No reason why not. I was in the Tate Modern and overheard a woman explaining Cubism to her kid. I know nothing about it so I earwigged. Very educational.
I think a lot of anti-modern art people would compare people from different eras just based on technical skill; skill with paint.......I suppose that is relatively objective.....bit like comparing authors based upon their grammar, and their use of long words?
Do people enjoy modern art? Is enjoy the right word? Most people I know, and I'm not saying I agree, think modern art is rubbish. Or do you mean art in general as opposed to what people call Modern art?
There isn't really a style of art that is known as "Modern" - it's just a catch-all term for relatively contemporary. There as a particular style called Modernism, but that was early to mid 20th century. Contemporary art is still as varied as art ever was. I suspect most people tend to immediately think of abstract paintings and sculpture or the rather naff "installation" art. I don't really "get" the YBA crowd, but there is lots of engaging, clever and appealing work on display at the Tate Modern that isn't just "assemble some crap and call it art".
Your original question was also irrelevant though: how can you objectively measure Turner against artists from the 70s or later?
Not just Turner. Take any great artist from the last thousand years. Now name any comparable artist since 1970 (I would say 'since 1930' but people would only squawk on about Picasso).
Not just Turner. Take any great artist from the last thousand years. Now name any comparable artist since 1970 (I would say 'since 1930' but people would only squawk on about Picasso).
But again, how? What are we specifically measuring when we make such a comparison?
If it's influence, which is all I can infer, then we've no idea which 20th Century artists will endure. Look at the trajectory of Van Gough's career.
He has a point. Let's prolong a child's innocence and not encourage them to become pretentious by looking a the garbage that passes as Modern Art and trying to attribute meaning to it.
A lot of the 'art' these days looks like it's been created by someone who was bored.
Modern art, like modern 'classical music', has disappeared up its own rarefied backside.
Well, no. How is it in any way possible to place art - any kind of art - created in the last, say, 30 years, into the same kind of historical context as art from 200 years ago? We can't say what will stand the test of time until, well, sufficient time has passed.
Agreed. I really loathe it when people refer to it as 'degenerate art'. This isn't Nazi Germany.
It's a perfectly apt word. What other word could one use if one finds that modern art has 'lost the qualities considered desirable and shows signs of serious decline'.
Sounds like he's trying to flog tickets to his crap art show by saying something zany. A lot of kids are now going to be dragged to one of his shows against their will by their outraged parents.
i don`t think it matters whether you "understand" a piece of art or not, it`s enough to like it.
edit: when you produce art you`re often putting something very personal into it, how`s someone supposed to understand that unless they`re privy to the artist`s emotions?
Well, no. How is it in any way possible to place art - any kind of art - created in the last, say, 30 years, into the same kind of historical context as art from 200 years ago? We can't say what will stand the test of time until, well, sufficient time has passed.
How much time has to pass? Despite what people might think, artists like Titian and Michelangelo, Mozart and Beethoven were being hailed as geniuses either within their own lifetime or a few years after their passing.
i don`t think it matters whether you "understand" a piece of art or not, it`s enough to like it.
Unfortunately with Modernist art you seem to have to 'understand' it first before you can like it. It's where it falls flat on its face. You don't need to know anything about Titian to like it.
As I said, it's all become nauseatingly pseudo-intellectual and snobbish. With so much of it you need to read a mini-essay written in words before you can understand the visuals. How dumb is that. If you need words to communicate the meaning then the artwork has utterly failed.
Modern art, like modern 'classical music', has disappeared up its own rarefied backside.
I don't know how you can say that. I love listening to things like African Sanctus and Stabat Mater because they are aurally pleasing compositions, every bit as much as less-contemporaneous pieces.
Are you saying the likes of Fanshawe and Jenkins are "up their own backside"?
It's just a publicity stunt to get the Chapmans back in the media spotlight.
The Chapmans are trying to raise Art Fund money for a 'major show' at the Jerwood Gallery, so lets just say that any publicity is good publicity. In order to achieve the goal, the following item is on offer:
It's a perfectly apt word. What other word could one use if one finds that modern art has 'lost the qualities considered desirable and shows signs of serious decline'.
Because that's what degenerate means.
Because it's rather catch-all. Would one use it to describe, say, modern music? Clearly not everyone appreciates modern music, but many do and can appreciate and enjoy Elbow as much as Rachmaninov.
I don't know how you can say that. I love listening to things like African Sanctus and Stabat Mater because they are aurally pleasing compositions, every bit as much as less-contemporaneous pieces.
Are you saying the likes of Fanshawe and Jenkins are "up their own backside"?
What on earth has Fanshawe's 'African Sanctus' got to do with contemporary classical music? It's just African chanting/shouting.
Any half-decent contemporary classical music has nothing to do with Modernism though. It relies on the musical vocabulary of earlier periods, something Modernism despises.
Something like this is contemporary (i.e. written recently) but it's not Modernist:
Unfortunately with Modernist art you seem to have to 'understand' it first before you can like it. It's where it falls flat on its face. You don't need to know anything about Titian to like it.
As I said, it's all become nauseatingly pseudo-intellectual and snobbish. With so much of it you need to read a mini-essay written in words before you can understand the visuals. How dumb is that. If you need words to communicate the meaning then the artwork has utterly failed.
BIB is rubbish. If you like the look of something, that is all that matters, and this is just as true for modern art as it for classical.
