Art Fan

I went to the Pompidou Modern Art museum in Paris recently. Although I loved several other museums (Orsay, Picasso, Vatican Museum, British Museum), I just didn't get the Pompidou. One alleged work of art was by that fellow Christo. It was basically a big drop cloth bunched up on the floor. If having bunched up fabric on the floor is art, then every sweatshop is a museum, right? Another exhibit was a series of pictures that had been cut out of ordinary magazines. The pictures were of merchandise of various prices, and the pictures were just lined up and stuck to the wall according to price, from one franc up to 99 francs. Isn't that just a pre-school art project? <BR> <BR>Am I missing out on some trend such that 100 years from now, everyone will be raving about the bunched up blanket? I am feeling really out of it.

sympathetic`

Well, don't worry - - - you will be dead in 100 year! You need to worry less & look at the bright side. Just enjoy the old stuff & don't sweat the new. Most of those artists are just lol all the way to the bank.

Art

Don't worry, it was a drop cloth left there by a commercial painter. <BR>

Al

Remember the old Latin maxim: de gustibus nihil disputandum...or...there is no disputing tastes. Just walk on by. It may be a case of The Emperor's Clothes and you are the little fellow who said that the king was naked, only to be pooh-poohed by the anointed ones. <BR>Remember what Mark Twain said about Wagner: his music is not as bad as it sounds. Times change, tastes change, so don't sweat the small stuff.

jackson

Well, you can do what they can do, yet they have art in a museum. I suggest you get some Crayolas or tin foil or the medium of your choice, develop some angst and create a work. Then convince everyone that you are light years ahead of them in your concept and understanding of ART, and if they BUY it now, they can probably auction it for millions when the rest of the world catches up.

Diane

You know what, you don't have to "get it" or even "like it". There are dark dreary Old Masters paintings that leave me cold, but then there are others that I love. There are artists I never tire of, and others I find repulsive. Art evokes a response. That's the goal. One man's junk is another's treasure. Al, I agree with you completely.

elvira

Art Fan, I had the same feeling walking through the Tate Modern. In essence, NO feeling. I love Picasso, and Braque sometimes; at least, Dali makes me nervous (a sensation). In the Tate Modern, there was a giant royal blue canvas - that's it, just a whole canvas painted royal blue. Then, of course, was the film of a naked guy just shaking himself around (a couple of teenage girls liked it). As Al put it, to each his own. <BR>As long as the art police don't make me put that blue blob on my wall, I figure I've got nothing to worry about. And I do ordinarily avoid modern art museums (the Tate Modern was free, which is exactly what I thought it was worth). <BR> <BR>Now, you give me one of those black velvet paintings of the King...

nemo

<BR>Art Fan- <BR>Don't be concerned that much of the modern art escapes you; that is partially by design. Previous eras produced art meant to not only be beautiful but informative ie religious paintings to explain complex church doctrine and dogma or history paintings to define a people/nation and/or its rulers. Over time people became more literate and society changed and required less complex messages to be expessed visually. This freed artists to dedicate themselves to expressing a more personal viewpoint of the world and their place in it. These late pictures are often dependant upon referencing art of earlier periods; e.g. Matisse using Ingres as as inspiration for his pictures of women or an exstensive body of critical writings to explain an artist's viewpoint e.g. the abstract expressionists and their thoughts on formalist theory and and the role of realism in art to convey meaning. In either example many modern artists assume the viewer to be familiar with what they are referencing and to be able to draw the necessary parallels required for appreciation. Unfortunately, many viewers are not familiar with the earlier works and/or writings so much of the meaning is lost. It really is no misunderstanding on your part but more of an insistance on the artist's part to create works for what could be viewed as art world insiders. We can all look at a Rembrandt or Monet and appreciate and understand it but a Motherwell or an Yves Klein is harder to digest. The important thing is to keep looking at what you enjoy but <BR>also to to keep your mind open to other works and place them in the <BR>context in which they were created. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>

arty

You don't have to get modern art, or feel like you're missing out on something because you don't understand it. I think a lot of modern art is purely conceptual and if it gets you talking about it like in this forum it's doing its job. Art is a subjective experience. You can't hold it to any hard criteria.

Cindy

Interesting discussion. <BR> <BR>I hate to quote NY Mayor Gullianni, but he did say something once that I thought was pretty interesting. During the debate on whether the city should fund certain questionable art, the Mayor was asked his definition of art. He said, "It isn't art if I could do it." In other words, if it just a bottle of frozen urine or some such, it isn't art. <BR> <BR>I mentioned the Mayor's statement to an art loving friend. She dismissed it as unspeakably stupid without explanation, and I felt a little too small to really follow up. So I'll ask you guys: why is it art if it requires no artisitic talent whatever to produce? <BR> <BR>Forgive me and correct me if I have mischaracterized the Mayor's statement, but I'm going from memory here.

texasgirl

cindy, i know what you mean. here is the best, most simple explanation i've gotten on that front, from a friend who is an art professor: "OK, maybe you could have made that piece of art. But would it have occurred to you do so?" In other words, it is valued not just because of the execution of the piece but the vision required to produce it in the first place. that simplistic thought has helped me appreciate some works i otherwise didn't get at all....

