Is Modern Art a Real Art?
Sometimes pieces of modern art look like childish daub or meaningless work. It's hard to compare Renaissance artists with Jackson Pollock, Dali and Andy Warhol or call their works masterpieces. So, is a Modern Art a real art, the way talented people express themselves or just worthless thing of crazy men?
Yes
Side Score: 38
|
 |
No
Side Score: 24
|
|
|
|
|
Art is something which has its soul and history. Everything which is created by artist is never considered as a joke or childishness, in my opinion. Artist when doing something showing his version of world or just showing his impressions about it. As for modern art is nowadays trends and leak of life I guess. If now we consider someones works as a childishness job and do not see there something which is hided than we can blame only ourselves. Modern art is showing high technique in drawing or even constructing, because there is a lot of spheres and things which we can count as an art. Side: yes
Actually I am not saying that you have to call him Rafael or cosider it as a masterpiece, but we don't really know why and how he made it. Because in every creature there is a mative, as a example we do not always understand hard roch or the use of archestra. So far we might not think as that person does and there might be people who like and there will be special audience for his work. That audience may get it as it is their masterpiece, and as for others it won't be. Side: yes
I think that art is something that you should feel, but it isn't necessary to understand. Of course, if you don't feel anything when you see the pictures of this modern artist you shouldn't treat him as "new Rafael". But probably for some people it is a real art because they can feel it deeply. Side: yes
Be honest it is quite hard to find really talented artist, but things happen. Everyone among us have some talent and can show it is specific area. First of all we have to see, after that we can talk to the author and as i told eveyhting has its history and when explaining it you might understand the work. People are not the same so if something in my opinion is masterpiece or amazing for you might look as a regular stuff or opposite. Eventually it depends from the audience and at the job also. Side: yes
And I have a question for you. Do you know any contemporary artists, which are very famous and takented, as, for example, Leonardo da Vinci? I guess, no. And if pictures of modern artists are their views on life, we should worry about it. Recently, I have seen a picture with some triangles, squres and circles. There are so many beautiful things around us!! why people draw such silly pictures, which nobody understands. Side: No
I agree that art will have it's own essue in every time, it must show emotions and felling and like everything it must transform. I don't like people who just live in past, yes it was good times but we must everyithng must change. The modern art is more that real art, it is exrpessition of modern life Side: Yes
2
points
Art is anything that is an expression of feeling or emotion. So anyone who looks at Modern Art and says "That's not real art" is most likely just ignorant or perhaps unenlightened to the meaning of the word "art". By the definition of "art" Modern Art is "real art", I put real art in quotes because I think it's stupid for anyone to try and create their own definition of what art is. The point is that whether you like it or not Modern Art is "real art". Side: yes
To my mind, art isn't necessarily something perfect. Everybody has their own world perception and, consequently, own view on art. I think no one can judge other people's works because it is personal and sometimes understandable only for creator. But still I believe that self-expression is an essential part of art and even if other people are not able to understand it, it remains a kind of art. We cannot say exactly what art is because it is individual for everbyody. Side: yes
"Everybody has their own world perception and, consequently, own view on art." I agree with that. But when a simple self-proclaimed artist create something under drugs and tries to persuade society that this is a real piece of art and people believe him, moreover, they call him new Picasso and genius, it's looks very weird for me. Side: No
For what then artists draw pictures? For himself? To put his pictures on his wall?? NO! Always artists draw picture for people, who should appreciate it. But there is no many people who did it really, because contemporary artist's pictures silly. I think our art regress instead of progressing. Side: No
Sometimes pieces of modern art look like childish daub or meaningless work. It's hard to compare Renaissance artists with Jackson Pollock, Dali and Andy Warhol or call their works masterpieces. So, is a Modern Art a real art, the way talented people express themselves or just worthless thing of crazy men? I see where you’re coming from, and I agree to some extent that more modern art can look pretty effortless when compared to renaissance art. I don’t consider a child without any talent, who can finger paint a real ‘artist’ per se, and I don’t consider an elephant that can slap a pre dipped paintbrush on a canvas an artist, but there is certainly a degree of aesthetics that can be subjective when determining what ‘art’ is. So I would have to say it depends on the artist, and the audience. As for the examples you provided, I am not a fan of Pollock’s work, I feel that he may fall under the ‘child without any talent, who can finger paint,’ that I just mentioned, but he certainly has some fans, and if nothing but a form of meditation, Pollock seems to be able to express himself in some way. I am not a fan of pop art either, so Warhol’s work doesn’t really appeal to me either, but I have to admit that he does possess some talent and a strong fan base. Now, Salvador Dali is one that I was surprised to see as one of your examples. Dali has a lot of talent, unlike Pollock, he is familiar with brush strokes and contrast… just an overall understanding of the technique. More so I find that he is very expressive and imaginative. Surrealism can be very captivating. Is modern art, “real art?” Yes, of course, and without a doubt. There are many contemporary artists with a lot of skill and talent. I would say that if you had to jumble all the modern art into one category, the amount of real talent far outweighs the amount of childish finger painting and elephant art. Side: yes
