Modern art and poetry'

[Squirrel]

Modern art and poetry' ...Are they fake? What I mean is, when an artist paints a picture of say, a yellow squiggle, covered in green and blue diamonds, and then roughly scribbles a toddler-like image of a house on top, are they really producing a work of art, or did they just throw it together in 10 minutes? And poets, writing something straight out of a thesaurus, like: 'The mahogany blueprint of a cello-like whale squirpled around in irony like an arrangement of bumblebees' (OK so I made that up but it really can get that bad) ' surely they don't put thought into that rubbish? I can usually appreciate the time and effort that people put into creating a great metaphor in a sentence, or skilfully adding rhyme to a poem, or painting a beautiful landscape, but this modern stuff evades me. I can give you an example of what I mean: when I was about 12, we had to write a poem about rain. Being a great liker of rhyme I immediately set to work on writing several verses of miscellaneous stuff to do with rain, keeping the flow and rhyme as good as I could manage, which led to me getting my work returned unmarked because 'A poem doesn't have to rhyme.' I was so angry (because it had taken me hours) that I hastily scribbled down the worst piece of **** poem you have ever seen, with many repeated phrases and words like 'tumbling' and 'swirling', handed it in and got an A'where is the sense in that?

So my main point is, are people all over the world looking at modern art and actually pretending to like it and understand it? I'm not saying all of it is mindless scribble, but there have been cases of modern art hanging upside down, for heaven's sake, and no one noticing. It's believable, though, pretending for so long to appreciate the hidden intricacy of ink blots (no doubt to fit in with the crowd), that eventually you think you do.

Any thoughts on this matter would be great, thanks for reading!

[j2buttonsw]

Yes I can answer! What is art is in the eye or ear or sight of the beholder. It is a totally subjective area and my liking of yellow sqiggles is no more or less important than someone elses love of Leanardo da Vinci. It gets ugly and stupid when people try to argue that their art is better than yours.

[j2buttonsw]

Now I am showing off. In defence of your teacher perhaps she (he) had good intentions in wanting you to break out of the confines of traditional rhyming poetry but did it in a clumsy way.

[Squirrel]

But wouldn't art critics get a little bit annoyed if it was pointed out to them that the difference in quality and style between two magnificent paintings (say, a person's portrait and a flower-filled garden) is comparable to the difference in quality and style between some modern art and a four-year-old's drawing? And also that the non-rhyming, confusingly written garbage of words known nowadays as a "poem" is so incredibly similar to what can be achieved by a child, the main differences being that the poet uses longer words and that they will invariably write about something morbid, while the child will usually choose something happy. It confuses people because, while, yes, there may be deep meaning intelligently hidden inside a poem by the author, it might also just be nonsense. In either case, deep meaning can be forcibly extracted from the poem if you look hard enough. For example, here is an actual excerpt from a poem written by a famous author:

Plummeting shards blinding your eyes,
To your own weeping wounds,
To the cascading lies,
Desperate for the intoxication,
Shallow and contrived,
Only in fiction, little doll, are you really alive.

And here is one written by Vicki, age 12:

Understanding people care for me,
They treat me like gold.
For they know
The importance of friendship.

Now, if you hadn't been told that poem No. 2 was written by someone aged 12, with hardly any poem-writing experience, you might never have guessed it. That is another variation between what I call art, and modern art: - the difference between beginners' work and professionals' work is almost non-existent (in my, untrained, eye) with modern art, but enormous with other forms of art. It confuses me so much! I am so sure that lots of people fake their way through art.

[whiskygalore]

Squirrel. I'm a complete philistine when it comes to art, so I just judge it on whether I like it or not. E.g. I like stuff by Escher (if that's how you spell his name) and though I know it's cleverly done, I wouldn't be able to deconstruct it - I just like looking at it. And though Monet is famous, revered etc., I think his paintings are boring. Sames goes for modern art, I like some of the Chapman stuff, but Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst leave me cold - don't know why. Anyway, I suppose that though it's subjective, the opinions of those who shout the loudest are those that are listened to, which may be why modern art is validated, because those who produce it are obnoxious arrogant a***holes!

[Waterwolf]

Hi Squirrel, my take on modern art is that I don't actually like it, but (I think) I can understand where it's coming from. I saw an explanation once which I thought I'd share with you: 'traditional' art is representational, i.e. it tries to depict something recognisable. Then along comes a movement like cubism, which aims to depict something from multiple angles at once. (Post)modern art rejects the idea that art has to depict anything -- an object is not placed in a gallery because it's art, it is art because it's been placed in a gallery. And the reason some people (myself included) can't appreciate such art is because we think the effort put into an artwork should be reflected in the work itself: we're impressed by seing something that we couldn't have done. But modern art is mostly about the subtext, which is why it baffles so many people. I don't know enough about poetry to talk about that, but I can tell you that non-rhyming poetry has been around far, far longer than the rhyming sort.

