Your opinions on abstract/modernist art

Sure, all of us know about "red square on white background" paintings. But what is your opinion of such art? Is it a sign of degeneration and decadence, or is artistically equal to more conventional visions on art? Should it be considered art at all?

I'm torn. On the one hand, I think it's what you get out of art that matters, and abstract art clearly can be moving or influential. On the other, I think it's kind of annoying how seemingly the only kind of art that gets taken seriously right now is styles that were originally conceived as piss-takes.

Abstract is cool. However, it appears that most works are effectively, my Art pieces on drugs, and are worth millions.

Post-modern, I have a problem with. It's absolute crap. It doesn't show anything. I bet actual crap is better. Actually, there was a display of crap at some gallery and the patrons called it 'good'.

Some of it's shit, some of it's good. It all depends on whether or not an individual piece is striking, since at that level of abstraction its all about how the color affects you.

I really like symbolic, minimalist design philosophies though, especially when it comes to production design.

I think it's art for artists. Only other artists get all the symbolism, the general public(myself included) doesn't understand. T Hat's my opinion.

It depends on the piece for me. If theres a good explanation posted by the puiece as to what its about, or its just compelling looking, I'm a big fan. But then. Artist. And absolutely personally hate landscapes. Theyre boring. and I dont get what the fuck everyone likes about them.

I like all the pictures of squares on squares I have seen. In general, if I see something and immediately think it's awesome, and don't notice flaws upon examination, it must be good.

I used to hate it, but once I actually looked into the creative process and what the artist is actually thinking, I started to like abstract art.

It helps that I think that most abstract art looks cool based on the Mind Screw factor.

Eh, some abstract can nice. But the kind of modern art where it's just one red square on a white background or just looks like someone threw some paint into a fan... No. Do not like those at all.

Kill It with Fire.

Most abstract art pales compared to the work of illustrators like Brian Froud, John Blanche, Jim Fitzpatrick, Alphonse Mucha, Phil Foglio, Charles Vess, Ian Miller and the countless guys that illustrate sci-fi and fantasy books, roleplaying games, collectible card games ... heck, you can find better stuff by browsing for a few minutes on conceptart.org, Deviant Art or Elf Wood than what you find in the average "hip" art gallery.

Abstract art is to art with real draftsmanship and imagination what muzak is to Beethoven. It's fine if you want something that's not too obtrusive to decorate a restaurant; if I want something beautiful or inspiring, I'll look somewhere else.

The one thing I can say is: I don't understand it.

Could you clarify what you mean? There's more to abstract expressionism than color fields, and "abstract art" is extraordinarily ill-defined.

I remember going to the Detroit Institute of Arts back in, oh I'd say January of this year, and walking around the modern art exhibit loudly going "what the fuck is this shit?" Lot of modern/abstract art I don't care for.

I preferred the Renaissance section most, tbh. Lotta tits in that exhibit.

edited 19th Jun '11 12:20:38 PM by MarkVonLewis

Google image results for "abstract expressionism": ugly. ugly. ridiculous. ugly. my little nephew could have made that. ugly. probably a troll. ugly. hideous.

OK, I take back what I said; seems that a lot of abstract art wouldn't even be good enough for non-obtrusive decoration in a restaurant.

Oh, yeah, in the Renaissance there was a correlation between "people widely acclaimed as being great artists" and "people who knew their shit and produced good-looking works". Now the two are pretty much uncorrelated (Well, some of the good fantasy artists get recognition in their domain, by nerds like us, but most "widely acclaimed artists" don't impress me much).

edited 19th Jun '11 12:24:46 PM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

@Tze: I was primarily thinking about geometrical/color abstraction, like Malevich, Newman or Pollock.

I really like the ones with more clearly defined figures. The others are, well...

edited 19th Jun '11 12:26:11 PM by MilosStefanovic

Not everybody shares your taste, you realize. I quite like Kadinsky, myself.

Also, judging an entire art movement based on a google image search is very closed-minded.

Mm, never seen the point of that stuff.

Some definitions may help. Modernist art is that from (mostly) the first half of the twentieth century which was driven by the development of photography, undermining the need for traditional art to reproduce reality and the aura of "unreproducable" works of art. That's why you get the art that doesn't look like what it's meant to show - Cubism, Abstract Expressionism, Picasso's paintings and so on - because it didn't have to anymore

Postmodern art is from the 1960s-70s on and is really going a stage further in saying - "Not only do we not have to (nor can we) represent reality, we don't have to follow any kind of artistic process at all." That's how you end up with lightbulbs turning on and off and sharks in tanks.

edited 19th Jun '11 12:38:36 PM by captainbrass2

If five minutes of digging only turns up turds, and you know where digging can easily yield gold, I'm not gonna keep digging. Call it close-minded if you want, I don't think everything deserves my full attention. There may be some gems among the crap, but they're still not worth the trouble.

A google image search on "abstract art" yields better results, but none of them is worth what you get by googling "Charles Vess" or "Mucha".

edited 19th Jun '11 12:42:25 PM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

About a year ago, when I was ill and bored, I painted a red triangle with some greek letters in the middle on an indigo background. I don't know why I still haven't tried to invent some story about it representing the evils of the consumerist society, dye my hair half red, half green, dress as a hippy, go to a gallery while acting as mad as possible, and spend the rest of my life on a private island in the Pacific, with two yachts, five limousines and a harem of concubines.

Anyway, missized reproductions don't really do justice to the actual works. My brother says his respect for The Persistance of Memory went up a lot when he saw it in person. A lot of paintings have balance designs that work better in, you know, the size of the canvas they were painted on.

Well it may not be everyone's cup of tea but then neither was Van Gogh at the time and nowadays people regard him as an artistic genius. Future generations may look back at it fonder than ours and slightly older generations. I do think some people are a bit too snobbish about modern art. Yeah you get crap but even in old style painting art (for lack of a better word or phrase) you got masterpieces and work which wasn't so great. I think that if there is a clear inspiration process behind it and it is able to invoke similar feelings in those looking at it then it counts as art (in my opinion of course).

Abstract art can be pretty at times, I guess. The idea is for it to be striking/interesting/thought provoking and so on. In this respect, even a picture of nothing but a black dot on a white background can succeed. More complex abstract art can actually be based on some theme, such as "ocean".

I'm not entirely a fan of this sort of thing, but I can see someone taking a liking to it.

This:

for example, is admittedly a little neat in the way it shows how brightness is relative and all that jazz. It can get overly silly though.

edited 19th Jun '11 2:02:53 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Future generations will likely have the advantage of the crap having filtered itself out of the mainstream, so that they're left with the good bits; much as the crap from past centuries hasn't survived to bother us.

Artistic movements are one of those things that I will never take a nerd's opinion of, in either direction.

I have no real views on the topic, myself.

Exactly. However, they can glance upon this very thread, and they will be like "Oh ma gosh! They had shitty art back in them Digital Ages! Much like the post-post modern period today!"

I'll also tell my kids about that stupid dot in the Tate Modern.

edited 19th Jun '11 2:37:35 PM by Inhopelessguy