I think that’s the most approachable, coherent explanation anyone’s ever given me of that word when used in the context of art. Thanks!
I have copies of ‘Metal Machine Music’ and Happiness that would argue otherwise.
As for modern art, it’s all about the invocation. It doesn’t have to be a representation of anything in particular, it’s designed to elicit a reaction. Maybe I’m part Philistine, because some of it works and some of it doesn’t, but I stared at the amazingly well-painted lace in ‘Night Watch’ for an hour, comparing it to the almost abstract stuff in the dark at the painting’s edges. Believe me, it’s not because I’m particularly fond of lace.
Its been that way ever since Warhol did that soup can
Its supposed to be a reflection on society in the eyes of the artist, sculpter or what have you. Probably no different than seeing paintings of 18 century london with billowing chimmneys pushing smoke into the air.
Its quite possible they were dredged up, or at least salvaged. Artists are rather spendthrift and not into picking up rolled stock from steel yards.
A photograph will show what is , a painting will show what the artist sees, and with enough infusion of absinthe , you get what you see 
And easy to copy for trust fund babys
And people pay me for this , haha (actually not me , but you get the idea.)
All art, by however you deem it , painting , photography architexture et al is passive. It just sits there until someone like yourself comes along and peers into the abyss and hopefully comes away with something. But the thing is you dont hear about it, you have to be one of those people that regularly goes into an art museum and look at stuff, so we could have artists that put Monet to shame and would not know it.
These turd bombs , they are active. They get reported on the six oclock news and have aunt mabel fuming about how this would never happen in her day. So it draws people into gallerys and gallerys go where the money is.
Declan
To see your pretension and raise you one, modernism is sometimes described as an attempt to make things perfectly suited to their purpose, without extraneous detail. If you think of modern architecture, for instance international style, while today folks see depressing sterility, its makers were trying to get over the glut of frou-frou they saw in what came before them. Postmodernism, which is arguably what we’re up to now, is sometimes described as a reaction to modernism, or even a commentary on it. Grungy postmodernists may be adding what they see as a layer of realism to the shiny idealism that modernists tried to pass off as real.
There’s a lot of things that might take more exposure and education to appreciate, but that doesn’t make it rubbish. With wine, jazz, opera, foreign films, and plenty of other things, people might need to try experiencing it a few times and learn more about it before they like it. Or they might never like it, and that’s okay too, since no one has enough time in the world to experience and appreciate everything.
That’s an interesting statement. Do you expect meaning out of most art? Take this 17th century still life. What does it mean, beyond, “Hey look! A cabbage!” Not that I dislike the painting, but it’s not exactly a textually rich work. Modern art, I think, tends to be much more about ideas. Most of it fails, of course, but that’s the nature of all art, but if I’m specifically looking for meaning in art, I always start with the modernists. If I want aesthetics, I tend towards classical, although there’s a lot of really beautiful modern art out there.
That one’s easy. It means, “Japan.”
Really? What’s your favorite school of armor making? Which is your favorite time period of armor? Do you prefer Medieval or Renaissance armor? Which is your favorite collection of arms and armor (Met, Higgins, Royal Armouries, etc)?
I’m genuinely curious, not trying to quiz you or something. HERE’s the quiz, so I know you’re not lying:
Without looking it up:
-
What are the historical terms for these components of a European suit of armor: the breastplate, the shoulder defenses/upper arm defenses, the lower arm defenses, the upper leg defenses, the lower leg defenses, and the foot defenses?
-
Briefly compare and contrast the styles of Gothic, Maximilian, and Greenwich armor.
-
What’s the difference between a sallet, an armet, a close helm, a great helm, a bascinet, and a burgonet?
-
Who were the last king of England, the last king of France, and the last king of Spain to be painted in armor in their official portraits?
If you can answer all of those without looking it up, maybe you might be a bigger historical armor junkie than me.
Oddly enough, I feel precisely the opposite about these two artists–I find Judd to be monotonously boring, but Serra to be exciting and thought-provoking. I especially like Serra’s prop pieces, where you have a huge and heavy piece of metal that is supported by an apparently flimsy cylinder, and there’s no glue or riveting or anything actually holding the whole thing together. Were one to take away the cylinder, the sheet of metal would collapse (and potentially injure someone seriously–which has happened, albeit during installations). Here’s an example of one of these pieces. The one that the OP linked to at the Tate Modern works on the same principles.
Anyway, why should there be bold color contrasts in Serra’s sculptures? One could make the same criticism about Michelangelo’s David or any other white marble statue.
