This is exactly why modern art is complete trash.

[geno]

Originally posted by: EpsiIon
I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art almost a year ago. In the modern art section they had a piece of canvas that was simply painted brown. No joke.

oh on the contrary, it's a huge joke

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: skace
The people who buy these things arn't stupid though. Because years later, they will turn around and sell it for more money. These people never lose out. The only stupid people are the ones who go to museums and try to understand these paintings, never intending to purchase them.

Some will get more money at the auctions, and some will fetch less money. Many ended up as donations to non profit organizations/galleries/museums, and the charities originations feel obligated to give huge tax deductible receipts to their patrons. There are also private sales that theses individual pass their collections to family/friends corporations for much more than the initial cost.

 

[CRXican]

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: EpsiIon
I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art almost a year ago. In the modern art section they had a piece of canvas that was simply painted brown. No joke.

oh on the contrary, it's a huge joke

I will lean towards defending modern art and the OP posted a pick of Abstract Impressiont art. Jackson Pollock is very well known and very famous.

When it comes to the one color canvas or squares of color and nothing more then I feel less inclined to defend it, it's just plain lame and not creative at all.

I was at the Museum of Contemporary Art recently and really enjoyed Lee Krasner's work "Primeval Resurgence." She was married to Pollock.

Primeval Resurgence

It looks much better in person and is about 6 feet tall.

 

[chrisms]

Once again the Simpsons tell us the way

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: ZeroEffect
Think of it this way kids... what do you think the average person thought the first time
they heard/saw the Sex Pistols?

"They call that music?"

"My second grade son could do that."

"This is an outrage!"

That's the point! Early punk bands like the Pistols took popular music and turned it
on it's head. They said things you weren't supposed to say. They were loud and brazen.
They had funny color hair!!! They were musicians... yet they couldn't sit down and
play Mozart for you.

Now, the Sex Pistols may not be your cup of tea, but they showed a different way of
doing things... loosened things up... took the piss out of FM radio mainstays...
Put you on edge...

sometimes that's the point!

That painting is the musical equivilent to a cymbal-playing toy monkey. It's paint splattered on a canvas, nothing you or I couldn't do. It actually takes talent for 3-4 guys to play music, even if it's bad music

 

[chowderhead]

all art at the point of creation is "modern" art. It is modern art for the people that lived during that time. I am sure many people when they first saw surrealist art or cubism thought WTF ... the man's face is all distorted or she has three eyes. But now years later, people collectively have decided that works by Dali or Picasso have artistic merit and many people would pay millions for them.
The "modern art" movement definitely leans heavily on abstraction. It pushes the boundaries of art into new mediums (graphic arts, materials, etc). We should always continue to ask, what is art? How can one see art in new ways? The world would be so boring if people just copied previous works or styles, slapped their names on it and called it art. Yes, most of the stuff that is created now, 100 years from now, people may not remember or want. But there are pieces and works from artists now known and yet to be discovered that will be "stand the test of time" for whatever reason. Something like Pollack's pieces may not be to everyone's liking but it has people talking. This is ATOT, a computer/tech heavy forum and yet, a thread on modern art and Jackson Pollock is 7 pages long. I say that is pretty impressive.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
all art at the point of creation is "modern" art. It is modern art for the people that lived during that time. I am sure many people when they first saw surrealist art or cubism thought WTF ... the man's face is all distorted or she has three eyes. But now years later, people collectively have decided that works by Dali or Picasso have artistic merit and many people would pay millions for them.
The "modern art" movement definitely leans heavily on abstraction. It pushes the boundaries of art into new mediums (graphic arts, materials, etc). We should always continue to ask, what is art? How can one see art in new ways? The world would be so boring if people just copied previous works or styles, slapped their names on it and called it art. Yes, most of the stuff that is created now, 100 years from now, people may not remember or want. But there are pieces and works from artists now known and yet to be discovered that will be "stand the test of time" for whatever reason. Something like Pollack's pieces may not be to everyone's liking but it has people talking. This is ATOT, a computer/tech heavy forum and yet, a thread on modern art and Jackson Pollock is 7 pages long. I say that is pretty impressive.

Paris Hilton sex tape, Lindsay Lohan boobs, and Anna Kournikova rump also got ATOTers talks. So it must mean that any controversial piece of trash must be art :roll:

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
i definitely wouldn't pay millions for that.. but it is kinda cool

will you pay thousands for my replica of it then?

 

[CRXican]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: chowderhead
all art at the point of creation is "modern" art. It is modern art for the people that lived during that time. I am sure many people when they first saw surrealist art or cubism thought WTF ... the man's face is all distorted or she has three eyes. But now years later, people collectively have decided that works by Dali or Picasso have artistic merit and many people would pay millions for them.
The "modern art" movement definitely leans heavily on abstraction. It pushes the boundaries of art into new mediums (graphic arts, materials, etc). We should always continue to ask, what is art? How can one see art in new ways? The world would be so boring if people just copied previous works or styles, slapped their names on it and called it art. Yes, most of the stuff that is created now, 100 years from now, people may not remember or want. But there are pieces and works from artists now known and yet to be discovered that will be "stand the test of time" for whatever reason. Something like Pollack's pieces may not be to everyone's liking but it has people talking. This is ATOT, a computer/tech heavy forum and yet, a thread on modern art and Jackson Pollock is 7 pages long. I say that is pretty impressive.

Paris Hilton sex tape, Lindsay Lohan boobs, and Anna Kournikova rump also got ATOTers talks. So it must mean that any controversial piece of trash must be art :roll:

come on man, I don't need this thread coming up in all of my searches !!!!

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: DeeKnow
modern art is just another one of those free market forces that take money away from suckers.... I see nothing wrong with that!
anything that takes cash away from morons is good for the rest of us...

I like the idea of taking money away from morons, what I have an issue with is who the money is going to

 

[Mo0o]

I think the argument shouldn't be whether those painting are considered art, but how hard it really is to paint one of those things? I can whip up something similar and I have no training, but I doubt i can do a worthy duplication or cubism(as someone mentioned as an example). I think in the end he's selling a name more than anything, kind of like $300 colored tshirts you seen in designer stores.

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: phantom309
Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's all criticize things we know nothing about!

or even better... things no one knows anything about. like modern art

 

[MustangSVT]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
I think the argument shouldn't be whether those painting are considered art, but how hard it really is to paint one of those things? I can whip up something similar and I have no training, but I doubt i can do a worthy duplication or cubism(as someone mentioned as an example). I think in the end he's selling a name more than anything, kind of like $300 colored tshirts you seen in designer stores.

The point is, they came up with the idea and studied into it. Anyone can say "oh I can do that" after it has been done. :roll:

 

[dcdude]

yeah its really the name you're buying