Off Campus Event

My artistic ability comes to an abrupt halt at paper airplanes, so what I am about to say might sound somewhat unfounded. It is, but I’m going to say it anyway: modern art is bad. Today David and I dragged our friend Robbie, unknowingly I might add, to witness modern art first hand. I was simultaneously amazed and infuriated. I could not believe some of the things that were hanging on the wall, or even scattered around the floor. Some critics argue that it’s not about you (the viewer), but rather the artist. In this Post-Modern era, art has taken a new approach of minimalism. The general idea seems to be that it’s not about the creation of the art itself, but rather the artist’s feelings behind it. Taking a more abstract level, they argue that, when viewing the work, you should feel what the artist felt and understand his reason for creating the work. What’s awesome about art is that it took talent to create. That’s why people go to the Sistine chapel. Because it’s a work of art. What makes art good is knowing that someone used their talent and time to create something that is visually magnificent. Modern art can’t be considered such because there’s no work involved. Anyone can paint one giant canvas entirely blue or smear different colors of paint around on another. It’s actually a favorite for children. It reminds me of when I was in kindergarten and I brought paintings home to show my parents. They always said, “Oh how pretty,” and then came the inevitable, “What is it?” When I would reply, “It’s our house of course,” they would fake looks of understanding and just say, “Oh yeah!” Then I never knew the difference, but now I do. Therefore, the only appropriate place for these paintings known as modern “art” is, just like my pathetic drawings, on the artist’s fridge. Additionally, saying that it’s “reflective of the time period” scares the crap out of me. What kind of time is it when people can say that a blue canvas is an accurate representation of anything except the sky? How can people look at modern art and say that it’s something we as a society value, put into museums, and some individuals pay millions for. Others say that modern art is more interactive. It makes the viewer work to understand what the piece is trying to convey. They argue that the style and content of the art combine to produce a “more complete” understanding of the sentiment that is attempting to be conveyed. It is not merely what the viewer sees, but how it is presented. The problem with this is that more often than not, this takes precedence over the content. One of the paintings at the museum was of a white canvas with a black splotch on the bottom and a red one on the top. The painting was just titled “red and black.” There is practically no substance to this painting. What supposedly makes it art is the way in which the viewer’s eye moves around the painting. It is entirely about the presentation. My question then is why sacrifice content for presentation? Just because you’re putting crap on a canvas in an interesting way doesn’t mean it’s less crappy. While there was style before modern art, it was extremely restricted. The very idea of art was confined to something realistic, painted on canvas, sculpted in stone, or molded in clay. Now however, the category is much broader. There even exists the notion that anything can fall into the category of art if seen through the appropriate perspective. This is wrong and it is how crap is created. Structure, form, and technique are all necessary components of art. Without it, you can hang a pink bed sheet on the wall (an actual exhibit at the museum) and argue that it demonstrates the flexibility of art. Such a wide definition of the word “art” ambiguity until soon the word loses its meaning. Art can and will change with the time. It seems to me however, that society has fallen off the deep end with what it considers art. What worries me even more however, is the most likely accurate notion that there is still much more to come.