Also, why do you (at least implicitly) regard Serra’s sculptures as “emperor has no clothes” art, but not Judd? Although I’m not terribly fond of Judd, I think it’s difficult if not impossible to evaluate Serra’s work properly without seeing it as a reaction to Judd and R. Morris’s Minimalist theories and art. Similarly, one shouldn’t dismiss Judd without considering how Minimalism itself was a reaction to the angst-ridden navel-gazing that Abstract Expressionism (by the 1960s) had become. And you can’t appreciate Ab Ex without understanding the influence of Surrealism and psychoanalytic automatism in the post-WWII environment…
I think you (that is, “you” in general, not just Argent Towers) can see where I’m going with this: to take a single artwork out of its original context (both culturally and historically) is to diminish its legibility as an artifact in the eyes of a casual viewer. Of course, the role of a museum (or I should say, one of the major roles) is to restore that context through exhibitions and texts, and perhaps the Tate Modern has failed in that case, at least in the OP’s experience.
I’ll admit that I’m more of a Tate Britain kind of guy, but the one time I visited the Tate Modern, I enjoyed it much more than I expected I would. I’d love to go back again. So my mileage obviously varies.
I realize this all comes down to personal preferences but I cannot see how anyone could compare David with anything by Serra. In classical sculpture, okay, there may be only one tone of color, but there are other things that are expressed in the art: texture, detail, the beauty of the human form, the facial expression. What is there in a rusty slab of steel that conveys anything other than ugliness? I’m sorry, I’m not going to tell YOU how to feel about art, but personally I cannot stand Serra. Tilted Arc was put up in Federal Plaza and the people who had to work there couldn’t stand the goddamn thing; it was such an eyesore that they unleashed a storm of protest against it and the “sculpture” was removed.
To me, good art needs no explanation. The explanation can make me appreciate it more, but if I (or a majority of people) can’t get something out of it without an explanation, then what you created isn’t art.
Also, am I the only one who appreciates David (and other single color sculptures) only when there is good lighting and shadows?
Could that be because the “grungy art” you saw was not part of the regular Tate collection, but an exhibit on a theme or a specific style or period?
Museums and galleries will often either host a collection or rotate their own collection with an eye to similar styles. The Tate specifically has the “Tate Rooms” which are exhibits on a theme and are explained on their website.
I don’t think the problem is that art, contemporary or otherwise, is difficult to appreciate, but rather that most people don’t know how to appreciate it. And by that I do not mean to say that the layman doesn’t “get” it. What I do mean to say is simply that there is such a lack of understanding about what art is and what art can be that most people don’t see it and further, don’t know what to look for.
People who have studied art are taught to look for it everywhere. They are taught to evaluate every sensual experience as art. That in turn fuels creation of the specific object we go to galleries to see and call “art”. However there is such a fundamental lack of creative and artistic education that most people do not learn the basic criteria for evaluating the specific objects we call art, much less step far enough into that thought process to apply that criteria to their everyday experiences. Plainly, most people are simply not equipped with the simple tools to deal with art. The same way most people aren’t equipped with the necessary tools deal with calculus or theoretical physics. It’s a skill set though that anyone can learn. It’s a way to train your brain. And it used to be commonplace.
As a result you have the prevailing ideology that art is something to “get”. It’s over the heads of the masses. It’s difficult to understand. But as has been said already in this thread: you don’t have to get it, you just have to experience it for what it is to you as an individual. And if it doesn’t do anything for you or you find it unappealing, it’s alright. You shouldn’t have to feel defensive about that or artistically inferior or whatever else.
People with an art education can appreciate all art, whether they like it or not, because they have those basic tools. Because they know that it’s ok to simply take it as it is. Without those tools, people judge art, not for the experience it brings but against the talent of their children or I guess whatever other arbitrary catalogue seems to make the most sense to them at the time.
No, none of it is rubbish. It simply is what it is and all you need to do as the viewer is accept that. You don’t have to like it, just have the experience of it; whether you like it or not. And at the end, the fact that you dislike it doesn’t invalidate it.
If you insist on “meaning” or “beauty” as a prerequisite in art, you’re going to miss out on a lot of great art. A LOT. You have to accept each piece on its own terms, but also within its specific context. Much art–much modern art certainly–is a reaction to the art that happened before it, and often around it. And what constitutes art changes with each new piece.
