This is why I am against teaching what is good Art.
Art history, sure. But I was stunted when teachers told me modern art is Art.
I imagine many peers don't understand Art as a result.
What the Hell Was Modernism?
11–20 of 57 posts
Re: What the Hell Was Modernism?
#12Alternatively, modernism represents where Romanticism led us. Forget austere and orderly Classicism and just feel. Modernism made it this far by engaging people viscerally whether they understood a specific message or not.
Re: What the Hell Was Modernism?
#13>And before you object that we’ve been living for 50 years in postmodernism, not modernism, the art that followed the titans of the early-20th century was defined and even named after what preceded it (daddy issues?).
Postmodernism isn't just "not modernism" or the art that happens after modernism. Postmodernism is art that only makes sense in the context of modernism. It involves pastiche, genre criticism and meta-analysis.
Re: What the Hell Was Modernism?
#14What a great read. I think that we see the same thing in poetry as well -- the inaccessible modernist expiriments with form, while interesting to insiders, is at its conclusion an esoteric pursuit. I think that the turn back toward classical forms, towards a broader audience, and largely the turn inward (the self as the primary concern of the work, rather than it's form) really is a wonderful new wave across many gen…
[deleted]
Re: What the Hell Was Modernism?
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but I know with age and I hope "maturity" I appreciate many more forms of art. Things I didn't have the life experience or emotional depth to grasp when I was younger can deeply impact me now. An example would be Mark Rothko's paintings. I would have said "pfft anyone can do that...just some stripes or blocks" when I was a kid, and probably did, but have recently rediscover…
It certainly is not true of everybody that appreciation of modern art comes with age. I'd wager the majority of people, young or old, consider it inaccessible or worse.
I surmised in my case had to do with life experiences and emotional growth allowing me to see things differently, but maybe that's self righteous nonsense. All I know is I can enjoy a lot more art than I used to and I am glad for it.
Re: What the Hell Was Modernism?
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but I know with age and I hope "maturity" I appreciate many more forms of art. Things I didn't have the life experience or emotional depth to grasp when I was younger can deeply impact me now. An example would be Mark Rothko's paintings. I would have said "pfft anyone can do that...just some stripes or blocks" when I was a kid, and probably did, but have recently rediscover…
It certainly is not true of everybody that appreciation of modern art comes with age. I'd wager the majority of people, young or old, consider it inaccessible or worse.
I remember going to the museums on field trips and we kids would all love seeing what would've been the "modern" pieces that were on the tour list (I had some somewhat eccentric teachers in middle school). Even in young adulthood (read: in college) I took many a date to MCA in the summers because, and maybe chalk this up to typical youth rebellion, I liked it. Only recently, because I can travel more now, have I gotten to see more Classical and Renaissance period art in person and, honestly, I feel completely robbed - or like I robbed myself. I look back on some of this stuff that we all looked at as "genius" (and would attempt to recreate in art class as kids with construction paper and elmer's glue) and it's just crap to me now. So I guess I disagree that "modern" art isn't "accessible". It seems that there's been a culture invented around it in order to make it look and feel more sophisticated than it actually is.
Re: What the Hell Was Modernism?
#17What a great read. I think that we see the same thing in poetry as well -- the inaccessible modernist expiriments with form, while interesting to insiders, is at its conclusion an esoteric pursuit. I think that the turn back toward classical forms, towards a broader audience, and largely the turn inward (the self as the primary concern of the work, rather than it's form) really is a wonderful new wave across many gen…
[deleted]
Re: What the Hell Was Modernism?
#18What a great read. I think that we see the same thing in poetry as well -- the inaccessible modernist expiriments with form, while interesting to insiders, is at its conclusion an esoteric pursuit. I think that the turn back toward classical forms, towards a broader audience, and largely the turn inward (the self as the primary concern of the work, rather than it's form) really is a wonderful new wave across many gen…
I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but I know with age and I hope "maturity" I appreciate many more forms of art. Things I didn't have the life experience or emotional depth to grasp when I was younger can deeply impact me now. An example would be Mark Rothko's paintings. I would have said "pfft anyone can do that...just some stripes or blocks" when I was a kid, and probably did, but have recently rediscover…
[deleted]
Re: What the Hell Was Modernism?
#19What a great read. I think that we see the same thing in poetry as well -- the inaccessible modernist expiriments with form, while interesting to insiders, is at its conclusion an esoteric pursuit. I think that the turn back toward classical forms, towards a broader audience, and largely the turn inward (the self as the primary concern of the work, rather than it's form) really is a wonderful new wave across many gen…
I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but I know with age and I hope "maturity" I appreciate many more forms of art. Things I didn't have the life experience or emotional depth to grasp when I was younger can deeply impact me now. An example would be Mark Rothko's paintings. I would have said "pfft anyone can do that...just some stripes or blocks" when I was a kid, and probably did, but have recently rediscover…
I never really understood modern art until I a) saw it in person, and b) saw it in the context of its time.
I was at the Hermitage museum in St Petersburg. I'd done museum tour after museum tour in both Moscow and Petersburg. Nearly all of this art was classical/neo-classical or romantic, rococo, etc.
By the end of your 1000th neo-classical painting, you get exhausted of the sameness of the realistic style. The themes, colors, sensibilities all appear similar.
Then I walked into the modern and post-modern hall and there was a massive Matisse painting on the wall. The bright blue was such a revelation. You see a painting like that after 400 years worth of realistic painting style and it takes your breath away. It was particularly impactful when contrasted against the neoclassical architecture of the museum itself.
The worst way to appreciate modern and post modern art is on a computer screen. These things have to be experienced in person. For one, their sheer size can't be captured on screen. A 12' x 10' canvas has a visual impact that's not possible to replicate anywhere. Second, their experimental quality has to be contrasted against the dominant art forms of their time. Anyone can technically paint like Matisse. But they didn't.
Re: What the Hell Was Modernism?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but I know with age and I hope "maturity" I appreciate many more forms of art. Things I didn't have the life experience or emotional depth to grasp when I was younger can deeply impact me now. An example would be Mark Rothko's paintings. I would have said "pfft anyone can do that...just some stripes or blocks" when I was a kid, and probably did, but have recently rediscover…
I never really understood modern art until I a) saw it in person, and b) saw it in the context of its time. I was at the Hermitage museum in St Petersburg. I'd done museum tour after museum tour in both Moscow and Petersburg. Nearly all of this art was classical/neo-classical or romantic, rococo, etc. By the end of your 1000th neo-classical painting, you get exhausted of the sameness of the realistic style. The theme…
I had a very similar experience with Pollock. I'd of course seen his famous drip paintings in books, and never understood what the big deal was. But seeing one in real life completely blew me away. Both the size of it and most importantly the 3D nature of it. The paintings aren't simply 2D images, but rather sculpted 3D surfaces that change as you look at them from different angles.