6 ms·

The style and presentation method of the article is great. I hate this style of "art", though. If modern art should exist at all, it should be only at the frin

The style and presentation method of the article is great. I hate this style of "art", though. If modern art should exist at all, it should be only at the fringes of the art world, as an occasional novelty, rather than the main attraction. For some reason, I feel unusually, viscerally, strongly about this topic. My first instinct was to just declare that this art is absolute fucking garbage (which feels like an indisputable fact to me, not just an opinion). But I thought I should try to analyze why I feel that way. I have a fine-arts education and passion. I spent several years attending art schools, and working at art schools and galleries. I've been exposed to plenty of modern art and the artists who make it. But I absolutely loathe it. And, in surveys, the public agrees: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2016/10/10/it-art-according-general-public-probably-not https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2016/... I think art should have to pass a test: If you saw it in an alleyway, would you think it was art or trash? Or: Could a child have made it by accidentally smearing paint on a canvas? Art should generally display technical skill and years of practice. Viewers should think "I would never be able to make something as precise and beautiful as this", not "I could make five of these in an hour." If not technically demanding, art should at least be somehow clever, expressive, or interesting... And in a self-evident manner that doesn't require a backstory on a placard. The talent required for modern art is not in creating it, but in describing it. I consider modern artists (and critics) frauds, whose main skill is writing snooty descriptions of garbage, convincing people that it's valuable, like the tailor in "the emperor has no clothes". Finding something that no one has ever called art, and being the first to call it art, is not making art; it's just calling shit art. I understand modern artists are trying to be creative and unique, to push the limits of what can be called art, and maybe to show us beauty in where we haven't looked before... But most of their experiments fail. Modern art tries so hard to be original that it forgets to be appealing to viewers. Many traits can make a work of art appealing; originality is only one of them (other traits include technical skill, composition, realism, and subject matter.) Modern art sacrifices (or purposely sabotages) all other possibly-appealing traits in pursuit of originality, forgetting that appeal--not originality--is the ultimate goal. This generally results in an ugly piece of junk that anyone COULD have made, but no one else DID make yet... And that's if the artist is lucky. Art is capable of being naturally appealing to viewers. This documentary lays out a case for beauty in art, and how the intentional ugliness of modern art is demoralizing: https://vimeo.com/128428182 https://vimeo.com/128428182 Not incidentally, it's by a conservative-leaning host; apparently, opinions of modern art are closely tied to opinions on politics: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20856316/poll-yougov-art-ideology-trump https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20856316/p... I'm high in openness, and usually lean left, but not in this regard, somehow. A big part of the reason "realistic", "traditional", or "classical" artwork is traditional or classic is that those styles are naturally appealing; that's why they survived so long. I think modern artists tend to consciously and intentionally reject anything related to traditional values. Of course classical art can be boring, has all been done before, was replaced by photography, etc., but it's still intrinsically appealing in a way modern art isn't. I guess a big part of why I dislike modern art is its success. If the music world was the same as the art world, Brian Eno would be the most popular musician of all time. It just feels wrong. I like Brian Eno and other minimalist/expressionist/experimental music, but only because it's so different compared to the norm. It shouldn't be the norm.

20after4 5y ago
In 2020, I had the privilege of photographing the 360 "street view" for this art show at a local museum: https://goo.gl/maps/8BLvXperH9CHHqeM7 https://goo.gl/maps/8BLvXperH9CHHqeM7 I think some of these water color paintings are so beautiful that you might forget about the pretentious modern art ;)
egypturnash 5y ago
It is certainly pretty goddamn depressing to look at the price on these sorts of things and compare it to how much time and money you've spent acquiring your art skills, and how much money you're likely to make off of them in your entire life. I've probably had a lot more fun drawing furry porn for money than Johns has had producing turgid masses of grey noodling, though. I regularly giggle with delight at the things people pay me to draw. If I was more stoned I'd consider extemporizing furry porn as a fascinating proletarian genre that is aggressively ignored by the art world. And then consider putting together a portfolio of nothing but to throw at some of the local galleries. But instead I think I'll just turn off the internet and get some work done.
- mbg721 5y ago
  I would think that the antidote to turgid masses of grey noodling would be something more like Marc Chagall--blasts of color everywhere, biblical characters, newlyweds floating in space, farm animals playing violins, childlike hope. But hey, I guess furry porn works too.
  - egypturnash 5y ago
    Furry porn’s what I draw, so... And trust me, that stuff is colorful. Lots of cartoon animal people in bright, unnatural cartoon colors.
rainonmoon 5y ago
> Art should have to pass a test: If you saw it in an alleyway, would you think it was art or trash? It's really strange to me that you've allegedly spent so much time in the art world and still think this is a valid dichotomy. Part of art is context, which should be clear given that's exclusively what you're responding to here. It's also strange that you correlate popularity with some kind of moral authority about the right of a particular art to exist. What does it matter whether it's popular or not, as if that's a ruling on its alleged correctness to some imagined standard? I hope one day you can open yourself to having a genuine experience with a work of art and worry less about whether too many people like it or not.

20after4 5y ago

In 2020, I had the privilege of photographing the 360 "street view" for this art show at a local museum: https://goo.gl/maps/8BLvXperH9CHHqeM7 https://goo.gl/maps/8BLvXperH9CHHqeM7 I think some of these water color paintings are so beautiful that you might forget about the pretentious modern art ;)

egypturnash 5y ago

It is certainly pretty goddamn depressing to look at the price on these sorts of things and compare it to how much time and money you've spent acquiring your art skills, and how much money you're likely to make off of them in your entire life. I've probably had a lot more fun drawing furry porn for money than Johns has had producing turgid masses of grey noodling, though. I regularly giggle with delight at the things people pay me to draw. If I was more stoned I'd consider extemporizing furry porn as a fascinating proletarian genre that is aggressively ignored by the art world. And then consider putting together a portfolio of nothing but to throw at some of the local galleries. But instead I think I'll just turn off the internet and get some work done.

mbg721 5y ago
I would think that the antidote to turgid masses of grey noodling would be something more like Marc Chagall--blasts of color everywhere, biblical characters, newlyweds floating in space, farm animals playing violins, childlike hope. But hey, I guess furry porn works too.
- egypturnash 5y ago
  Furry porn’s what I draw, so... And trust me, that stuff is colorful. Lots of cartoon animal people in bright, unnatural cartoon colors.

rainonmoon 5y ago

> Art should have to pass a test: If you saw it in an alleyway, would you think it was art or trash? It's really strange to me that you've allegedly spent so much time in the art world and still think this is a valid dichotomy. Part of art is context, which should be clear given that's exclusively what you're responding to here. It's also strange that you correlate popularity with some kind of moral authority about the right of a particular art to exist. What does it matter whether it's popular or not, as if that's a ruling on its alleged correctness to some imagined standard? I hope one day you can open yourself to having a genuine experience with a work of art and worry less about whether too many people like it or not.