The great divide for most people, I think, is when artists began attempting to make the art object the end in itself. Not an abstracted representation of something else, like a portrait or a still life, but a creation itself, depicting nothing, just being. This inability to accept that paradigm shift puzzles me, but I think it clarifies just how cultural and contextual it is: the fact that if someone says “modern art sucks, it doesn’t mean anything,” in all likelihood what they’re saying is that they insist that art represent something it’s not, rather than simply be what it is.
Obviously that’s a learned response; it seems to make more sense to me that you’d tend to accept something for what it is, rather than insist it refer to something it’s not before you accept it. But that’s the “language” of art that most people grow up learning; it usually requires extra effort and education to learn to see outside that cultural tradition. But making that effort will open up another way of seeing not just art, but the world in general, to my way of thinking.
What’s your favorite school of armor making?
**In the West? Probably Milanese - Negroli in particular.
**Which is your favorite time period of armor?
Sengoku. Before the Portuguese influence ruined the lines and fully-laced armours were still the norm.
Do you prefer Medieval or Renaissance armor?
**To fight in or to look at? Renaissance for the latter, splinted transitional for the former.
** Which is your favorite collection of arms and armor (Met, Higgins, Royal Armouries, etc)?
**I’m partial to the Leeds collection of the Royal, myself. Never been to the States, unfortunately.
**
I’m genuinely curious, not trying to quiz you or something. HERE’s the quiz, so I know you’re not lying:
What’s the relevance? Just because I know my cuisses from my sabatons doesn’t make me a junkie. I couldn’t care if you knew your tateage from your* takahimo*. But how many vambraces have you made yourself? Ever “borrowed” you friend’s PCB etching solution because the brass trim on your hounskull needed more “oomph”? Plan your holidays around which castles’ armouries you can get to? (Pro Tip - Warwick is so-so - but the live jousting is awesome. The Palazzo Ducale in Venice is worth the trip, though. Some nice Turkish stuff). Ever maxed out your credit card because you need real Japanese silk laces for your do? I don’t just read about armour, I live it. I make it & I wear it.
I just meant it in a light hearted spirit. I should have added a smiley or something, because I can see how it may have come off as arrogant. I take it you’re just more into Eastern armor. I am, though, impressed that you did know the terminology. I just study armor in a historical context, whereas you actually wear it - so that does, indeed, make you the #1 armor person here, unless there is someone else I’m not aware of.
As for me - my favorite period of armor is the 17th century (I may be the only person on earth who feels that way.) Specifically the heavy cavalry harnesses of the 30 Years and 80 Years War. As seen here. And the Savoyard burgonet. To me that look is the most distinctive (and obscure.)
Oh and just for the hell of it - the answer to question number four is: William III of England, Carlos III of Spain and Louis XV of France. Those were the last three European monarchs to be painted in armor. People continued to be painted wearing a cuirass alone all the way into the 1800s but those three were the last kings to be shown in full plate.
I like a nice Curassier armour myself. If I were in the UK, I’d probably play Sealed Knot (Civil War) as well as the SCA I do now.
I’m an artist, and I have a different answer to offer you (thought I agreed with the previous observation that the curators might’ve put together a “grungy exhibit” deliberately).
I think that art museums are a lot like the Baseball Hall of Fame. They’re an homage to watershed moments and superstars within the field, but they’re NOT the game itself.
So to people who haven’t been following the sport, it can be a bit baffling and a lot boring.
If you want to partake of the game itself and not merely its hall of fame moments, check out large street fairs and small galleries. Quality-wise it’ll be hit-and-miss, but you won’t have paid out the wazoo for the experience and you won’t feel obligated to follow some curator’s definition of meaning and purpose - they’ll be yours to find.
Take a look at this Savoyard cuirassier’s harness. It’s currently at the Tinguely Museum in Switzerland; very likely captured by the Swiss during the failed siege of Genoa by Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy. It’s one of the most distinctive close-burgonets I have ever seen. I’ve seen many with slightly-upturned smiling mouth slits but never one with such a maniacally-evil looking grin.
I’m gonna play Devil’s advocate here for a second and say I don’t think you’ve quite nailed it.
I’d argue that many who reject modern art do so because they want to see technical skill on display and have little regard for the rest. Many don’t realize how much skill and care goes in to some abstract art.
After all, many “anti-modern art” folks reject Warhol, Giacometti (once they realize his work is modern and not Ancient, of course), and other non-abstract modern artists. The complaint is always, “My kid could do that.” They want things that LOOK hard to do (regardless of whether said things WERE hard to do). To reinforce this, I’d point out that many such folks love Dale Chihuly, whose work is purely abstract but very detailed.
To wax a mite pompous: The purpose of art isn’t to end the discussion, it is to inspire it.