To be honest, it was home assignment to make a debate, so I decided to pick this topic) I'm actually that Pollock's fan, as for Dali, I adore him, he's one of my favorite artists. The reason why I made such list is that usually all of them are in top of weird geniuses. Personally, I disagree with that and consider them as great masters, except for Warhol,I guess. I don't like pop art either. Side: yes
I have yet to see anything worth praise from Pollock. Then again, I am not a fan of his art so I don't look for it to any significant extent. Like I mentioned though, it depends on the artist and the audience, so if you find his art intriguing, then that is great. You may see it for what it really is whereas I am blind to it. If you can, will you please send me a link to some of his work that you consider to be his best? Thanks for clarifying the examples you gave, I was a bit confused. Side: yes
1
point
Everything depends on people's choices and views. Somebody likes modern arts, somebody don't. I belong to second category. I can't consider the modern art as an art. I can't understand it. I understand the works of medieval artists better. Real art could change the views of watchers, sometimes save their life. Did you read tho OHenry's story Last Leaf? There is a real masterpiece. Side: No
Sometimes ART doesn't mean something beautiful, attractive or genius...ART is a feelings and emotions which were transferred to the paper.Moreover it depend on you and how you can perceive it. But I agree that not all Modern Art is..a real art..some works are absolutely meaningless and ugly. Art is something that should bring a pleasure... Side: yes
Art is anything that expresses whether or not it is morbid, boring, colorful, or simple. Everything in the universe, not just man-assembled objects, is art. Being that, I think this argument should really boil down to, "Does Modern Art Take Talent?". My answer there would be in some places, no. In other places, yes. A person that makes his living on overpricing splats of paint on a canvas is still an artist, however little talent he may or may not possess. Even if I downright hate his art and I hate everything he does, his art still expresses and it still makes me feel emotions. Side: Yes
1
point
I hope is that it won't only be a fun watch for art professionals, but it will also draw people who aren't otherwise affianced in art. As judge Simon de Pury of Phillips put it, the show will help dispel the rarified air of "hermetic in approachability" around the art world. Side: Yes
1
point
|
I think modern art does not show idea. When modern art just started to develop, artists worked on one picture for year and more, and minimalism, cubism,impressionism all this direction had core, an idea, thoughts. Artist worked hard to develop this picture from realism to modern direction. In the compare with nowadays we can see that young artist create modern art without thoughts and core. That it why, i think, the most part of modern art is not art at all. Side: No
Yes, you are right. And also it is our mentality and poor knowledge an art field. We afraid to say sometimes, that this picture is not art and it is just rubbish. When i go to exhibition and I do not like paintings, i say that i do not like it. And, as for me, no one can blame you if you did not get idea. It is only artist's guilty, or anyone's. Maybe you are talking on different "languages" with author. Because, I think painting, it is question, or sentences, story, which artist want to ask or tell. Side: No
You mentioned that in olden days artists worked on their pictures for years in order to spread some idea and meaning. But in that "strange" art still existed. Personally, I don't get the suprematism, especially Malevich's "Black Square", so I don't think that it's all about time period. Side: yes
I don't think that Malevich's "Black square" it is painting. The masterpiece must be something that will touch your eyes and mind, but "Square" it is just to take money from stupid people. Maybe in some cases you right, because a lot of modern artists draw only for a money but they sometimes draw better that Van Goch. But I prefer old art. Side: No
The main point, that he did it first. He started to see this world from another, very different point of view, and no one did it before him. Only then artists started to discover local colors (clean colors-red, green. yellow) and composition. But the main idea, that Malevich opened that pure color can spread thought too. Before him, artist counted as a great if his pallet is large and colors different, and he can show hundreds of different tones, as seas by Ayvazovskyi. Side: No
Actually I do not agree with you. Yes may be some artists worked of thier pictures for years but not all of the great artists. Some of them do in a weak and get for that masterpeice and it is not depend on time. Mostly for an artist the main thing is burst of inspiration. whenver they bave busrt of inspiration they can do things better than they were doing for years in one weak or even a day. Artist are unpredictible people also ther creations. before seeing we do not hae to judje, it might be the best job of this century or for centuries. Side: yes
1
point
Yes, this is also true. Art comes in different forms, and with different timelines. Some can be created easily, some is painstaking or more of a labor of love. Like life, I guess, different paintings can require different approaches, methods and outcomes. See the depth of meaning behind this artist, I think it's worth a look: https://www.etsy.com/shop/
Supporting Evidence:
See the depth of meaning behind this artist, I think it's worth a look:
(www.etsy.com)
Side: Yes
However, i support the idea that modern art is also art. If some work express your attitude to the world it is art. Feeling, Emotions, fears and their expression is the art. It is the basement of every art. According to this point i consider that everything is art. And we also the art of the nature Side: yes
1
point
I agree with Dinara, and some of the others in this line of thought. Idea definitely makes art interesting, and gives a direction or theme to a painting. Feeling is also a big part of an artist's work, and can be achieved with color, skill, presence and several other techniques. In the end, it is the viewer who decides what a painting means to him or her, so it's individual-based, I believe. But there is something to be said for having skills, for sure. I like artists who have depth to their work, and I think it makes viewing a more enjoyable experience. Side: No
|
