Is studying contemporary art important?

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: TravisT
art, in my opinion has little impact if any. Primarily because art can be interpreted many ways. Granted, i'm not very good at the whole interpreting thing, most abstract stuff is simply annoying in my opinion.

Well, I guess it depends a lot on what you want art to have an impact on. If we are talking about having an impact on people's life my personal experience is that nothing shaped my life more than encounters with some works of arts.

Art is immortal, and the feeling you get from encountering the same questions, desires, ambitions and passions in art created 600 years ago (or 2000 years ago) can be exhilarating. Men haven't changed that much after all. Personally, while I enjoy contemporary art and try to keep up with the current art production, I love more than anything else the 14th to 17th century art. I feel never men have been so highly refined in their thoughts. Illuminism gave us a completely new mindset and now most of the renaissance approach to life and knowledge is lost forever. Every single Da Vinci painting is literally an encyclopedia of allegories, a whole architecture about the political, religious, scientific and metaphysic world of his time.

Today it's literally an archeology-type of experience, as we try to retrieve the symbolism in his work, but at the time (when many couldn't read) those paintings were a major medium for ideas and knowledge to be preserved or spread.

Back on topic.

If you instead look for impact on a macro level, don't underestimate the role of the arts. Major political and social shifts always reach the critical mass necessary for changes to happen because of ideas, and nothing spread ideas faster and stronger than arts.
Without the French literature of the 18th century, there would have been no French Revolution. No crusades without Gothic architecture and so on...

At what point would you cut off actual art with heavy marketing? I can imagine that many contemporary art pieces are sensationalized more through proper connections and marketing than through actual artistic depth and/or skill.

That's very personal. My personal threshold is the centrality of the actual object over the the performance or the concept. It's not that I don't call Vito Acconci or Lennie Lee artists. It's just that their video-installation don't touch me as much as other media and techniques.

Another thing is, many people outside of the world of art seem to think it's quite easy for someone to make it big with a little help of the marketing department. Think again: it's damn hard. Probably the hardest career one can imagine. There's a huge amount of competition and those eventually selling for millions deserve every single penny.

Also the arts and the art market are two very different things, populated by very different people. Most artists don't care about selling their stuff. Some people actually produce art that cannot be sold like performance art or some conceptual art installations.

So to answer your question:

This I am interested in

This I am not interested in

But then again, my interest in contemporary art is quite marginal. What I really focus on are the 14th to 17th century period and the 1860-1930 period.

Something like this:

Egon Schiele

Or even more, like this:

This gives you a chill down the spine...

yes.. it's marble..

 

[kranky]

Nothing wrong with studying art, but I don't believe the study of modern abstract art is "important" in any relevant sense. I understand that art through the ages is a reflection of the society of the time, but that seems to have ended once "modern" art made the scene.

Perhaps in the insulated world of art, the study of white paint on a white canvas, colored squares, and dropped felt is interesting (and it probably is, to those in the field), but it no longer is a reflection of the times and has no lasting import because no one 50 years from now will bother to try and understand what it was supposed to mean.

Modern abstract art has become a caricature of itself. There are a lot of pretentious people in the field who ooh and aah over nothing, as evidenced by the anecdote from 1964:

...Newsmen from Sweden's Göteborgs-Tidningen obtained some paintings by Peter, a four-year-old chimp at the Boras zoo. They hung the paintings in a gallery, claiming they were the work of avant-garde artist Pierre Brassau. And soon the works were drawing critical acclaim. One critic wrote: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."

And in Germany in 2005:

A German art expert was duped into believing a painting done by a chimpanzee was actually painted by a respected artist. Dr Katja Schneider, director of the State Art Museum in Moritzburg, Saxony-Anhalt, suggested the painting was by Guggenheim Prize winning artist Ernst Wilhelm Nay.

Dr Schneider said: "It looks like an Ernst Wilhelm Nay. He was famous for using such blotches of colour." But in reality, the painting was made by female chimpanzee Banghi, from Halle Zoo.

According to zoo workers, painting is one of the favourite pastimes of the 31-year-old ape, but her works are often destroyed by mate Satscho. After the real artist was revealed by the Bild newspaper, Dr Schneider said: "I did think it looked a bit rushed."

If art is to have meaning, it needs to resonate with people in general, not just a handful of so-called "experts". No wonder the modern art world is so insulated - the general public knows that blotches of paint or a piece of felt laying on the floor isn't "art".

