Modern Art is Sh*t

[pbrower2a]

Originally Posted by annla899

Quote:If you want a message go to Western Union. It's funny to me to discuss "What is Art" since I've spent my entire adult life in the arts. Regarding literature, a very wise person told me, "Mediocre literature tries to answer the questions of its time. Great literature explores the questions."

The movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn so said. Goldwyn's studio may have had the motto Ars gratia artis... but hardly anyone pretended that the movies were anything other than entertainment. But that said, American cinema in the 1930s was so good that it deserved recognition as art. One can watch just about anything from Hollywood in that time and be happy with what one sees. Something like Mozart's unpretentiously-named Divertimento for string trio, K. 563? Great visual or musical art does not need pretentious titles or explanation. An artist who must explain his work except to expose techniques or the source of the inspiration has failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npQJP_nF7NI


Folk and primitive art can be very good -- and far better than some of the pretentious bilge that one sees in artists more intent on expressing their personalities than in satisfying the aesthetic needs of others. Some basic reality, material or philosophic, is enough. At times the common man has a more clear-headed view of the world than elites who can insulate themselves at will from the nastiness that they create. Were I to try painting, I would likely go primitive --- and certainly not post-modern. Nudes? Athletics or Madonna-and-child allusions.

It goes beyond art. The big questions, unless they are of pivotal moments of history, are not the answers to the questions of the time. The answers are often posed in the questions. We need at times ask whether the questions themselves have validity. Do I think any question of what is going on in the life of someone with the surname Kardashian is relevant?



(snipped for current irrelevance of original material)

Quote:Last edited by pbrower2a; 09-14-2015 at 11:59 AM.

More (really to Kinser)-- someone with a disdain for the narcissistic and neurotic excesses of modern art might as well turn to folk or primitive art as the basis of a new aesthetic. Sophisticated people can relate to folk expressions with no question of them 'slumming' so long as the music or art is competent, expressive, and attractive.

The artist as Star -- that is the pathology of modernism in art (and much else). The focus is rightly on the canvas, sculpture, mobile, or even rock garden instead of upon the artist. The artist as Star is a vehicle of narcissism and neurosis. I do not want to look deep into a tortured or vile soul. Should I paint an image of a decaying barn (there are huge numbers of them in rural Michigan as barns have gone from being shelters for livestock and storage bins for grain to being garages for farm equipment before going into decay as farmers have gone to specialization in grain or or into dairying on a factory scale and organizational structure, rendering barns superfluous), then it won't be an exposure of me.

Going deep into my soul? Do I want to fully expose myself as a personality? It would either be too bland or too troublesome, depending upon how you see me.

It's nothing more than a hobby. Do you think that I see myself as a possible Vincent van Gogh? Do you think that I would want to be Vincent?

P.S. The title of the Mozart work is literally "Entertainment".