Is it normal to hate "modern" art?

82% Normal

23 Comments

Back in highschool I took this arts class. I remember me trying my best on this beach setting i was trying to pant, it took me 2 weeks. Then there was this other student, skipped class 4 days in a row, finally comes in, throws a whole bunch of colors onto a sheet of paper..and he shows the teacher for it to be graded, (while he's giggling) she goes..."that is excellent work! Look how much emotion went into this,we may have to submit this in the 2003 state art gallery" an A went right into the book for him...and as for me...i got a B-

so yes to add to my comment, i think it's fake art, it has no appeal to my eyes what so ever, it just looks like crap. Anyone can replicate those plantings.

I hate it too, I hate the whole concept of "High Class" art... if you're anything like me, you'd think that real art is not the one we find in museums.

I am an art major who thinks that most Modern Art is bullshit. A career in art is basically creating a career out of being an awesome bullshit artist.

If you can connect those three colors and that white dot to like a comment about the government and our economy or like a feeling you had as a child it becomes art.
It's stupid.

What we call art is totally subjective. I could go on stage and take a crap and call it art and yes it would be art if I had an intention behind it. Intention is the key word here, and in modern art the intention isn't always clear. I suggest you watch the documentaries: "My kid could paint" and "Who gets to call it art"
Just because you don't like it,or understand it,or some academic douche bag didn't call it art doesn't mean it's not art.

Yes. I hate pretty much most of it too. And most get paid LOADS for it. What's worse is when somebody creates something amazing and nobody gives a damn, then toddles off to a canvas with a dot on it and their eyeballs fall out in awe. I have seen some alright "modern art" that I like. But not much.

I both like and dislike abstract 'art.'

I find some of the structures to be appealing (and yes, some of the 'shapes' actually have a plan to them). It's all about how to painter puts the figures on the page. There are certain shapes and certain areas where you can put the shapes that are more attractive than others.

On the other hand, there is the guy who just splashes some paint onto a canvas, or makes four chartreuse dots on a board and calls it art. There is no real talent there, and a lot of these paintings are too boring or simply unattractive.

My final thought is this: I don't think of abstract paintings/sculptures/etc. as art. It's wall-art. It's (sometimes) attractive, but it doesn't accomplish anything that art is suppose to accomplish. Art is should have a message, make you feel an emotion, make you closer to the artist. I feel the same way about a lot (not all) of music. It's fun, but it's not art.

firstly, it a nice buzz word would be subjective, but I prefer to look at it like this:

If something falls outside your personal (or perhaps not so personal) definition of art, then one does not call it art.

So then it must depend on someones definition.

Maybe if you think that a peice of art is bullshit, you should be looking at why you think it is.

I have discovered that if I don't like a paeice of art, ten it usualy mean I do not understand the intended purpose or use etc. of the peice.

further more, i discovered that we could say that art is an expression of human consciousness. i.e. the product of a human conscious mind.

It is a mirror we hold up to ourselves. If there is a picture of something we think is 'cool' or 'beautiful' etc. then it is because it fits inside our accepted and pre-experienced idea of beauty - whether from personal experience or borrowed/collective.

Most people see an MC Esher print (for example) and can see the artistic value in it - whether it is to thier taste or not - yet only 200 years before it would have caused ourage and would have provoked much the same reactions to the ones being expressed here.

Also, I would point out that there is no such thing as "modern" art any more - that was pre-1970.

And if we consider that art has always portrayed concepts and ideas (as well as the age that it comes from), if you look at it one way, nothing about art from now and art from the 1600's is really all that different.

The world that we live in a full of business, machinery, mathematics, utter prescision, computers, factories, buying into a cheap alternative etc. etc.

Is there any wonder that the art of today is cynical, cold and lacking in humanity? after all artists are only (as they always have) using what is available to them - trying to create new ways of describing the world.

I think your lumping things together without really understanding any of it.