Cass

I'm lucky enough to have majored in art. "Lucky" not only because I have learned some things that help me understand certain kinds of art better but also because I feel freer than people like "Art Fan" to say I dislike something. It isn't always easy to say why something is bad, but at least I feel somewhat entitled to say "yuck" now and then. <BR> <BR>It seems to me that art that needs more explanation than the title is art that you are entitled to either learn about or pass by. Modern art is often so cerebral/intellectual -- you have to know all kinds of background arguments about how many dimensions there are in a painting and whether line or color is the "reason" for art. Sometimes, I enjoy chuckling at an artist's in-joke but sometimes I just get annoyed at having museum wall-space taken up by one side of an insiders' argument. <BR> <BR>Christo wanted to tick you off, Art Fan, and make you think about whether a drop cloth is art, or what art is. I'm personally a little tired of having to think about what art is. But once in a while, I'm up for the mental gymnastics and I might even read the catalogue to clue me in on something I "don't get." <BR> <BR>You are allowed not to get something. You are allowed to say you don't appreciate it. You might, however, reduce your level of annoyance if you asked someone (perhaps a former art major...) to brief you on just whatthehell the artist thought he/she was up to. Once in a great while, you might find yourself saying "hey, now I get it, that's cool!" But if not, okay. <BR>I "get" a lot of things I still find ugly or don't like. Fortunately I don't have to see them ever again.

Dr. Betty

Art Fan <BR> <BR>This topic has caused me to ponder deeply, beyond my usual level of depth. Nemo's Art History 101 course provided the necessary life preserver, otherwise I'm sure to have sunk. I can't get the image of the oilcloth bunched up in the middle of the room out of my mind and I have some thoughts on what happened. Unfortunately, I did not visit the Pompadou center while in Paris, as I thought it was a huge hair styling salon for puffed up hair deux and my hair look just fine. But I digress. Could it be that a large piece of art had been unveiled and the oil cloth, with its lovely folds, evoked an equally pleasant viewing for the patrons as the piece of modern art itself? Now, if the oil cloth had spots or globs of paint on it, this may represent the thought that good art is good art down to the very last drop… <BR>

Cindy

Dr. B, Nemo, Tex, and Cass, <BR> <BR>OK, what you've said makes sense, and I appreciate your willingness to explain it all to me. But Tex, I have a question for your professor. Yes, it is true that "I-could-do-that-too" art is art because the artist thought of the concept. But doesn't art have two components: the concept and the execution. If the concept is nifty but the execution is something anyone could do, perhaps the artist is only half-way there. I, for instance, have many nifty ideas floating around in my head for books and screenplays. What is missing is the talent, that is, the execution. If I churned out one of these ideas with my pedestrian prose, few would think it to be outstanding art, I assure you. <BR> <BR>But I know from a modern art exhibit I saw once that you guys have a good point. Remember that exhibit in Chicago that consisted of an American flag lying on the floor? It was very controversial. Visitors could physically "manipulate" the flag however they chose. Some thought the flag shouldn't be on the floor, so they folded it and put it on the shelf. Others threw it back down. So when it was my turn, the flag was folded on a shelf, and I didn't have the guts to put the flag on the floor. Why? Who knows. But it must be art if it made me think so hard about patriotism and peer pressure.

Dave

I and most of my friends are engineers. When we get together, we make jokes about elephants and slide rules, etc. that noone else understands. I think that's what modern art is: a big inside joke by art majors to keep the rest of us out of their inner circle.

Bill

Very interesting thread! I sometimes enjoy the "in-joke" of the I-could-have-done-that school of modern art. Usually not, though. What REALLY gets to me is when a large amount of the taxpayers' money is shelled out to buy someone's in-joke. I guess that pegs me as a right-wing zealot (which I really don't think I am). What I'm saying is that in-jokes are fine, as long as my tax money isn't part of the punch line.

Minor

Just for clarification: art _history_ majors aren't the perpetrators of this in-joke thing, in fact they are often the butt of it. _Studio_ art majors are the ones who either get to join the jokers or end up illustrating fashion mags.... <BR> <BR>And gov't subsidy may sometimes support some of these people -- and also some of those who are actually trying to contribute instead of put one over on us -- but the greatest amount of $$ comes from corporate/foundation donors who have far more money and desire to define what's in and what's out than they have actual discernment. <BR> <BR>Who do you think is actually responsible for the enormous inflation of prices for art? It's not the gummint or the museums, it's the collectors -- those idjits who want something big and blue to stand in their back yard to say "I've arrived, I'm cool, and you aren't."

cherie

I am an art major who actually sold her art. (So what am I doing in Healthcare?Making money.) I get the same feeling when visiting the Pompidou, so I don't go there. I recently visited without taking my kids there. Instead, we went where we felt good...the d'Orsay's (nuvo as my kids say)rooms had much more to offer without having to ponder what the various artists THOUGHT rather than what they actually painted or built. The Rodin (we all found different bronze statues that we liked best.) etc. I often think of Christo, though. I think of his work whenever we drive through the Pacheco Pass here in CA. Everytime I see those windmills all in different shapes, all for alternate energy, I think of how Christo didn't make a dime on this! And it looks just like his medium! <BR>

Audrey

As an art history major I have specialized in Early Christian and Medieval art because these periods appeal to me more than any others. BUT...I also participate in a program at my kid's school called art masterpiece where we take a reproduction of a famous work into the classroom and lead a discussion about it. My experience with these kids is that they LOVE abstract. Da Vinci bores them to tears, Pollack we can discuss for 45 minutes. <BR> <BR>So, I wonder, did we all love the abstract as kids? Do we outgrow our ability to appreciate lines and squiggles? Have we "learned" that art has to be "understandable" in order for it to be good?

elvira

Audrey, more food for thought! Hmmm... let's see, kids also like Teletubbies and Pokemon...and think vegetables are yucky. If kids like the abstract, maybe it's because they're not old enough to appreciate the Mona Lisa? Does that mean Jackson Pollack (whom I actually sort of like, in an abstract kind of way) appeals to the same minds that like Teletubbies and believe in the tooth fairy? Just looking at it from the other end of the telescope...