I hate modern art

loocas | miscellaneous,opinions | Sunday, June 28th, 2009

Yes, I do! Why? Well, first of all, this sort of art has nothing to do with craft or creativity, in my opinion. In the end, anyone can randomly sketch a few geometrical elements scattered around the canvas, right? Secondly, modern art is way too arrogant for my tastes. I wouldn’t dare to call any of my creations art, as it is not! So when I see or hear a hot discussion whether some painting is or is not art, my blood starts to boil…

José Manuel Merello, Transparent Portrait
José Manuel Merello, Transparent Portrait

I admit, I don’t have any formal art education, I don’t care much for this sort of art and thus, this whole article is PURELY MY OWN OPINION. You can have your own, which is perfectly fine, but I don’t care… However, art, as we tend to call anything we don’t understand while somebody else claims it has to be art and we blindly believe them, fails to be generally defined. I admit art has always been an abstract concept, but still, why do we have to believe in anything we’re told? How do you recognize pure bullshit from true art if you don’t understand the concept and also if there’s no definition that’d help you differentiate? Why do some people feel so blessed to tell you “this is art and you’re a moron because you don’t understand it and you can’t possibly understand it in your entire life”?

I profess different values in life than looking at random strokes of random colors and think about myself how blessed and insightfull I am to see whatever the painting’s label tells me to see. I respect old-times masters, like Michelangelo, Da Vinci or Rembrand (which you could call, mainstream, with a bit of a stretch), but to me, what I see in those wonderful paintings is amazing craft, not art! I can imagine how difficult it was to mix their own colors, to prepare their own canvas, to learn from their environment, experience, life… There were no art supplies at that time (or not in the form we come to know them now), and even this discipline, painting, was considered as an outsiders’ “sport”.

František Ringo Čech, Zvířátka Obdivují Píču

František Ringo Čech, Zvířátka Obdivují Píču (Little Animals Admire Pussy)

Anyways, I personally don’t see anything crafty, nor artistic, in modern, contemporary arts. I hate people talk and discuss such “artworks” as if they painted these themselves, and even if so, I wouldn’t rather mention that. On the other hand, when you take a look at such galleries as Raph.com or CGTalk.com, these are 99% works of great craft, not art! Sure these are creative works, but not art! And that’s where I’d draw a line, I love creativity and good craft, which might in the end blend nicely into something we tend to call art, but what modern artists spit out? Especially those extremely arrogant ones that take a picture of a shit (literally!), run it through a few Photoshop filters, print it out and ask for hundreds of thousands for it, these are ridiculous!

Any thoughts?

18 Comments »

  1. hmmmm…..
    http://totallylookslike.com/upcoming/?pid=11550

    Comment by Oltskul — August 1, 2009 @ 23:55

  2. hmmm… so i was bored and literally typed in the search “i hate modern art”…. why i’ll never k now, becasue i value modern and tradtional art. being someone who has devoted themselves to the knowledge and execution of art i have some opioions slash suggestions for you.

    one, people who practice in modern art do not hate or demean the old masters they simply are trying new things and seeing what the limits of our materials are. i suggest you read Maurice Denis, (1870-1943) “From Gaugain and van Gogh to Neo-Classicism” that should give you a paradigm of understanding of where “modern” art comes from. oh and if you have an issue with painting. historically painting changed with photography because painters realized the role of paint had changed because photography could master what painting could not, and they were trying to see what painting was. i also suggest you look at the writings of Cezanne, who is considered one of the greatest still life painters, by both traditionalist and “modernist”.

    two, i understand its “your” opinion but next time you write something so inflammatory you should do more research. like, why not mention Caravaggio, or Bernini, of Jan van Eyck who by the way inspired Matisse and Gauguin. Basically i suggest you do more art history research before you comment because then you would understand the theoretical differences between oh, say JL David and Matisse or Delacroix and Gauguin or even the “old masters” and mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock. i think then you’ll realize that modern art and traditional art are not separate but joined together it is the biased opinion of the ignorant that will only hinder growth on both side of the discussion.

    Comment by philip — February 10, 2010 @ 20:31

  3. Hi philip,

    thanks for the infor and references. I’ll try to look into that (but I’m afraid due to time constraints and the nature of the subject I won’t be able to). But still, I appretiate your opinion and comment. Thanks.