 

[Accipiter22]

yeah I think it is important because culture and art are like a string, we may not like it now, or understand it in perspective, but to understand what came before, and what comes after, we have to understand today.

 

[FoBoT]

:laugh:


i sure hope they don't send Paris to jail!

free Paris!!


:roll:

 

[ColdFusion718]

Originally posted by: Quasmo
I'm sitting in a 20th century art class right now. I'm gonna say yes. It's completely about the concept behind the painting. Before art was about the asthetic, but with more contemperary art is about the art itself. So paintings like "White on White" where it is simply a white square on a white canvas, but how do you paint white on white, and that what it is about. Painters like Mondrian (the red, blue, yellow squares) are trying to get painting down to the purist form, getting rid of color until they have got to the purest form. Some installation art is simply about chance, and not about art at all, but the fact that everything is random chance. One artist went into a gallery with a wad of pink felt, dropped it, and the way that it fell is the piece. I believe it is important to study contemperary art, but more the message than the art itself, the art is there to make you think, if you can't look at it and think something, you are a sheep and can't appreciate art in the first place.

White on white? Are you serious? I call that an empty canvas or a piece of cloth with white paint all over it.

As with the colored squares or any other "special technique," it all boils down to whoever thought of it first.

Forgive me, but I just can't look at a big white square and go "Ah ha! Now I realize what was on the artist's mind(LSD) when he painted this!"

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: kranky
Nothing wrong with studying art, but I don't believe the study of modern abstract art is "important" in any relevant sense. I understand that art through the ages is a reflection of the society of the time, but that seems to have ended once "modern" art made the scene.

Perhaps in the insulated world of art, the study of white paint on a white canvas, colored squares, and dropped felt is interesting (and it probably is, to those in the field), but it no longer is a reflection of the times and has no lasting import because no one 50 years from now will bother to try and understand what it was supposed to mean.

Modern abstract art has become a caricature of itself. There are a lot of pretentious people in the field who ooh and aah over nothing, as evidenced by the anecdote from 1964:

...Newsmen from Sweden's Göteborgs-Tidningen obtained some paintings by Peter, a four-year-old chimp at the Boras zoo. They hung the paintings in a gallery, claiming they were the work of avant-garde artist Pierre Brassau. And soon the works were drawing critical acclaim. One critic wrote: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."

And in Germany in 2005:

A German art expert was duped into believing a painting done by a chimpanzee was actually painted by a respected artist. Dr Katja Schneider, director of the State Art Museum in Moritzburg, Saxony-Anhalt, suggested the painting was by Guggenheim Prize winning artist Ernst Wilhelm Nay.

Dr Schneider said: "It looks like an Ernst Wilhelm Nay. He was famous for using such blotches of colour." But in reality, the painting was made by female chimpanzee Banghi, from Halle Zoo.

According to zoo workers, painting is one of the favourite pastimes of the 31-year-old ape, but her works are often destroyed by mate Satscho. After the real artist was revealed by the Bild newspaper, Dr Schneider said: "I did think it looked a bit rushed."

If art is to have meaning, it needs to resonate with people in general, not just a handful of so-called "experts". No wonder the modern art world is so insulated - the general public knows that blotches of paint or a piece of felt laying on the floor isn't "art".

Every post you make kicks such serious ass.

 

[Chryso]

I'll take impressionism please.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: kranky
Nothing wrong with studying art, but I don't believe the study of modern abstract art is "important" in any relevant sense. I understand that art through the ages is a reflection of the society of the time, but that seems to have ended once "modern" art made the scene.

Perhaps in the insulated world of art, the study of white paint on a white canvas, colored squares, and dropped felt is interesting (and it probably is, to those in the field), but it no longer is a reflection of the times and has no lasting import because no one 50 years from now will bother to try and understand what it was supposed to mean.

Modern abstract art has become a caricature of itself. There are a lot of pretentious people in the field who ooh and aah over nothing, as evidenced by the anecdote from 1964:

...Newsmen from Sweden's Göteborgs-Tidningen obtained some paintings by Peter, a four-year-old chimp at the Boras zoo. They hung the paintings in a gallery, claiming they were the work of avant-garde artist Pierre Brassau. And soon the works were drawing critical acclaim. One critic wrote: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."

And in Germany in 2005:

A German art expert was duped into believing a painting done by a chimpanzee was actually painted by a respected artist. Dr Katja Schneider, director of the State Art Museum in Moritzburg, Saxony-Anhalt, suggested the painting was by Guggenheim Prize winning artist Ernst Wilhelm Nay.

