By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 07 November 2011
Edit Thread
sapphi_snake said:
HappySqurriel said:
This artists work is not that bad being that it is at least aesthetically pleasing, but a large portion of modern art is meaningless junk thrown together by shallow people with no talent that appeals to shallow people who desperately want to feel like they’re part of the cultural elite.

I would generally not have a problem with this if these artists were being funded privately but, being that the government funds terrible artists to produce trendy modern art garbage that is so poor quality that even shallow "cultural elite" types have no interest in it, I get annoyed when it is government funded and low quality.

I'm actually amazed at how you manage to connect any issue with your distaste for the Government. And I never knew that art had to be aesthetically pleasing. I'm also curious, who is more shallow: intellectual wannabes, who praise something they don't understand because it makes them look good and feel superior, or the intellectually challenged, who bash something they don't understand because they're frustrated they can't and feel inferior because of that? I'd say there's not much difference between these 2 categories.

How about people who totally understand where the modern art connections are and still think they're shallow garbage?

For example... http://www.amazon.com/End-Art-Donald-Kuspit/dp/0521832527

The problem with Modern art... as many art critics like Kuspit will tell you... since there are many that outright reject a lot of modern art...

is that it's FULLY subjective and not based on any real criteria.

Someone studied enough in modern art could take a everyday creation from someone and come up with a theory that would likely convince modern art critics that it's modern art, just by having it in a gallery.

For example, in the cleveland musuem of art there is a modern art piece callled "Seasons".

Which is comprised of 4 floresent light bulbs in a regular florescent fixture.  The light bulbs are four different colors each representing one of the four seasons. It's simple, and really, something not anyone could only just create, but anyone could of conceptualized, because it uses the most basic colors for each bulb.

In fact, many people probably did do just that and hung it in their rooms for decoration, never knowing they could of been considered a great artist.  Is something art if anyone could do it, and many had before?  Why is this art in the one instance that someone decided to take it to a musuem and all other pieces that look exactly the same aren't considered art, even those that came before?

A good article on it....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/books/review/11gewen.html?pagewanted=all