I love modern art. Do you? Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Occasional Essays
- I am an English teacher at Woodberry Forest School in Madison, Virginia. I am also a freelance writer and author of a book of essays, titled "Every Now and Then: Occasional Essays."
18 comments:
I like modern art but I will not go out of my way exactly to see it. I have never been a big fan of going to the art shows and such but when I do go I thoroughly enjoy looking at the art work. It is very interesting and amazing how someone can come up with what is on display. I have never been one for the arts in general but that does not mean that I do not like them. They are just not my thing. I like modern art but at the same time I do not like it.So, I like it because of what it is and how interesting it might be but I don't like it because I have never been one for much art in general. If I had to choose I believe that I like the art from way-back a little better than I do today. Some of the art today is a little bit creepy and odd.
Honestly, I have no idea what modern art is. I mean, I like drawing every now and then. However, art does not fascinate me at the intellectual level as it might others. I sometimes envy those that do love art because they can see some creative things in works of art, while all I see are colors and lines. I remember back when I was in seventh grade, I was put into the advance art class because the art teacher saw my drawings of characters from the show Dragonball Z. During that time I really thought I wanted to be an artist of some sort. But as I learned how much there is to art, I began to dislike it. Now, art has little to no effect over me. It's sad, but oh well.
I enjoy seeing art but its not something that I would plan to do with my free time. Im not entirely sure what modern art is, but I think it depends on each individual piece of art. Just because I may not like a certain piece of artwork and it happens to be modern art does not mean that I don't like modern art in general. I have been to the Museum of Modern Art in Washington D.C. and I did like some of the stuff that I saw there. However some of it seemed really unimaginative and simple to the point that it isnt even good art. The artist who made it may be an art genius and making a huge statement or something but, for example, I dont see how three blank canvases on a wall constitutes as art.
I don't like modern art. I think it is strange and rather annoying when th artist makes it really crazy. When i look at modern works I don't know what to look for because the art looks so unrealistic. I do like other kinds of art. My dad loves Western art and I too have developed a taste for it. AlthoughI personally do not like to draw or paint I still have a great respect for those who do. When I have seen some of this modern art especcialy the simple kind like robert mentioned I can't comprehend why it is considered art.
I love a lot of modern art. I find it really fascinating how abstract a person can push themselves to be. It seems to me that a lot of modern art artists are not trying to be crazier than anyone else but rather express their thoughts and dreams through their eyes. I myself practice in a kind of abstract modern art and I really enjoy it because it can be anything. However I do not like the creepy stuff of recent that is modern gothic or emo and is very dark but I do appreciate it. I understand what Ford means in saying that he has grown to really like a specific genre of art, Western. Personally I don't have a favorite type of art but I have been exposed to a lot from a young age and it took me a while to accept modern art.
I’m right there with Christian because I have no idea what “modern art” is, and I don’t think dictionary.com is going to help me this time. I can appreciate art for the most part though. Growing up I drew a lot and I almost went to this art school that’s a big deal in the fla for middle school, but I decided against it because I didn’t want to leave my friends. But, there is some art that I wonder how it even got the name art. Seriously. Anyone can draw lines on a piece of paper and sell it for 1000 dollars now-a-days. I feel like sometimes people try and be so “artsy” that they aren’t even making art anymore. I guess commercial art to me is kind of ridiculous, I enjoy things that people who don’t make a living have painted or drawn a lot more. (I know that’s a big generalization and I’m not trying to say that people who make art for a living aren’t good at it.)
Modern art, to me, means any kind of art that is surreal, exaggerated, or convoluted to invoke a different reaction than what I would call Classical Art, those paintings and woodcuts which tried to reflect reality as much as possible. Truthfully, I think modern art is interesting and engaging up to a point, but only so far. Lines, blank canvasses, and geometric shapes don't move me in any way, or make me think about anything. A picture which is deliberately distorted or inflated to emphasize an expression, feeling, or thought can be interesting, but not all of it is.
I think there are two components to great visual art: Vision and Execution. Great execution is what we see in Classical Art, where people and things are rendered in extraordinary detail because the artist was able to capture the image exactly. However, some of the great paintings, like the Mona Lisa, for example, are masterfully painted but have fairly boring subject matter. Vision is the ability of the artist to see in their mind a picture or image that accurately expresses the emotion or event they wish to depict. I think of The Scream as a painting with a good vision behind it, but somewhat bare and slightly sloppy execution.
For me, if any art has sufficient Vision and/or Execution, I can appreciate it. However, since I alone am the judge, it's a very relative thing.
I both hate and love modern art. I hate it because I see the art that some people do, and then think to myself that I could just as easily as they could have. But I've come to realize that "modern art" really relies on creativity as its driving force, instead of raw, visible talent. This isn't to say that people who create modern art aren't talented, because this isn't true at all. I used to think that modern art was way too abstract for me to comprehend, but now I think that these artists have pushed past the idea of what art is, and have used their creativity to develop their own league. I both respect and shun them for "coloring outside of the lines." I think I only don't like it because it's I wish I could do it.