Dr Schneider said: "It looks like an Ernst Wilhelm Nay. He was famous for using such blotches of colour." But in reality, the painting was made by female chimpanzee Banghi, from Halle Zoo.

According to zoo workers, painting is one of the favourite pastimes of the 31-year-old ape, but her works are often destroyed by mate Satscho. After the real artist was revealed by the Bild newspaper, Dr Schneider said: "I did think it looked a bit rushed."

If art is to have meaning, it needs to resonate with people in general, not just a handful of so-called "experts". No wonder the modern art world is so insulated - the general public knows that blotches of paint or a piece of felt laying on the floor isn't "art".

Well, but you have to make distinctions. Every period has its masters and then everybody else. Not all of the artists currently exposed in galleries around the world will be on art history books in 50 years, but some will. It's always been the case. We all know who Van Gogh was despite the fact that he sold only one painting in his whole life. Conversely many of the artists commercially famous during his era are now almost forgotten.

As an example I'd quote your "white square on white canvas". It now almost a century old and still art history books talk about it (and you just did too). Malevich is not even contemporary anymore, quite mainstream.

I agree on what you wrote for some artists. Some others are clearly art-history material. And the fact that people uneducated in art doesn't understand them is no news. As you know, it's always been the case. Very few masters in the arts achieved commercial success in their time. The same things you write now could be heard in different times about Monet, Van Gogh, Fontana... even Caravaggio was refused by clients who commissioned paintings...

In the long run, time is quite a good judge and will separate those who really last from the rest...

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: ColdFusion718

Originally posted by: Quasmo
I'm sitting in a 20th century art class right now. I'm gonna say yes. It's completely about the concept behind the painting. Before art was about the asthetic, but with more contemperary art is about the art itself. So paintings like "White on White" where it is simply a white square on a white canvas, but how do you paint white on white, and that what it is about. Painters like Mondrian (the red, blue, yellow squares) are trying to get painting down to the purist form, getting rid of color until they have got to the purest form. Some installation art is simply about chance, and not about art at all, but the fact that everything is random chance. One artist went into a gallery with a wad of pink felt, dropped it, and the way that it fell is the piece. I believe it is important to study contemperary art, but more the message than the art itself, the art is there to make you think, if you can't look at it and think something, you are a sheep and can't appreciate art in the first place.

White on white? Are you serious? I call that an empty canvas or a piece of cloth with white paint all over it.

As with the colored squares or any other "special technique," it all boils down to whoever thought of it first.

Forgive me, but I just can't look at a big white square and go "Ah ha! Now I realize what was on the artist's mind(LSD) when he painted this!"

There you go:

Malevich - White on White, 1918

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: kranky
Nothing wrong with studying art, but I don't believe the study of modern abstract art is "important" in any relevant sense. I understand that art through the ages is a reflection of the society of the time, but that seems to have ended once "modern" art made the scene.

Perhaps in the insulated world of art, the study of white paint on a white canvas, colored squares, and dropped felt is interesting (and it probably is, to those in the field), but it no longer is a reflection of the times and has no lasting import because no one 50 years from now will bother to try and understand what it was supposed to mean.

Modern abstract art has become a caricature of itself. There are a lot of pretentious people in the field who ooh and aah over nothing, as evidenced by the anecdote from 1964:

...Newsmen from Sweden's Göteborgs-Tidningen obtained some paintings by Peter, a four-year-old chimp at the Boras zoo. They hung the paintings in a gallery, claiming they were the work of avant-garde artist Pierre Brassau. And soon the works were drawing critical acclaim. One critic wrote: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."

And in Germany in 2005:

A German art expert was duped into believing a painting done by a chimpanzee was actually painted by a respected artist. Dr Katja Schneider, director of the State Art Museum in Moritzburg, Saxony-Anhalt, suggested the painting was by Guggenheim Prize winning artist Ernst Wilhelm Nay.

Dr Schneider said: "It looks like an Ernst Wilhelm Nay. He was famous for using such blotches of colour." But in reality, the painting was made by female chimpanzee Banghi, from Halle Zoo.

According to zoo workers, painting is one of the favourite pastimes of the 31-year-old ape, but her works are often destroyed by mate Satscho. After the real artist was revealed by the Bild newspaper, Dr Schneider said: "I did think it looked a bit rushed."

