Some Words On Modern Art
Being an art historian means you are held responsible for knowing about geographic regions and periods of art. Since I pretty much have most of the world and most of time covered, this semester I am taking a class covering the only area in which I am completely unexperienced: modern "Western" art, since 1940. Modern art inspires a lot of different opinions and ideas among different people, so I thought I would share my views.
To me, art does one of two things: either it makes you think, or it sits there being pretty. Art is beautiful or thought-provoking or both; but most modern art is neither. Almost all of post-1940 artworks and artists are concerned with asking the question "What is art?" in the widest variety of ways possible.
And here inlies the problem. Art can, and often should, make a point. It should engage the viewer in such a way as to make him or her think about their surroundings, their worldview, or their culture. Much of art does this, quite successfully I might add. I do not even have a problem with artists asking the question of what art is. Where the problem arises is when every new artist, regardless of educational background or training, constantly produces an incredibly wide range of works that ALL question the definition of "art". Ultimately, the definition of art is up to the viewer. Most of the modern artists are creating works that most people would not consider worthy of the designation "art"; and indeed, the National Endowment for the Arts has come under intense government scrutiny recently for subsidzing artists that some feel do not produce real "art". I have no problem with the NEA, because it is not up to me (or the government for that matter) to stop the production of art simply because I do not like it or find it objectionable. To do so would be breaking our free speech laws, laws which I will fight to the death to defend.
But just because I support modern art's production does not mean I like it. "Art" as we know it is generally considered to be a "Western" construct. Most African societies, for example, do not differentiate between a mask and the dance performance associated with it; thus they have no conception of "art" as we define it. If we then look at art through our "Western" eyes, we see a long history of painting, sculpture, and other works, created primarily for the social elite, which served an aesthetic purpose in society. Gradually, artists began questioning this purely aesthetic purpose, and art began to be used to discuss issues of social or cultural importance. But recently, especially in the late 20th century, art no longer accomplishes anything. Pieces of art like these do nothing to inspire the viewer, they only shock. Modern art questions what "art" is by producing works that are intended to shock you, but at the same time confuse you because their presence in a museum or guarded setting means that they must be "art". This is how modern artists question "art", and it is precisely this never-ending line of questioning that is destroying art as we know it.
The humanity is gone. Art, as human construction, as one of the few achievements in human history that is unique to our species, is being destroyed. The pieces made today do not engage the viewer, for they do quite the opposite: modern art alienates the viewer, intellectually and aesthetically. The feelings that modern art inspires in a human are the exact same feelings an animal would get: no feeling at all. The pieces of art that are made to be shocking or disgusting do just that: shock and disgust, while most other pieces are so absent of form, color, and innovation that viewers are simply not inspired. The very thing that makes art a human creation: the power to inspire, to engage, to convey; is being lost - and that is the greatest tragedy of all.
And perhaps my reaction to modern art movements are exactly what the artists wanted. If so, then I hope they are all very happy. They have selfishly and egotistically crowned themselves as some of the greatest innovators, geniuses, and visionaries the art world has ever known while at the same time destroying everything that makes art the beuatiful human creation that it is. Congratulations.

3 Comments:
As always, your post was right on. And I will have to agree with the last point you made. It seems that modern art thrives on alienation and inaccessiblity. If nobody can understand it, so much the better.
Modern art, as it exists today, aligns itself with the cultural elite, and appeals only to other denizens of this self-proclaimed high art. In this art world, accessibility (or conventional beauty) and "genius" are inversely related. However, 40 pieces of sheet metal stapled to a fax machine a genius do not make. Then again, I'm probably wrong, that piece sounds like it's about imperialism and the military-industrial complex....
-L
8:39 PM
Though I would tend to agree that modern art is not meant for the common person, has most of artistic history? Styles change, but fine art has always been the realm of the cultural elite. There are exceptions of course, but culture has always equaled the higher classes, while the lower were inextricably tied to nature. Modern art seems colder than older art because instead of reporducing reality, it rejects it, an ideal that has never had wide appeal. In the past, the more real art was, the better. That is something that people can easily and accesibly understand. This is the same for all cultural movements, not just fine art. Certaintly the ideals of exisistentialism are less appealing than those of christianity to the common person. Despite my rationalizations, much of the minimalist, stripped down "art" is in effect highly pretentious and boring. I agree heartily with your sentiments that it pretty much blows.
4:49 PM
I have to say, the best part of looking at this rant was the link to the Velazquez piece (linked as "both"). Above the picture was a flashing advertisement for McDonald's. I should hope the irony would not escape you.
-F. Ferdinand
1:21 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home