Monday, August 24, 2009

Modern art

I love this quote:

"Modern Art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea." - John Ciardi

---
The irony of course is that Sturgeon's law (“Ninety percent of everything is crud.”) notwithstanding, I do like "modern art".
But I also like the kind of art "where you can see what it is supposed to be". And I remember as a young man I was pondering, what's the perfect subject?
Well, a living subject compels more attention than a non-living one.
And one's own species compels more attention than others.
And, well, girls are just prettier. :-)

15 comments:

Alex said...

You mean stuff like this?
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HHmqh46MW9OkALw_GMQu5w?feat=directlink

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Yes, outstanding.

Alex said...

Does this mean I have a chance at a career in this stuff?

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Absolutely. There are people who sell paintings which just one color. Literally, the canvas is just cover with a roller in one color. It's even a genre, called Monochrome.
Since yours requires more skill than that, I imagine you have a head start.

Alex said...

I have just opened an online gallery.

http://montgomery-art.blogspot.com/

I will be selling my art there.

herb stemple said...

Most people who pretend to like modern art are frauds. They are like this character in the movie Capote who owned four Matisse paintings but had two of them hanging upside down.

Patrick said...

Well of course the beauty of good modern art, is that you can remove the "supposed". In other words, I like art that is what it is, not art that is supposed to be something else.

This is why some people are led down a path to paint monochromatic paintings, in an effort to fully objectify paint/painting, but I'd caution to question talent for those that do it, better to question sincerity. That is to say I wouldn't be painting a white painting because I can't draw, but because I found certain decisions (what to paint, how to paint) a distraction from painting.

I always find it interesting that the least interesting and least important movement in modern art was the super-realism trend that peaked in the 70's. I think in part, it so clearly shows that talent doesn't have to equal technique (they are well done, but can be done by anybody---once you learn the technique).

In the end, a good Jackson Pollock painting (couldn't draw at all--in the traditional sense) has vastly more impact emotionally, visually, and even spiritually, than any work by Richard Estes. Just like Beethoven would have more impact than a painstaking instrumental recreation of the sounds of the forest.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Good point.
If you don't add or change anything to the photographic rendition at all, why not simply stick with the photograph?

Timo Lehtinen said...

I have just opened an online gallery.

It works. You should do more.

Anonymous said...

(they are well done, but can be done by anybody---once you learn the technique)

It couldn't be done by just anyone. That 70s realism was just a return to the norm that existed before the beginnings of modern art. Someone like Bouguereau had a mastery of technique few could ever equal no matter how hard they tried. (It's the equivalent of saying that effort is all that's required to hit home runs like Babe Ruth or play the piano like Glenn Gould.) His paintings, often depicting scenes from Greek mythology, could not have existed as photographs even if you could go back in time and hand him modern photographic equipment. The same can even be said for his non-mythological paintings which had an idealism derided by the Impressionists and others. A perfection not attainable by photography without being manipulated in Photoshop.

In the end, a good Jackson Pollock painting (couldn't draw at all--in the traditional sense) has vastly more impact emotionally, visually, and even spiritually, than any work by Richard Estes.

I have to disagree with this too. What kind of emotional impact is a painting like that going to have? It can't have one. Most people who say that are accused of having no soul, or of lacking the intellect, to appreciate such works of art. But I look at his paintings and can think they look cool. They do. And even though he may have not been able to draw, to do what he does can't be done by anyone. It requires in its own way as much subtlety and mastery of technique as a Bouguereau painting. But emotional impact?

Just like Beethoven would have more impact than a painstaking instrumental recreation of the sounds of the forest.

This is like comparing apples and oranges. I've been out in the wilderness (in Brazil, and remote parts of Canada, and other places) and the sights, sounds, and smells are like a symphony. (Of course a modern person can appreciate that stuff better than people of the past who would have been too busy trying to find food. But still.) Better than a Beethoven symphony? Not comparable at all. They both have their own greatness and as I said can't be compared side by side.

Anonymous said...

Most people who pretend to like modern art are frauds. They are like this character in the movie Capote who owned four Matisse paintings but had two of them hanging upside down.

There are always people who will care about the signature on the painting than th epainting itself.

Patrick said...

Jimbo,
I don't see any parallels whatsoever between super-realism and the abstracted realities of Bouguereau, and their techniques have little in common. Anybody can do what the super realist did, it is a technique, not hard to do, but requires patience. It simply involves taking a photo and projecting it onto a canvas and/or gridding photo and canvas. The painting technique is rather straight forward, nothing like the old masters.

As for Pollock, it resonates for me, but so did Mondrian at age 17 which sent me on to art college, understandably these things don't impact everybody the same way if at all.

You're comparing Beethoven to the actual wilderness, I'm saying a reproduction of the wilderness...The sounds of whales = beautiful, but the reproduction of the sounds of whales presented as music/art = silly/souless/meaningless.

Alex said...

"You're comparing Beethoven to the actual wilderness, I'm saying a reproduction of the wilderness...The sounds of whales = beautiful, but the reproduction of the sounds of whales presented as music/art = silly/souless/meaningless. "

There's a track by Laurie Anderson where she emulates whale song on cello. I don't think that is souless, or meaningless in the context of the song.

Again on Dazzle Ships, an old OMD track, there is use of mixed sounds, a cross between whale music, sonar and klaxons. Considering it's theme of submarine warfare and naval battle it all works well together.

Similarly, though possibly more to examine technique than present beauty, there is Wendy Carlos' "Sonic Seasoning" which plays with nature sounds. However, I don't feel this piece was soulless either.

Morgenspaziergang by Kraftwerk is another example of reproducing bird song by instrument, it does capture the dawn chorus wonderfully, and not as a simple gimmick.

I know there are other examples, but they are eluding me right now.

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

We're edging onto the very elusive definition, What Is Art?

I think even if something emulates reality, an artist never does a straight reproduction, he adds something, from his soul if you like.

Anonymous said...

The painting technique is rather straight forward, nothing like the old masters.

A lot of the same criticism are made of painters like Bouguereau, saying that it's not art and is just a stale example of truly masterful technique. I didn't know that the super-realism paintings were done from projected photographs. Looking at the examples available in the Wikipeda entry I'd say the technique isn't really all the impressive anyway.