If art is to have meaning, it needs to resonate with people in general, not just a handful of so-called "experts". No wonder the modern art world is so insulated - the general public knows that blotches of paint or a piece of felt laying on the floor isn't "art".

Most of the art community has their head so far up their own ass, it's pathetic. You know society has peaked when weirdos like them can actually make a living by taking a dump on a piece of canvas and selling it for 10K.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: kranky
Nothing wrong with studying art, but I don't believe the study of modern abstract art is "important" in any relevant sense. I understand that art through the ages is a reflection of the society of the time, but that seems to have ended once "modern" art made the scene.

Perhaps in the insulated world of art, the study of white paint on a white canvas, colored squares, and dropped felt is interesting (and it probably is, to those in the field), but it no longer is a reflection of the times and has no lasting import because no one 50 years from now will bother to try and understand what it was supposed to mean.

Modern abstract art has become a caricature of itself. There are a lot of pretentious people in the field who ooh and aah over nothing, as evidenced by the anecdote from 1964:

...Newsmen from Sweden's Göteborgs-Tidningen obtained some paintings by Peter, a four-year-old chimp at the Boras zoo. They hung the paintings in a gallery, claiming they were the work of avant-garde artist Pierre Brassau. And soon the works were drawing critical acclaim. One critic wrote: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."

And in Germany in 2005:

A German art expert was duped into believing a painting done by a chimpanzee was actually painted by a respected artist. Dr Katja Schneider, director of the State Art Museum in Moritzburg, Saxony-Anhalt, suggested the painting was by Guggenheim Prize winning artist Ernst Wilhelm Nay.

Dr Schneider said: "It looks like an Ernst Wilhelm Nay. He was famous for using such blotches of colour." But in reality, the painting was made by female chimpanzee Banghi, from Halle Zoo.

According to zoo workers, painting is one of the favourite pastimes of the 31-year-old ape, but her works are often destroyed by mate Satscho. After the real artist was revealed by the Bild newspaper, Dr Schneider said: "I did think it looked a bit rushed."

If art is to have meaning, it needs to resonate with people in general, not just a handful of so-called "experts". No wonder the modern art world is so insulated - the general public knows that blotches of paint or a piece of felt laying on the floor isn't "art".

Most of the art community has their head so far up their own ass, it's pathetic. You know society has peaked when weirdos like them can actually make a living by taking a dump on a piece of canvas and selling it for 10K.

😕

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: kranky
Nothing wrong with studying art, but I don't believe the study of modern abstract art is "important" in any relevant sense. I understand that art through the ages is a reflection of the society of the time, but that seems to have ended once "modern" art made the scene.

Perhaps in the insulated world of art, the study of white paint on a white canvas, colored squares, and dropped felt is interesting (and it probably is, to those in the field), but it no longer is a reflection of the times and has no lasting import because no one 50 years from now will bother to try and understand what it was supposed to mean.

Modern abstract art has become a caricature of itself. There are a lot of pretentious people in the field who ooh and aah over nothing, as evidenced by the anecdote from 1964:

...Newsmen from Sweden's Göteborgs-Tidningen obtained some paintings by Peter, a four-year-old chimp at the Boras zoo. They hung the paintings in a gallery, claiming they were the work of avant-garde artist Pierre Brassau. And soon the works were drawing critical acclaim. One critic wrote: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."

And in Germany in 2005:

A German art expert was duped into believing a painting done by a chimpanzee was actually painted by a respected artist. Dr Katja Schneider, director of the State Art Museum in Moritzburg, Saxony-Anhalt, suggested the painting was by Guggenheim Prize winning artist Ernst Wilhelm Nay.

Dr Schneider said: "It looks like an Ernst Wilhelm Nay. He was famous for using such blotches of colour." But in reality, the painting was made by female chimpanzee Banghi, from Halle Zoo.

According to zoo workers, painting is one of the favourite pastimes of the 31-year-old ape, but her works are often destroyed by mate Satscho. After the real artist was revealed by the Bild newspaper, Dr Schneider said: "I did think it looked a bit rushed."

If art is to have meaning, it needs to resonate with people in general, not just a handful of so-called "experts". No wonder the modern art world is so insulated - the general public knows that blotches of paint or a piece of felt laying on the floor isn't "art".

Most of the art community has their head so far up their own ass, it's pathetic. You know society has peaked when weirdos like them can actually make a living by taking a dump on a piece of canvas and selling it for 10K.