    Comment by loocas — February 10, 2010 @ 22:38

  4. Art is not what is difficult or time consuming to make–it was human beings create and deem art. This, of course, has led to the two examples which you strongly dislike, and I dislike them as well but for different reasons–art is to be judged by form and content/ aesthetic and concept. The two must have a union, and from that union symoblism is brought forth. We find meaning in symbolic relationships–the two examples you have photos of are clearly symbolic, but very perverted, and abuse the forms that they know to make a perverted point.
    The old masters which you revere are not good because the things they have done have taken a long time to make their art, but because through the process of their creating symbols have been infused by the combination of form and content.

    So today, in the modern/postmodern/postpostmodern realm of art, artists acknowledge meaning, but they do not acknowledge symbols–they believe that everything man makes is a world of its own, and is not tied to reality, which is false, clearly. Actions have consequences, The creation of Art forms symbols which show meaning in things we did not see before.

    There are a lot of ignorant people out there who enjoy harassing artists, simply because they think art is meaningless or useless, and the only way to stop useless and aggravating hatred is to care, and no human can make you care.

    Comment by Chris Brown — March 1, 2010 @ 00:00

  5. Great to see this opinion. I am with you. But of course the general public is so brainwashed into thinking modern art is so great, we are classed as idiots. Modern art is elitist, and designed to make the ordinary punter feel inadequate.

    Comment by Kaveh Bazargan — October 17, 2010 @ 00:42

  6. I totally support you! I simply don’t understand why thousand of people can admire senseless picture or some “thing”. I even doubt that author knows for sure what has he created. Some their brainchild are so strange and queer that it seems to me as if the author was totally drunk or escaped from madhouse.

    Comment by resume services — December 2, 2010 @ 14:46

  7. contemporary art is so much more than any classical art in my opinion, sure the old classical artists had alot of skill at painting and drawing realistically, but the truth of it is, art has developed and improved since then, you would be right in saying that the majority of contemporary artists wouldn’t be able to produce a finely painted masterpiece like many classical artists could, but art has evolved since then and is no longer about how realistic you can make something look, but more about the ideas and effects you can create.

    In my opinion classical artists were incredibly skilled and great in their own time, but if someone painted a piece like that, it would be awful, not based on quality but because art today is so much more than painting a nice picture. Its about creating an actual real message and conveying it in a controversial way. The only people who cannot accept modern art are self obsessed traditional idiots who think that our world is the same as it was when they were kids,and is based on the same values, when in truth it is very different, and very much better. For this reason appreciators of modern art (of any kind) are the only people worth talking to, as they are the ones with fresh ideas and views who will help to shape tomorrows world, whereas anyone who argues against it is a traditional cynic who is preventing the world from developing into a better one.

    And no you don’t have to like the artwork, but atleast appreciate it as art otherwise quite frankly you don’t deserve to be a part of a developing world. I admit i often walk into contemporary galleries and don’t like the artwork inside, however i can understand and appreciate it as art, and therefore my opinion of it is increased based on the message it conveys. Hell, sometimes i don’t even like my own artwork, but it conveys something which is more important than liking the work.

    So next time you see an artwork you don’t like, stop being so fucking shallow minded and realise that you aren’t necesserily supposed to, but rather take something from it. Part of the reason artists have to be so bold and conceptual is because there is no other way that any message they try to convey will be absorbed by the brainwashed nation we live in, artists are unique, they will shape the future, so every artist is worth 100 of any contemporary art cynic, if an artist dies, there will always be another willing to continue their message, when you die very few people will give a shit

    This is why i’m proud to be an artist, because i know i have made more of an impact on this world than you

    Comment by olly — March 13, 2011 @ 23:53

  8. Olly, if it wasn’t for that retarded personal insult: “because i know i have made more of an impact on this world than you”, your comment would actually have had a much greater weight to it. You degraded your own point. But still, thanks for the opinion, it actually made me realize a few things I didn’t realize before, about art in general. Thank you.

    Comment by loocas — March 14, 2011 @ 00:14

  9. An artist is endowed with the duty of representing what he or she feels while looking at the objects to be painted.

    Comment by modern paintings — April 25, 2011 @ 05:52

  10. If there are any UK artists or art enthusiasts who are bamboozled by modern art or just have a love for representational form or traditional methods of drawing and painting, please drop me an email at ewanmcn@hotmail.co.uk

    Comment by Ewan McNaughton — April 29, 2011 @ 02:10

  11. I don’t know how anyone could hate the work of José Manuel Merello. It is pure happiness communicated through a universal visual language. The example you have is not his best work.

