In fairness, this is like saying, "Modern science is shit, because Newton and Darwin accomplished way more than anyone alive today." Sure, the second part of that statement is factually correct, but it's also a non-sequitur. The filter of generations has been applied, and geniuses happen only ever so often. We're not geniuses, you and I and most people doing art. That doesn't mean there aren't some cool artists out there doing rad shit. Can't link to their website at work, because of my stupid firewall, but check out the Outsider Art Fair in NYC (or hell, go if you live anywhere within a few hours), as an example. Tons of awesome and stupid shit there, and everything in between. I think some problems arise from context. If you go to a gallery or an exhibition of a modern artist whose appeal isn't obvious, it could be that it's because the work has been totally decontextualized and stripped of meaning that the artist probably wanted it to convey. In my experience, talking to artists about their work usually makes things way more appealing. This isn't really possible with most art, obviously, but it's totally possible at fairs, art openings, etc. Most people who create are all the happier talking about their creation, because it means someone actually cares.My argument was always that classical artists always seemed to be looking for new methods to improve their work; usually citing Da Vinci's use of new materials, techniques, etc.
As a mech. engineering student I see nothing wrong with this statement. Newton is a God. Joking aside I see your point and it is valid; but I'd still debate some differences between what I said and your analogy. You're saying I'm dismissing modern art because the product is shit (I'm not dismissing it by the way. I'm just saying I find it hard to appreciate, but let's say I am dismissing it), where the product of classical artists was consistently sublime. But I'm not saying that. Let's take The Last Supper as an example. Da Vinci developed a new, "better" method of painting the fresco. That backfired spectacularly, because it began to deteriorate very, very quickly. In many ways, you could say it was a failure; however I can still appreciate it. He scrutinized and tweaked old methods in an attempt to create a better product. I would say it's the same attitude that a scientist would have. Looking back at previous work critically and developing on them, or scrapping them completely and developing a separate model. What I'm saying is that I have a tendency to look more at the development of a thing, rather than the thing itself. However, from reading through the replies here though, I can see that that mentality could be one of the things stopping me from appreciating art. I fail to look at it and ask "what was the artist trying to say here", and jump straight for "how was this thing made". I focus more on execution than product. That said though, I'm looking through dashnhammit's list down there, and some of the things he's linked is pretty stunning to look at, nevermind what the artist's intentions were. I think the art that I have seen is really pretty limited, and the only ones that stick in my mind are the very abstract or "shock-value" ones. Thanks for your points anyway. I'll definitely keep a more open mind next time I visit the art gallery, and try to look into the conversation behind pieces when possible."Modern science is shit, because Newton and Darwin accomplished way more than anyone alive today."
I'm hopping on to make a quick (shit, it's long) point about development and experimentation. One of the things that might be missing from your analysis of "modern" art is that the production value and experimentation just aren't there. Let me assure you that they are. In fact in most cases production is be one of the defining features of an artwork (after all it is VISUAL art). Let me try and break that down a bit. So Da Vinci tried to do something more along the lines of a secco rather than a fresco for The Last Supper, correct? He abandoned the old methods and tried to find a better method for preservation and appearance of the colours. Well similarly, we can analyse the works of the abstract expressionists in this fashion. They wanted to change the way paint was perceived, abandoning the old methods of trying to replicate images and instead letting paint, be paint. The pinnacle of abstract expressionism is in fact experimentation and a rebellion from older methods; painting on floors, using colours based upon your mood and painting shapes that resemble nothing in our current world. One could say that the production was the most important thing for them. Behind every great piece of art, there is hours upon hours of experimentation and production testing. ---------------------------------------------- For some more specific examples, look at Gerhard Richter. He makes abstract paintings by dragging a squeegee across his paintings. However if you watch his process, it is by no means as easy as it would first seem. He always has 2 paintings that he's working on in his studio, and he'll every day apply more paint if he's dissatisfied with what is currently on the canvas. By this process he continually builds up layer after layer, a porocess which usually takes several months. He might leave the painting for a month only to come back and completely erase it with more squeegeeing. Similarly, Jeff Koons developed a technique for applying colour to mirror polished stainless steel. Yes, those balloon animals are indeed stainless steel. This is by no means an easy process and he had to go through a lot of work to make his art stand out by using new experimental techniques. (though he's been coasting on those techniques for some time now). Also, shout out to another mech eng student.
I'm glad your reply ended up longer than you intended! I simply hadn't considered your comparison in your main paragraph. Also I looked up Gerhard Richter. This stuff is incredible. I looked at this one and thought "so it's just a blurry photograph, right?" Until I saw "oil on canvas". That's incredible. I was convinced that was just a photograph that was a little out of focus. I then looked at his Wikipedia page and it talks a little about his reason for blurring his paintings. I can definitely see myself getting into this guy's work. I'll be looking into Jeff Koons as well! Cheers!
I was actually referring to the more abstract works he does like this: but the argument still holds. He actually uses squeegees for both types of painting, so while one is realistic and the other is abstract, to use a bad cliché "they're two sides of the same coin". The process needed for a single work of art is more deep than most people realize and I hope you find inspiration in looking at the difficult processes that modern art hides a little more.