😕

Link

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: kranky
Nothing wrong with studying art, but I don't believe the study of modern abstract art is "important" in any relevant sense. I understand that art through the ages is a reflection of the society of the time, but that seems to have ended once "modern" art made the scene.

Perhaps in the insulated world of art, the study of white paint on a white canvas, colored squares, and dropped felt is interesting (and it probably is, to those in the field), but it no longer is a reflection of the times and has no lasting import because no one 50 years from now will bother to try and understand what it was supposed to mean.

Modern abstract art has become a caricature of itself. There are a lot of pretentious people in the field who ooh and aah over nothing, as evidenced by the anecdote from 1964:

...Newsmen from Sweden's Göteborgs-Tidningen obtained some paintings by Peter, a four-year-old chimp at the Boras zoo. They hung the paintings in a gallery, claiming they were the work of avant-garde artist Pierre Brassau. And soon the works were drawing critical acclaim. One critic wrote: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."

And in Germany in 2005:

A German art expert was duped into believing a painting done by a chimpanzee was actually painted by a respected artist. Dr Katja Schneider, director of the State Art Museum in Moritzburg, Saxony-Anhalt, suggested the painting was by Guggenheim Prize winning artist Ernst Wilhelm Nay.

Dr Schneider said: "It looks like an Ernst Wilhelm Nay. He was famous for using such blotches of colour." But in reality, the painting was made by female chimpanzee Banghi, from Halle Zoo.

According to zoo workers, painting is one of the favourite pastimes of the 31-year-old ape, but her works are often destroyed by mate Satscho. After the real artist was revealed by the Bild newspaper, Dr Schneider said: "I did think it looked a bit rushed."

If art is to have meaning, it needs to resonate with people in general, not just a handful of so-called "experts". No wonder the modern art world is so insulated - the general public knows that blotches of paint or a piece of felt laying on the floor isn't "art".

Most of the art community has their head so far up their own ass, it's pathetic. You know society has peaked when weirdos like them can actually make a living by taking a dump on a piece of canvas and selling it for 10K.

😕

Link

Yeah, but why would artists be all weirdos?

 

[civilicious]

Tango - why do you think artists choose to work in such extreme ways? either really minimalist (like Malevich's White on White) or really bizarre (like using lard as a sculpture medium). is contemporary art really about the shock factor?

 

[djheater]

I believe I'm understanding you correctly. You're using 'contemporary art' as a way to refer to any 20th century abstract or derivative work.

The social community of fine arts is a complex and often inwardly focused one. There are many artists, who can, actually, paint very compelling realistic works, but who choose to pait with hay and manure, or the like, because of what some, seemingly bizarre, medium emotes.
If you mistakenly believe that ALL modern artists are abstractionists then you're misinformed. If you as a patron are not interested in abstract works, don't patronise those studios or galleries. There are plenty of brilliant, moving realists that are professional artists if you choose to look for them.

 

[grrl]

Finally some intelligent replies - thanks to Tango and Quasmo.

I'd just like to fix one line of Tango's:

Artists are ONE OF a society's eyes and consciousness, and keeping in touch with the contemporary arts scene can tell you a lot about the world you live in.

I wouldn't want to leave out any other form of art whether it be writing, music, cinematography. etc. And for eyes and consciousness, I'd also include good journalism.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: TravisT
art, in my opinion has little impact if any. Primarily because art can be interpreted many ways. Granted, i'm not very good at the whole interpreting thing, most abstract stuff is simply annoying in my opinion.

That's a rather sad statement IMO. It seems you see no value in discussion. Maybe talk radio, Hannity and O'Reilly are more your speed. 🙂

 

[Rogodin2]

I'm much more into literature than art-but that's because I don't have a decent art gallery close to where I live.

I did study art in college and I did not enjoy contemporary art-just as I didn't enjoy contemporary philosophy (Derrida primarly). I was and am very open to any form of art that is created with honesty and skill.

Our contemporary lives are not legitimate or tenable so I've always based my perception of contemorary art on that epistemological foundation.

Rogo

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
I'm much more into literature than art-but that's because I don't have a decent art gallery close to where I live.

I did study art in college and I did not enjoy contemporary art-just as I didn't enjoy contemporary philosophy (Derrida primarly). I was and am very open to any form of art that is created with honesty and skill.

Our contemporary lives are not legitimate or tenable so I've always based my perception of contemorary art on that epistemological foundation.Rogo

I would argue that many of the more important works of contemporary artists acknowledge and further this thought.

