preceeding. I feel bad, though, because I don’t get the same visceral reaction when I look at a Michaelangelo or DaVinci as when I see a Kandinsky, or Picasso, or de Kooning.
Representational art to me is boring. The only representational artist that really stirs emotion in me is Rembrandt (and that probably because as a photographer I am constantaly in awe of his use of light.)
Now, I’m not saying pre-20th Century art sucks. The canonical masters are undoubtedly deserving of their places in the history books; they just don’t speak to me.
People forget that artists such as Picasso, Kandinsky, or Pollock, were very much competent, if not excellent, draftsman in their own right. Picasso could produce a representational painting with great technical skill. Or Kandinsky (there’s definitely a modern approach to this portrait, but it sitll shows he can draw and paint representationally.) I’ve even seen some pencil sketched portraits by Pollock which I’d be envious of making.
Now, I would agree that with many modern artists, there can be a lot of good and interesting ideas with poor execution. To me, great art is a mix of great ideas and great technique. I think the canonical modern artists (such as those mentioned, and in addition people like Ed Paschke, Gerhardt Richter, even Keith Haring) qualify as having both. I think many of the sort of artists mentioned here are just going to be flashes in the pan.
But, just as people don’t get why some of us love abstract art, I can’t see why some people love representational art. Why the heck do I want to look at something that looks like what it’s supposed to look like? (I’m being rhethorical here). I want to look at the world in a whole new way. I want to see shapes, colors, lines, forms I’ve never seen before. I want to be challenged and engaged. While I understand that representational art does do these things to varying degrees, I’m more touched by abstraction.
But while you have to know about the crucifiction to fully get what’s going on in some Christian religious art, it’s still possible for someone without the background context to appreciate the painting. Before I knew anything about the subject matter, I could see the pain in Guernica. At my local art museum, there are works relating to the Tale of Genji. All I know about that is that it’s epic - and yet, I can still be moved by it. I am surely missing many of the nuances, the subtleties, what exactly the artist was trying to convey…but it still has meaning.
There is modern art that I don’t fully get, and still appreciate. And then, there’s the box of dirt I saw for sale once. It had a title and price tag, but fundamentally, it was a box of dirt.
My understanding is that the purpose of modern/conceptual art is that it’s not supposed to stand on its own – it’s depending on you, the viewer, to “become part of the art,” by imposing your own interpretations and understanding on it.
Example: You see a crucifix in a jar of translucent tan water.
Interpretation #1: “Ew! Who put Jesus in a jar of piss? That’s gross!” The art becomes a revolting demonstration of how some people have no respect for religion.
Interpretation #2: “Piss on God! Hell yeah!” The art becomes an anarchistic statement against organized religion.
Interpretation #3: “Geez, the guy got tax dollars to do this? And I’m trudging away in my 8-to-5 grind.” The art becomes a statement on government excess and the merits (or lack thereof) of “honest work.”
Interpretation #4: “Hey, it’s a crucifix in a jar of brown water.” The art becomes a statement on literalism and the viewer’s lack of creativity. 
…at least, that’s how it was explained to me.
According to one article on Piss, Christ (Art in America? read it many, many years ago), the Catholic Church was AOK with it. Something about conserving body fluids.
Heaven knows, I’ve had bad days.
All cool with me.
So sorry, but it’s just as well. The Venus of Willendorf is a stylized figure of a fat, voluptuous, possibly pregnant woman with huge tits, wide hips – and no face, hands or feet. IOW, Woman stripped of all her attributes but those of breeder and sex object. How did feminists ever fix on that as a symbol of female empowerment? 
I mean, talk about barefoot and pregnant!
Wow, BrainGlutton that’s a fascinating line of thought - time for a new thread! Unfortunately I’m leaving here shortly…
Back to the OP - Mr. Holmes - you might be interested in some of the previous threads on this subject. I always swear I’m not gonna jump in, not gonna jump in, not gonna - but then I’m glad I did, 'cause there’s some awesome link like mhendo’s, and great posts like the ones here. For example, Miller had a quote I really liked in this one thread wherein we bickered w/CandidGamera for about a month.
I’ve heard this explanation too, but I’m not convinced that it’s useful. By this definition it seems impossible to classify a thing as not modern art. After all, we form interpretations and understandings of everything we perceive. Am I missing something, or is this not seen as a weakness, or…?
The intent of the creator distinguishes art from non-art.
I’ll remember to keep creative intentions in mind next time I take a shit. And you’ll buy the result for $60,000.
My problem with these Friedman works is that they are so empty of substance, so lacking in easily ascribable meaning, and carry no real emotional resonance with the viewer. This is where the art world gets into trouble. Friedman may have created some less disposable sculptures in the past, and may have created a large body of work, but that doesn’t automatically mean that everything he’s made is golden, as demonstrated by his doodle (which he considers important, so therefore, those who think his work is important by association assume his doodles and overly simplistic sculptures are important).
The other problem with Friedman’s work is that it is a great example of someone who, within the confines of art academia, creates works that often comment on the works of other artists, or comments on the history of art by creating work that is contrary for the sake of being contrary (his sculptures made from bubblegum for example). The work of art academia eats this up as profound and valueable, because they reinforce the belief amongst themselves. And one end result is this joke at auction, where someone is convinced that their thousands of dollars for a scribble is a well-spent investment.
I personally would like to know what the person who bought that scribble is going to get out of it, because I can’t imagine what they think they are getting out of it. There are so many great artists working today who could do so much with that money, and someone goes and blows it on a meaningless scribble. That is very sad.
I think we need more artists like Banksy.
I used to be people who poo-poo (my puns are ALWAYS intended) modern art but the funny thing about GOOD non-representational art is how hard it is to create. Case in point: a recent art show at my daughters’ high school features several splatter paintings ala Jackson Pollock. The difference between them and what Pollock did was vast. You could see that the kids had just thrown paint on a canvas while Pollock’s paint went where he wanted it to go. The same with some of the works of that English kid and some elephants and chimpanzees: It’s not totally random; there is an artist behind the painting.
OTOH, there’s Jeff Koons and the photos of him screwing his then-wife, Italian porn star and politician, Ilona Staller (Cicciolina). (Google it yourself; definitely not work safe.) Are these pictures saying more than “I look pretty good naked, I have a big dick, and I have a hot wife who will do anything on film?” No, not really. Using the rule of thumb, “Where were the pictures published,” the tamer ones ended up in Penthouse. That, I think, says it all.