Art is amazing! Studying the evolution of works from the ancient cave paintings at Lascaux to Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance and etcetera is a great experience. I am not sure about modern art though. As flawed as I feel saying this, I feel as though all the work has been done by Raphael, Da Vinci, Masaccio, and Ghirlandio … who seem to have pioneered everything imaginable.
Personally, I am more intrigued by Brunelleschi invention of one point perspective and mind boggling architecture rather than a dreadfully put together clay figure of a woman walking her dog. It is all a matter of opinion though, because modern or ancient, artists are in their own world and have a lot to say.
Well just by looking at the picture I am reminded of what life is like in the city. Whenever I go to New York when I'm home, I go to Times Square. The picture depicts an actual moment of everyday life in that plaza. A bunch of people gather in one spot but just keep walking. They don't stop and say hi or anything. The picture reminds me of how different the north can be from the south. The difference in politeness is the one that usually sticks out. Like I said in the last blog, I can never figure out what an artist intended. Same is true for this picture. But if I had to guess it would be that he wanted to show how everyone can pass the same spot everyday without even knowing. That's it from me.
I just spent roughly five minutes of my life looking at this picture, and I got nothin’. I just don’t understand what is so great about this. The contrast between light and dark is cool, and I’m guessing that the people are made out of something abstract and interesting, but the question that comes into my head is, “What’s the point of this?” Christian’s interpretation is interesting and it makes sense, but I can’t put my own spin like that on it, so I don’t care about it anymore. It doesn’t offer anything to me if I can’t think about it, kind of what Tyson said last night.
I like the sculpture. I can see how it depicts a city block and city life. On the other hand, even though I like the piece, I don't think that it is extraordinary at all. It just isnt all that great or intricate. I guess the art is more in the idea in modern art than in beauty and intricacy. I think this kind of art is much more representative and requires much less skill than a lot of art such as Picasso or the architecture of Gaudi.
I can see what Christian is talking about. All I really get out of this artwork is that it is probably trying to represent life in motion. Everybody seems to be walking in a square that could easily represent a big city and the way the city life is in it. These people seem to be just going without a care and that is the way that life is in a big city. I really agree with Christian on this one, however if that is not the point of this artwork then I really don't see one. There really is not much to base an opinion on. I don't understand much of modern artwork.
Well, I think that the only part of this sculpture that has artistic value are the people. The placement, to me, is fairly meaningless. But at the same time, it does not appear that the figures themselves would be very challenging to create. I mean, obviously it would be hard for me to do that, but I feel for real sculptors it would be fairly simple to do. I think that modern art sometimes gets over-hyped by people, because for me it just doesn't interest me and seems so common. It seems that we all could create something that is along the lines of modern art, it is just a matter of finding the right critic.
I, unlike Christian, can't really relate to the town square experience, and thus don't really get that aspect of it. However, I do like the people themselves. The unnaturally tall, dark figures remind me of a person's shadow when the sun is low, where their shadow shoots out to be almost five times as long as they are tall. It's a strange feeling, looking at your oversized shadow. It's like a vague image of yourself, but grander and more mysterious, and utterly indifferent to you. However you might wish, it just copies your own boring, everyday movements. I dunno, it just made me think of it.
I do like the piece but it is not particularly enthralling. I have seen a lot of pieces just like this one and think that it is a very interesting form of sculpture and a really good piece. When I look at it I see two things: the first thing was what Christian was talking about. I too noticed that it seemed as though it were a depiction of people walking on the street and not realizing that they are all a part of the "big picture". They influence each other's lives without realizing it and are interacting on an subconscious kind of way, making a decision to avoid or be noticed. Also, after what Christian said about the North and the South I noticed that the characters in the piece are coming from North, South, East, and the West and thought maybe that it was a representation of a country coming together because as we are seeing this particular time frame of the piece we don't know if they stop to talk to each other or just pass each other by. That is why I love modern art so much, it just makes you think and there is no right answer, just a time for you to study yourself and your reactions.
It is an interesting piece. My interpretation of what the artist is trying to say through the piece goes thus:
First of all it is established that it is in the city hence the title "City Square." The mere presence of contrasting light and shade along with the absence of colour evokes a gloomy, lonely, depressing atmosphere of city life. Although multiple people are around, the emaciated, tall figures all seem to be absorbed in their own world by shutting out everything around them - very inhumane(almost like robots.) But they all seem to be heading to the same central point. Maybe the only way they will recognize one another is when they crash.
Arguably pretentious, but that is what i see.
The only thing that really sticks out to me in this piece of modern art is that one of the figures isn't moving where the rest of them are. All four of the walking models are going towards the center of the piece, whereas the one, lone, standing figure is staying off to the back and just observing. Maybe this signifies a person willing to stop and think about their actions, or at least that's what came across to me the first time that I looked at it. I think this piece is showing a world where everything is in constant motion, and we, like the one unmoving figure, all need to stop and think. Otherwise, there would never be time for art like this.
Post a Comment