One difficulty that people enter into when criticising art is placing artists on a pedestal. An artist's point of view is that and no more, contemporary artist's have taken in the same social stimuli as you and much of their work is a commentary on that expressly. They are not lords of exposition. They are artisans creating, edeavoring to create a message, and thence, a dialogue. If you refuse to participate, then there is no hope you'll appreciate the work.

 

[Rogodin2]

I would argue that many of the more important works of contemporary artists acknowledge and further this thought.

Any of the artists that share this world view that you can recommend djheater?

Rogo

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: grrl
Finally some intelligent replies - thanks to Tango and Quasmo.

I'd just like to fix one line of Tango's:

Artists are ONE OF a society's eyes and consciousness, and keeping in touch with the contemporary arts scene can tell you a lot about the world you live in.

I wouldn't want to leave out any other form of art whether it be writing, music, cinematography. etc. And for eyes and consciousness, I'd also include good journalism.

Well, I use Art to refer to all the arts, not only plastic and figurative arts. So I include, painting, sculpture, music, literature, architecture, cinematography, theater and dance. And I agree that good journalism is very close to literature.

 

[krunchykrome]

Not to me

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: civilicious
Tango - why do you think artists choose to work in such extreme ways? either really minimalist (like Malevich's White on White) or really bizarre (like using lard as a sculpture medium). is contemporary art really about the shock factor?

Good question, but it would require a couple of entire books to be answered because the reasons of this change a lot between different artists and movements. But very synthetically:

a) Not all contemporary art is abstract. There's a lot of figurative still being produced. In fact during the 60s an artistic movement seeking ultra-realism created things like this:

Richard Estes

b) Malevich minimalism was a part of his whole political and aesthetic research. White on White might seem a provocation but it really was not. If you spend a considerable amount of your life studying the relation between colors and how colors and forms interact, looking to find perfection in pureness... then minimalism is quite the answer.

You can see a path:

Taking in the Harvest

Reaper on Red Background

Suprematism

White on White was just the last step of research in that direction. And remember this was 1918. A lot of things about spacial quality of colors and forms we know take for granted were not as obvious back then. Now you can easily spot Malevich's legacy (probably unconscious) in the work of art directors designing the layouts of modern magazines and advertising.

c) The shock component. Well, frankly I think the problem here is just that people get apparently shocked too easily. But it's always been the case. Look:

This shocked people:

Caravaggio

And this:

Bernini
he had to take it back, and was called blaspheme because Saint Therese is obviously having an orgasm. It was 1652.

And this shocked people:
Manet
Nudity was cool in mythological scenes but it was unacceptable in modern days scenes.

And this:
Klimt

And this:
Schiele

Modigliani

All of these now obviously considered mainstream and the very base of western culture. Yet at their time they shocked people.

Now it's this kind of stuff that shocks people:

Hirst

Hirst again

Tracey Emin - My bed

What's shocking about them? I really don't know. I know that when the Sensation! exhibition came to New York the debate that followed involved the likes of Mayor Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, the bishop of saint patrick and so on... people sued, journalists insulted one another....

But again, it's always been the case. When Nijinsky first produced in the 20s his ballet on Stravinsky's Sagre de Printemp the outrage cause a giant fist-fight in the Paris Opera between outraged critics and supporters of the great choreographer...

d) The bizarre factor. What's bizarre? Why is marble less bizarre than lard? I think most of the sense of bizarre associated with artists experimenting with different materials is that they challenge the assumption that art should use certain things and space instead of others. In an artist's mind, every material is judged only for its characteristics: the way it looks, how malleable it is and so on.

I personally have a friend in Londos who's an artist, and she uses a lot of cocoa powder in her works. She couldn't care less about what cocoa is, and how it's usually consumed. She always gets that question.
She likes the texture and color of cocoa as a material. What cocoa is, is completely irrelevant. Similarly to Duchamp's urinal, what the object/material was before becoming part of the art object is completely irrelevant, what is relevant is the form, texture, color of it, its artistic capacity.

Of course some artists might think different. Some feel they have some kind of social mission, to awaken people and will sometimes use things they know to cause strong emotions or reaction in normal people because challenging the bourgeois traditional values.

But in most cases, the shock/bizarre component is just lack of understanding from the public and language differences. The public puts a lot of attention to the mundane use of the materials, while artists consider them as part of their language for their aesthetic characters.