    Comment by Carol Barber — May 15, 2011 @ 14:17

  12. I was bored and googled “I hate modern art” and I really wanted to vent out my opinion. I am in agreement with you. Although I appreciate a few surrealist and impressionist art that can be considered modern art, most of it especially those random geometric patterns are truly unworthy to be called art in MY opinion. I was in the Smithsonian a few months ago and I just can’t comprehend how a mattress with an overlay of a map, is in a museum. I do not know the state of the art industry, whether if it is still that elitist exclusivity but I think it should be more open and appreciable as it was during the renaissance and modern period.

    Comment by Bingley — June 24, 2011 @ 18:58

  13. Abstraction can be heavy handed, as could any other element in a work of art…
    In general paintings and sculpture from the 20th century are contrived, formulaic, and dishonest. At least the popular style of the time.

    Rendering is useful in the expressing of ideas, or emotions.
    Splattering is not.
    Pollock was a joke.
    Picasso wasn’t much better…
    Vincent van was awesome.

    Lots of old paintings were bad, it’s not nostalgia. Look at anything before 1400..

    Comment by Karl — July 10, 2011 @ 01:30

  14. Hello,
    In responce to ‘ I am proud to be an artist because i have made more of an impact than you blady blah…What a load of self serving arogant bollocks. I can guarantee from your defensive tone your just one more talentless middle class, lazy basterd who needs to delude themselves that they have a purpose and that their opinion is worth more than anyone elses. How dare you criticise an individual for their initial responce when experiencing a work. I bet it was shit. Goodbye.

    Comment by ruscoe — September 10, 2011 @ 10:18

  15. Most Modern art is unbelievably bad. An artist should be able to display a certain level of skill in wat ever medium/material they use to make an ‘artwork’.
    The majority of modern conceptual work is executed poorly. Children could create these pieces. The artwork is backed up by bullshit.
    Personally, because the modern works are so ugly looking im not even interested in their stupid message. It takes more than splattering paint or watever else on canvas or exhibiting an unmade bed to get a message across. An artist should be highly skilled in their field and the ordinary non artist should feel the impact of great art themself when viewed.
    Instead you have poor art, which is all bigged up to be something that it is cetainly not ,

    Comment by TUG — November 19, 2011 @ 19:40

  16. tl;dr: you like it because it looks like something. Fair enough, but that’s just personal taste (however if you were talking about postmodernism I’d be inclined to agree – they more or less made Dada the new establishment art, without getting the joke, and politicized it, so skill is now elitist).

    Yeah there’s a lot of trite and crappy abstract art out there now, but there’s always been a lot of trite and crappy representational art too.

    On a side note, you also have to see the original to judge a work, whatever the style. Lots of stuff I hated in books until I went to the museum , other stuff I thought I’d like was disappointing in person.

    Comment by spiny norman — February 25, 2012 @ 22:35

  17. I am with the writer too.

    @Olly
    “This is why i’m proud to be an artist, because i know i have made more of an impact on this world than you”
    You represent what I find absolutely detestable about many artists today. Arrogance, self-importance, ellitism, all these nasty human traits perspire through your words. I can’t possibly imagine what important message for humanity you “convey” through your very important work.

    I am an artist, and I’ve been around many other artists. Believe me, many of them can be incredibly pretentious, vane and traitorous to each other, even among friends. I’m starting to avoid them for my own sanity…
    As Ruscoe writes, I believe they need to persuade themselves that they have a great purpose, that’s probably where the arrogance come from.
    They often love to think of themselves as champions of humanism, and think that they are the only ones in society to have ideas, to think deeply.
    They don’t want to know that the baker, the post office clerk, the housewife, or anybody else, might have a rich inner life and deep thinking. The only difference with an artist, is that they don’t have a public exposure.
    “Artists are ahead of their time”… this line always gets me.

    Another thing. It is so much easier to be a visual artist in a rich country (many schools, scholarships, grants, tutorials, books, evening classes, art supply stores, etc), or if you’re from a well-to-do background. Let’s not be arrogant with our good luck, we should practice our work with a lot more humility.

    Comment by kabotcha — May 12, 2012 @ 04:15

  18. When i was seeing some of them, modern art, i felt like they are talking too too much and soo loud. And i dont like it

    Comment by oky — January 20, 2014 @ 05:45

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress | Theme by Roy Tanck