[Squirrel]

You raise good points, but then I could argue that such unidentifiable art only means something to the person who created it ' because it's just a jumble of colours to everyone else. Oh, but then there's the thousands of pounds that each individual piece may be worth, but that surely doesn't cloud the judgement of its admirers, like, for example, people may admire a celebrity for her/his riches, not their talents? It's so, for want of a better word, fake'

[Waterwolf]

I wasn't trying to defend modern art, Squirrel -- I agree with you!

[Squirrel]

Sorry, I get a bit carried away.

[Squirrel]

That made me laugh so much! Really, don't even get me started on wine tasters and art critics. The best thing I can do is to give them a wide berth...by the way, are there any regular artists or critics on the Answerbank? There must be one or two, given the number of Art & Literature questions; and it'd be interesting to hear the other side of the argument (I never intended for this to be an anti-art topic, not really.)

[gazzawazza]

Squirrel, I totally agree with everything you say. I don't know what makes me laugh more, the fact that these "artists" spend their life churning out meaningless rubbish or the fact that art critics pretend they understand their work! And some people pay for it!!! Still, I suppose the artists are laughing too!

[woofgang]

Okay here's my six pennorth. I believe that any art medium is about communication. The artist has a thought or a feeling and communicates that to the viewer, listener, reader. In my view, the more people who get the message then the better that piece of art is. This is harder to do across time or ethnic divide or even generation because of loss of common symbology. Again IMHO the difference between Vicki's beautiful lines and "I was further out than you thought. And not waving but drowning" is that probably Vicki "strucky lucky" with her attempt and would not be able to continually replicate that standard; whereas your actual artist is aware of the mood/ feeling thought that (s)he wants to convey and uses technique and experience to achieve this. Its like me and cooking. Sometimes I produce something ambrosial, mostly its not because my natural talent is not supported by skill and knowledge. Anyeway basically what I am saying, is that for something to be art, it has to be artful ie created deliberately with an outcome in mind. The viewer might find pleasing patterns in a painting done by an elephant. I'm not saying that they shouldn't enjoy these and hang them on the wall but "Art"? No.

[Squirrel]

I have to say, your messages have made me try to be a bit more open-minded about art, although my mind is rather like a letterbox, and each new idea an overlarge newspaper. Nonetheless, I like your points, woofgang ' especially about the accidental / intended meaning of the final piece; and it made me think of another thing ' fashion: the dozens upon dozens of identical twins who pose in various items of clothing that look like stapled-together dish cloths. What is going on there? Should I attempt to start up a new topic, or does the phrase 'ten foot pole' spring to mind?

[woofgang]

Okay so here's a laugh, Squirrel. In one of Joyce Grenfell's momologues, she has a girl call Shirl talking about a friend of hers who is in an orchestra. She says "He's a real musician - he can still do it even when he's not in the mood"

[gilf]

I no nothing about poetry so I wont comment on that. But modern art is a bit of an odd thing. I think that the great masters and artists from the renaisance etc one of the major things was to draw something that looked real and captured the situation. In todays environment we have those real pictures in many other forms. Modern art is all about expression. I think the works of people like Hurst and Jeff Koons are wonderfull. I think people tend to criticise modern art without really seeing much. Yes you do see stuff for example Jackson Pollack which looks like a little kid has just thrown a bit of paint around but the work of others has required much more thought. Take Koons for example (who you all cry) he's works in metal period was all about taking something from everyday life one of the more famous examples was a blow up rubbit which was then made in steel (not by koons in fact but a metal worker). So all we have is a metal rabbit but its about what that rabbit represents. I think the thing to remember and it was a point about the 12 year olds poetry. A metal rabbit in isolation is nothing special but look at the sort of work Koons and Hurst have produced over a consistent period. Some of koons paintings are amazing that gives him the license to transend the technical side of art and present the underlying message. As a closing thought if modern art is such a fake then anybody could knock up a quick painting and sell it for millions, its reputation that affords modern artists the chance to produce this stuff.

[Squirrel]

That is a good point: first they show that they have the talent to produce a realistic or beautiful piece, then they (I would like to say 'take shortcuts' but that would be unfair) try their hand at more modern, simple art that the vast majority of people don't understand, but would be inclined to consider artistic because of the artist's previous work.

[gilf]

Thanks Squirrel you said exactly what I wanted to say but in a much shorter space. But yeah thats the essence. Its like Gordon Ramsey making beans on Toast on that advert :).

[fraserjim]

It's all "pish" When I was doing my art prelims, I painted precisely and in my 15-year-old mind photographically When I completed my still life it to me was wonderful I got a C I'll all always remember the girl next to me her effort looked as much like a bowl of fruit as a badgers b4lls Wonderful said the Art teacher have an A+ What does a 15 year old know about art? Why does the teacher judge with an adult mind? Anyway I'm now a technical illustrator with as much chance of exhibitng my work as flying in the air I paint brilliantly is my attitude wrong