-   General (
-   -   traditional art vs modern art (

acid_kewpie 10-25-2003 03:34 PM

traditional art vs modern art
hurrah a Vs. thread!

This week I went to two art museums in Dublin, firstly the IMMA - Irish Museum of Modern Art and the Irish National Gallery. so on one side we have some broken bits of wood and old shoes, and the other we have 1000 pictures of a rich person with a silly wig and gown on. No contest to me really, wood and shoes win hands down....

Am i missing something or can someone explain why highly detailed and skillful, yet very very boring, pictures of kings are good? To me, painting is a means to capture a scene which was uncapturable in any other way at the time.... i cameras were around then, surely they would have used them? and looked pretty damn similar, just a little bit fatter, and wouldn't have been able to remove that scar below his eye.... would people look at them?

Everyone complains abuot how rubbish modern art is, and i jst see it from the other way round. sure it's easier to physcially create, but there's so much more depth than any great master ever had.

Everyone says "that's easy.. i could do that" well then.. go do it. that's the point. Anyone could learn to paint perfect portraits too... there's just no point!

Off down to london to the Tate Modern and the Saatchi galleries in the next few months. somehow i don't expect to visit the British National Gallery again.... Van Gogh can bite my shiny metal ass! ;)

rah rah rah

schatoor 10-25-2003 04:29 PM

Well, what can I say, every one is a critique.
What I belief art in general should be, is an expression of something abstract. Something that every one immediately sees what it's about, despite it being very comprehensive to just understand like that. It should reflect the emotion and thoughts of the artist.
You are right, good art doesn't need to be very difficult to create in the sense that you would need a very precise hand and eyes to make it. Poets are artists to (at least some are ;) ) but any retard can copy an poetry. It's about coming up with the idea that counts, and that can be very hard.

ceedeedoos 10-25-2003 04:56 PM

Re: traditional art vs modern art

Originally posted by acid_kewpie
Everyone says "that's easy.. i could do that" well then.. go do it. that's the point. Anyone could learn to paint perfect portraits too... there's just no point!
couldn't agree anymore ... the times I tried to explain someone that instead of complaining how "easy" modern art is, they should just make some of their own ... uncountable.

the way I see it is that the "masters" of yore were mere photographers(lacking cameras, but their job contained exactly what a photographer does. There's no deeper side to the portrait of whoever painted by grandmaster Rubens), producers of a piece of prestige for those capable of affording it.

and that's why modern art will always have an edge to me ;) at least there it's a creative mind at work, not someone "blindly" (so to speak) copying what he sees.

Kurt M. Weber 10-25-2003 07:06 PM

See, I view abstract "art" as despicable.

Art is a representation of the artist's view on Life, the Universe, and Everything (even if it's not 42). Abstract "art" is essentially nothing, meaning the artist views life as nothing--as meaningless.

And to hold life to be meaningless is the foulest act of depravity there is.

Baldorg 10-25-2003 07:10 PM

I'm very fond of Baroque. It's Classical yet a bit abstract...

trickykid 10-25-2003 07:40 PM

As I can say I don't understand most art or some art, I am fascinated with most and can appreciate any type of art that someone puts effort into. Art is way for someone to express themselves or at least most.

I'm just kind of mad myself as I use to draw and paint all the time but at times I really just can't find the time or money to do any of that, but hopefully soon as my girlfriend has been pestering me to do more. :)

Kurt M. Weber 10-25-2003 07:49 PM

In general, the best art of all media was produced in the Romantic era. From painting to music to literature, so much was created that painted a view of man as fundamentally good, fundamentally powerful, fundamentally ABLE.

spurious 10-25-2003 08:08 PM

Great thread. acid_kewpie: you may want to check out a book called "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger. Part of his thesis is that art was historically produced as a way of projecting power; churches used art to reinforce the power of religion, and nobility used art as propaganda.

Kurt M. Weber: you should really read "Bluebeard" by Kurt Vonnegut. It's a fairly short book. You should bear in mind that modern forms of art such as cubism and abstract expressionism were attempts to break free of perceived creative tyranny that earlier schools of realism had imposed on artists. Artists in general like to break taboos and explore boundaries.

It's ironic, but if you've ever seen early sketches from Picasso, you'll see that he was more than capable of rendering photorealistic art; he helped create cubism precisely because he needed to communicate ideas that weren't possible in other forms.

Megamieuwsel 10-26-2003 02:28 AM

To me , Art has to fit one single criterium:
Does it provoke an emotion in me?
If it does ; I consider it Art
If it doesn't , it's rubbish.

That said ; My all-time favorites Are Jeroen(Hieronymus) Bosh ,Leonardo da Vinci and Salvador Dali.

Kurt M. Weber 10-26-2003 09:44 AM


Originally posted by spurious
Kurt M. Weber: you should really read "Bluebeard" by Kurt Vonnegut.
Actually, I read it just this summer. The main character's magnum opus was a very non-abstract work.

Incidentally, Armenian names are cool.

2k. 10-26-2003 01:47 PM

i was lucky enough to see the Dali exhibition in london last year and it was awsome :)

i'm hoping to go to the tate modern later this year also. though i do have issues with artists such as Damian Hurst, i would rather see his work than some old paintings of the rich and powerful.

acid_kewpie 10-26-2003 05:35 PM

well i think dear old damian has put a few too many animals in boxes now....

I have noticed that so many modern artists have the same recurring theme's again and again... damien and his formaldehyde, Rachel Horn seems obsessed with sticking large things to ceilings, Bill viola keeps doing work with people falling into water....

i'm sure other mroe traditional artists had this too, but it can be a thin line between recognisable interpretations of a theme, and trading on a gimmick....

and dali has always kicked ass... he was the first modern artist i got into, but since then i have started leaning more towards even more abstract stuff.

2k. 10-26-2003 05:47 PM

even Dali had his melting clocks though.

but yeah Dali did kick arse :D

XavierP 10-26-2003 06:01 PM

Some of the old masters had amazing technical skill. There was a BBC documentary some months back where they tried to recreate some of the more 'realistic' paintings - the ones which really do look like photos. They found that (and I have a really poor memory, btw) that the artists were using what was, in effect, a very early camera - it had to do with projecting an image onto the canvas and then drawing over the image.

And then, just when I feel like saying "I don't like modern art", I see something like Bridget Heyward(?) some of her stuff is fantastic.

I may not know what I like, but I like art.

Megamieuwsel 10-27-2003 01:12 AM

A recurring theme is not that bad ; It's when the artist becomes a One-Trick Pony la Giger . the appeal is going to wear thin.

This certainly applies towards the "Old Masters".
I mean ; Masters in what?
In Art?
In Art , the way I see it ?


Most of them , Like Rembrant , Frans Hals , Vermeer were masters of a i]CRAFT/i]
A craft , they were very good at , but a craft nonetheless.
It's the difference between being able expressing emotions and provoking them.

t least ; It is to me.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 AM.