Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone. Modern art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins. What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated? Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and how it can be stopped and even reversed.

your views on Modern art ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

art goes beyond just drawing and painting it is an expression been conceived in your inner mind that need to be explain by drawing and painting and it gives different meaning to different people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to me modern is not bad,the world is change in term of technology and this contribute to the change you notice,but its a good one.i called it creativity.every art as meaning and interpretation,and every art that doesnt has this is not ARt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i once saw someone put a mountain of dirt on a painting and it was called art. we had to pay 6 euros for that "art" museum. what a waste of money... it was a museum by an artist, dedicated to himself. standards and traditions have boundaries which allow artists make great expressions within those boundaries. that's the challenge is creating something beautiful within constraints. I'm unimpressed by a lot of modern art I see, but some of it is good... just like paintings of old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes modern art compared to contemporary art are very much differentiated for the principles and the artistic views of the artist in creating their artworks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, artmart said:

to me modern is not bad,the world is change in term of technology and this contribute to the change you notice,but its a good one.i called it creativity.every art as meaning and interpretation,and every art that doesnt has this is not ARt

If advancing technology was a thing that related to art in general, we would be seeing more advanced art pieces, but what we see with modern "art" tends to be the exact opposite. Look at stuff like the Sistine Chapel, and then any modern painting that's just few strokes of a brush in couple colors and that's it. If these were the other way around I would agree with you, now I do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of art has generally fallen into three categories: representation, expression, and form.
 

Plato first developed the idea of art as “mimesis,” which, in Greek, means copying or imitation, thus making representation or replication of something that is beautiful or meaningful the primary definition of art.

This lasted until roughly the end of the eighteenth century and helped to assign value to a work of art. Art that was more successful in replicating its subject was a stronger piece of art. As Gordon Graham writes, “It leads people to place a high value on very lifelike portraits such as those by the great masters – Michelangelo, Rubens, Velásquez and so on – and to raise questions about the value of ‘modern’ art – the cubist distortions of Picasso, the surrealist figures of Jan Miro, the abstracts of Kandinsky or the ‘action’ paintings of Jackson Pollock.”  While representational art still exists today, it is no longer the only measure of what is art.

Expression became important during the Romantic movement with artwork expressing a definite feeling, as in the sublime or dramatic. Audience response was important, for the artwork was intended to evoke an emotional response. This definition holds true today, as artists look to connect with and evoke responses from their viewers.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was one of the most influential of the early theorists toward the end of the 18th century. He was considered a formalist in terms of his philosophy, which meant that he believed that art should not have a concept but should be judged alone on its formal qualities, that the content of a work of art is not of aesthetic interest.

Formal qualities became particularly important when art became more abstract in the 20th century, and the principles of art and design - terms such as balance, rhythm, harmony, unity - were used to define and assess art.

Today, all three modes of definition come into play in determining what is art, and its value, depending on the artwork being assessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Art is one of the greatest thing in human history i.e it intepret, imitate, educate, model, real and creative. However, if any art work is short of those qualities then is useless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the days it was real craftsmanship, and you know you are not able to make this yourselves and are genuinely impressed. Now there is a lot of art where people think "I could have made this"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dRealCrypto said:

Art is one of the greatest thing in human history i.e it intepret, imitate, educate, model, real and creative. However, if any art work is short of those qualities then is useless

Some things that today we consider art, were in the time of their creation critized. Remember Van Gogh.

Quote

Since morality is fading away day-by-day in our society. Then everything will be affected.

Do you think 20th century was "more moral", considering fascism, comunism and two world wars...?

And I do not have to mention the previous centuries... When people are starving there is no morality. Only privileged classes could afford to be somehow moral...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hj27 said:

 

Do you think 20th century was "more moral", considering fascism, comunism and two world wars...?

 

Guy! I don't know which part of the world you're talking about but here I strongly believe things are more organized in the past than we're having at the moment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thinknow11 said:

Guy! I don't know which part of the world you're talking about but here I strongly believe things are more organized in the past than we're having at the moment 

While this is starting to go off-topic; in what way? Our societies are much better off in any way compared to the past, and overall the world is a much more peaceful place, so what makes you say that things were better in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17-3-2018 at 5:48 AM, sujithputhranartist said:

 

For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone. Modern art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins. What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated? Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and how it can be stopped and even reversed.

your views on Modern art ??

simply wow. good article and i belive it will change again for good we just need real talented people and not wanna bees!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Thinknow11 said:

I think this post as answered your question @Cahoot

Art was simply more exclusive. And I think that's not good per se.

Do you think art should be "expensive"? I think it should be popular.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest things in college that my fellow students had to contend with was their understanding of why this flip happened, and the need to grasp that the modern twists still need to have something real behind their creation to avoid it just being bad art noise that fades into the background.  Those that understood they could make meaningful, but ugly/non-traditional art came up with some real gems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Thinknow11 said:

I think this post as answered your question @Cahoot

Just confuses me more. So you're saying that people being able to afford easier life and thus be able to do what they want instead of what they have to leads into decaying morality? I really can't follow your train of thought here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cahoot said:

Just confuses me more. So you're saying that people being able to afford easier life and thus be able to do what they want instead of what they have to leads into decaying morality? I really can't follow your train of thought here...

You don't have to follow my train 🚄 of thought guy 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. However, moral decadence is very rampant and everyone is becoming his/her own master without adequate knowledge. In the past it takes more than a year to produce a film but today 10 films can be produced by only one artist in a year with similar stories line. Highly nonsensical 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because of cultural and value system, the two of you can never reach a middle ground on this. 

Sincerely, the world is not getting better and everything including Art is affected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×