BUT having said ALL of that, Yes you are right. I'm also sick of seeing souless, lifeless crap being paraded under my nose, trying to convice me that;
'this is art'.
'why?'
'because I said so.'

Well DON'T! Artists have been banging that drum for 50 years or so and It really is getting old.

Andy Warhol said - everyone will have thier 15 minutes of fame.

He predicted (not only in the art world) but in the entertainment world how it would turn out. He predicted X-factor, Big Brother, T4 and all the other feckless morrons who think that it is their god given right to get their time in the lime light.

The rules have been dismantled, everyones welcome - you don't need tallent anymore - have a go and we'll convince everyone that 'your worth it!'

I think it's important to look at the case at hand rather than putting everyone into a box.

And another thing;

the current art scene is indeed what it appears to be - a market place.

very little consideration goes into the creation of comercial art.

It has to look sleek, smart, a desireable object contained within it's self.

They are not artists but designers making product for extradinary amounts of money. Its all rather sick and festering as the people who buy it are using it to get out of paying tax.

The current art scene is there so WE normals have to pay for THIER taxes.

There is no artistic merit in what these people do. They should be arrested.

But I DO sepurate good art (no matter how unusual or alien to my taste) and these grand-swindlers.

But Yes, I think you are normal as Most people hate "modern" art.

agreed that's not art. but check online it sells.

ah! i HATE modern are too!!!! yay! im not alone!
it makes me mad how people can do the shittiest paintings and call it art! drives me nuts! THAT IS NOOOOTTTT ART! to me art should be very detailed, thought about and lots of time put toward it. not done in 5 minutes and become a "master piece"

AGREE! i wrote a whole essay at school about how fake and pretentious modern art is. its just so devoid of talent or real thought.
i mean, i could just vomit on canvas and call it art.

I'm 100% sure that about 99% of artists and anyone in general hates this except for the talentless artist who is doing said modern art.
Some of it IS good but it takes more than 4 colors and a dot, honestly.

I once painted an oil painting, beautiful for my first painting, and got less points in a competition than a block-colored shitty talentless painting.
I died a bit inside.

It's like the same thing when modern art gets so much attention.

dude i could throw paint over a canvas in a completely random manner and all i have to say to not look crazy is "this is art"

FFFFFf- I totally get you.

It seems the artists who make them are all "lol Im so deep and profound, Ill make somethings so weird and meaningless that people will be so confuse that they will think IT MUST have a meaning" ... or something like that. I know i may not be right, but i cant help thinking that way.

All of those modern art sculpturs are a waste of money. And they never make any sense.

I hate it, there's no talent behind it. Modern art is something I did when I was six.

i agree, i went to sf moma and i was like WTF THIS STUFF IS HORRIBLE. i mean three mops connected to a cement block? really? i completely agree, i even got to the point where i was so confident that i wanted to make some shitty art and try to submit it to the mueseum.

That's the thing with art; a landscape that took 7 years to paint which is hugely detailed can be boring and ugly whereas a sculpture that took the artist just a few days to throw together can give you shivers.

As previous posters have said it's all about intention; if two mops and a slab of concrete has meaning then it can still be art. Also, you may well be able to cover a canvas in a single shade of green but the fact of the matter is that you didn't. The quality of an artwork is not decided by how hard it was to make.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of modern art is (for me at least) pretentious rubbish but some of it is really really good. Be openminded, you are allowed to hate artwork but don't write off all of modern art in one go.

They make money off of it too!

I say its very normal.all people have their dislikes.

Yes, as you said, a five year old could do that. But the point is he didn't. Art have changed a lot through the years. Though art was once being good at painting (for an example), art is now the creativity of doing something no one else have thought of doing. Don't get me twisted though, I hate modern art too.

Normal.... does anyone watch the reality show on bravo with the group of 6 or 7 young adults, and they just really suck bad! thier stuff is all modernish stuff like op described lol.. it can be totally rediculous and lazy but there are some great modern artists who make great pieces