I sat my GAT today - It's an exam that students in year 12 do, in Victoria, Australia - A General Assessment Test.

 

 

 

At the end of the exam we had to comment on the following story;

 

 

 

" It is said that a man once criticised Picasso for creating unrealistic art. Picasso asked him: ' Can you show me some realistic art? ' The man showed him a photograph of his wife. Picasso observed: ' So your wife is two inches tall, two-dimensional, with no arms and no legs, and no colour but only shades of grey?' "

 

 

 

I was really inspired by this, and it made my mind wonder.

 

 

 

I recently had a thought, with modern day art people are either experts or facists. You get the " Oh thats a marvelous piece by Van Gogh " or " That's just rubbish " - You also get the people that WANT to be artistic so they go and buy their supplies and they put on some dramatic music and flail themselves at the canvas in an attempt to create the next masterpiece, then wear a beret and buy clothes from the Op Shop. Why can't we appreciate art, as art. Be neutral?

 

 

 

If you want to participate in art, then do it your own way, don't start in the hope of becoming rich and famous. And to all your Facists and Experts, your not cool and your not upstanding by doing so. Please keep your information or hate to yourself.

 

 

 

Now you may read this and disagree with all of it, thinking " Oh Shut up Fool, you generalise and basically make up crap " - I might agree with you, but I decided to post this in an attempt to write down what I was thinking. :-k

 

 

 

So have fun - Flame :shame: , criticise -.- , applaud =D> . It's up to you.

~The most important thing IMO regarding Modern Art is in order to have your own style you have to be able to first accurately depict people and things, this is true for all Modern Artists that I know of.~

 

 

 

Art for art's sake. That was the motto of a lot of Expressionists like Picasso. Look at Mondrian, people call his work nothing but lines and squares of color, and I would agree, but its deeper than that. Also Fauvism like Matisse and Derain also followed this motto, art for art's sake, and so was Munch (an Expressionist like Picasso).

 

 

 

Another example is German Expressionism (Die BrÃÆÃâÃâücke and Der Blau Rieter) which you could criticize as art that's not art. But that art instead was to express the angst of WWI on the people of Germany. It was an expression of the people against the war.

 

 

 

Then you can get into the whole Dada, Futurism, Modern Day art, etc. But I still consider it art, respectively.

 

 

 

So my point is there are two ways to approach modern art, as art, or to express something, and it shouldn't be criticised based on its appearance, like many today do.

you can't criticize all modern art, because some of it is actually truely good. Ofcourse some modern artist do just put on a show to sell their artwork, but some are truely serious and artistic about what they are doing. My mom knows a profesional artist very well, that I have had the pleasure to talk to. We discussed this sort of thing. He said, although he hates most modern art, since a lot of it is just a show and usually not the best artist gets rewarded, some are truely genious and innovative. Unfortunetly, not everyone can tell the difference.

Ah yes, I agree that there are some true modern day artists out there. But a vast majority are in it for the pride or money. Which you usually don't get till you become famous, which in most cases happens AFTER you die. :XD:

 

 

 

But this post is mostly about people's attitude towards art. But please, discuss , comment and criticise. :

Well, I'm a bit in two minds about the matter. I visit museums of modern (and other) art wherever I go. For a while now, I've seen that conceptual art is very much in vogue amongst modern artists. I won't dispute that there are good pieces, but mainly the fact that you have to read a page of information before you can make heads or tails from the artwork sometimes annoys me.

 

 

 

The art that I like stems from any period. It's art that speaks to me on a level that only art can. It makes me go warm, angry, whistful, cold to the bone, laugh, whatever. Both realistic and unrealistic art can do that, the rest (fascism, expertise, whatever you wish to call it) is immaterial to me. For example, I have a soft spot for both Jugendstil (neo-romanticism and more at the realistic end of the scope) as for the mocking artform Dada - the musem of modern art in Berlin has one of the finest dadaist collections, really a marvel.

 

 

 

In any case, neutrality in art is neither possible, nor something to be wished for in my opinion. Art is by definition subjective. And objective art is by definition paradoxical. The closest that art has ever come to objectivism is in the art by Duchamp at the beginning of the 20th century and in the neo-realism of the sixties.

To be honest I don't care much for modern art, although part of that might be because of my educational background. Still, stuff like this is pretty rad:

 

 

 

http://www.glumbert.com/media/kineticsculpture

I despise conceptual art with a passion.

 

I actually like the new ones (I forgot who it was by, but its an italian artist and his work is currently on display at the Design Museum in London) its all based on transport. That stuff is cool.

 

But my favourite artist is quite modern, Vasily Kandinsky- his stuff is inspringly, brilliantly, cool. I really love that stuff because alot of my doodles look a bit like it :oops:

The recent thing that caught my eye was the Human Body Exhibition.

 

 

 

The artist that dries out bodies and poses them in positions, it's very radical but it's also very interesting.

 

 

 

Perhaps if you have the chance to see it, you should.

The recent thing that caught my eye was the Human Body Exhibition.

 

 

 

The artist that dries out bodies and poses them in positions, it's very radical but it's also very interesting.

 

 

 

Perhaps if you have the chance to see it, you should.

 

 

 

was that called "body worlds" i dont think that was meant to be artistic, i think it was meant to be for learning about anatomy ect.

Nope it's an artistic display.

 

 

 

One example is of a man standing and in his right hand is an empty human body, draped over his hand. Just the persons skin. Very strange but also very interesting.

The ancient Greeks didn't know the difference between art and craftmanship. They had one word for both: ÃÆÃ

Some's good, some's just dribble.

 

Banksy is an amazing artist, sure I don't need to explain his work to you but it's all basically political graffiti.

 

 

 

For me, any display that derives an opinion, whether positive or negative, is art. That's what art is to me, to inspire - whether that be inspire love, or a theme, or detest - if it has provoked emotion I believe it has worked.

 

 

 

Hence, why I don't consider this Emin or Hirst lot to be art. I couldn't give a crap whether she hasn't made her bed and put it on display, I just don't care. Don't have time for it. And for that reason, for me, that's not art.

That graffiti art is very good. I can admire art that has a meaning or that really makes you look and wonder.

 

 

 

But art that you need to ask " What's that? " isn't art. Art should be like a mirror, you look at it and see something that relates to you in it.

 

 

 

 

 

People who splash paint on a canvas and call it " Abstract " can just collectively commit suicide because that's not art, it's rubbish.

Facist, you're not cool and not upstanding. Please keep your information and hate to yourself.

 

 

 

^^

 

 

 

The exact moment when Art was lost.