You don't need to know anything about the artwork to like it.
How much time has to pass? Despite what people might think, artists like Titian and Michelangelo, Mozart and Beethoven were being hailed as geniuses either within their own lifetime or a few years after their passing.
How long is a ball of string? Perhaps a cop-out answer, but certainly longer than you seem to be allowing.
Yes Titian et al were lauded whilst they were alive, as are many artists working today. Just because you personally don't like their work doesn't mean that they will not be seen as important in the future. Likewise, many artists we now consider to be geniuses from the past were not seen as such in their own lifetimes and I'm sure Mozart wasn't universally popular during his lifetime.
The point is that, although we can make informed guesses, we don't really know which artists working today will be revered in the future. A lot of the dross will disappear of course, as it would have done in the past.
Comments
I didn't say you did, but from your tone I suspect you never made much effort in the first place. Each to their own, etc etc.
Your original question was also irrelevant though: how can you objectively measure Turner against artists from the 70s or later?
There isn't really a style of art that is known as "Modern" - it's just a catch-all term for relatively contemporary. There as a particular style called Modernism, but that was early to mid 20th century. Contemporary art is still as varied as art ever was. I suspect most people tend to immediately think of abstract paintings and sculpture or the rather naff "installation" art. I don't really "get" the YBA crowd, but there is lots of engaging, clever and appealing work on display at the Tate Modern that isn't just "assemble some crap and call it art".
Not just Turner. Take any great artist from the last thousand years. Now name any comparable artist since 1970 (I would say 'since 1930' but people would only squawk on about Picasso).
But again, how? What are we specifically measuring when we make such a comparison?
If it's influence, which is all I can infer, then we've no idea which 20th Century artists will endure. Look at the trajectory of Van Gough's career.
Ah, you see. There isn't anyone.
Modern art, like modern 'classical music', has disappeared up its own rarefied backside.
A lot of the 'art' these days looks like it's been created by someone who was bored.
No need to be facetious. Rauschenberg, Bacon, de Kooning, Johns, Dali, Kippenberger.... the list is endless.
I didn't bother writing any before because what's the point? You haven't suggested any parameters of comparison.
Well, no. How is it in any way possible to place art - any kind of art - created in the last, say, 30 years, into the same kind of historical context as art from 200 years ago? We can't say what will stand the test of time until, well, sufficient time has passed.
It's a perfectly apt word. What other word could one use if one finds that modern art has 'lost the qualities considered desirable and shows signs of serious decline'.
Because that's what degenerate means.
He sounds like an utter moron.
edit: when you produce art you`re often putting something very personal into it, how`s someone supposed to understand that unless they`re privy to the artist`s emotions?
he needs to get over himself.
How much time has to pass? Despite what people might think, artists like Titian and Michelangelo, Mozart and Beethoven were being hailed as geniuses either within their own lifetime or a few years after their passing.
Unfortunately with Modernist art you seem to have to 'understand' it first before you can like it. It's where it falls flat on its face. You don't need to know anything about Titian to like it.
As I said, it's all become nauseatingly pseudo-intellectual and snobbish. With so much of it you need to read a mini-essay written in words before you can understand the visuals. How dumb is that. If you need words to communicate the meaning then the artwork has utterly failed.
I don't know how you can say that. I love listening to things like African Sanctus and Stabat Mater because they are aurally pleasing compositions, every bit as much as less-contemporaneous pieces.
Are you saying the likes of Fanshawe and Jenkins are "up their own backside"?
The Chapmans are trying to raise Art Fund money for a 'major show' at the Jerwood Gallery, so lets just say that any publicity is good publicity. In order to achieve the goal, the following item is on offer:
http://www.artfund.org/get-involved/art-happens/a-major-exhibition-of-the-chapman-brothers/chapman-brothers-loo-paper
Use some of the £60 loo paper Jake.....on your mouth, 'cos you're talking sh_t.
Because it's rather catch-all. Would one use it to describe, say, modern music? Clearly not everyone appreciates modern music, but many do and can appreciate and enjoy Elbow as much as Rachmaninov.
What on earth has Fanshawe's 'African Sanctus' got to do with contemporary classical music? It's just African chanting/shouting.
Any half-decent contemporary classical music has nothing to do with Modernism though. It relies on the musical vocabulary of earlier periods, something Modernism despises.
Something like this is contemporary (i.e. written recently) but it's not Modernist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a_onoMEmkw
As someone who listens to a lot of Renaissance choral music, I think it's very beautiful.
BIB is rubbish. If you like the look of something, that is all that matters, and this is just as true for modern art as it for classical.
You don't need to know anything about the artwork to like it.
So why do so many people use the 'you don't understand it' defence when arguing the merits of Modernist art?
How long is a ball of string? Perhaps a cop-out answer, but certainly longer than you seem to be allowing.
Yes Titian et al were lauded whilst they were alive, as are many artists working today. Just because you personally don't like their work doesn't mean that they will not be seen as important in the future. Likewise, many artists we now consider to be geniuses from the past were not seen as such in their own lifetimes and I'm sure Mozart wasn't universally popular during his lifetime.
The point is that, although we can make informed guesses, we don't really know which artists working today will be revered in the future. A lot of the dross will disappear of course, as it would have done in the past.
Because they are idiots (just like the people who use the exact same argument for classical art). I have never used that line of argument.