Shop More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant Member FrogstopperMale/United Kingdom Group :iconbook-illustration: Book-Illustration
Recent Activity
Deviant for 2 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 19 Deviations 538 Comments 12,142 Pageviews

Newest Deviations


This is part 3 of my rant, and it was written as a reply to outsidelogic's comment on the last one, and it refers to his piece on Karen Kilimnik which is well worth a look anyway, but will need to be viewed for the first part of of what follows to make sense...
Karen Kilimnik seems to be a perfect example of what I'm against when I say deprecating things about modern art. She's knocked off a few pictures without putting much effort into their creation, instead putting her creative powers into the explanatory or justificatory bullshit that accompanies them. Though, going by her answers she gives in her interview, she's no great shakes at waffling either. I mentioned earlier that quality and originality are the two component aspects of art, and she has neither at any high level; and, for my money, is not worth bothering with when there are so many working artists who are much more interesting and good at what they do here on DA.
The fine art world exists for rich morons who want to pose as intellectual art connoisseurs. You don't need to be intelligent or particularly aesthetically sensitive to be born to a millionaire, but these clowns, probably motivated by unconscious guilt at their lucky break, try to imply that being worth more in dollars equates with being worth more cerebrally, culturally, etc. The artists, dealers, gallery owners and pundits provide the mumbo-jumbo to bamboozle anyone who doesn't have a few minutes to spare, which is all it takes to untangle and then see through their nonsensical verbiage. (It's the same with opera - these bozos have managed to create the impression that opera is high art (whatever that is), but a quick glance at a typical libretto reveals that it has all the philosophically profound insight into the human condition as the average Tom & Jerry cartoon and would make even the cheesiest of bodice-ripper writers think they've not done themselves proud on this occasion. The good component of opera, of course, is the music, which has no intellectual aspect.)
Outsidelogic asked me who I considered to be 'modern artists'. In thinking about this I've perhaps spotted how this horrid modern art has evolved into what it is today. See what you think...
The traditional version has modern art starting with Picasso (an incredible artist) and Martisse, with Gaugin, van Gogh, Cezanne and a few others being transitional artists. Some put the modern era starting with the Impressionists. And they may have a point, because it was when people viewing an artwork started saying 'yes, it's very nice but what is it?' that artists had to start to explain what they had painted or sculpted. (No one will have ever asked Ingres or Rodin 'what is it?', because it was perfectly clear what it was.) Modern artists, in their desire to broaden the forms of what they painted, more unrealistically, more surreally, more symbolically, more abstractly, more, er, cubically, etc, eventually led to paintings looking less and less like something, and more and more like nothing in particular. This expanding of form, by the way, I see as a positive thing, it being the artists' concern with the originality of their work. This is wholly legitimate and has been extremely fertile, with a huge amount of great art being produced as a result. But it has gone too far. As soon as people started asking 'but what is it' artists have had to start answering questions about their art. When it became de rigueur to ask an artist to explain their work this led, eventually, to anything being capable of being the work with the explanation taking over as the primary aspect of the work. This, of course, slowly led to any old thing being permitted to be the actual artwork which is now ancillary to the bullshit. This sort of thing should have only existed in the avante garde margins of art, but it has taken centre stage because of those rich fools using art as part of their investment portfolio.
I think some working artists agree with me in their dislike of modern art, but don't go as far as me because they would like to be asked questions about their art and don't want to return to the silent paint it-show it-(hopefully) sell it cycle that artists used to go though. Everybody wants to talk about their passions and their work (if they're lucky enough for those two to coincide), and if I were a proper artist (by that I simply mean that I could call myself an artist without feeling I was lying) I too would probably share their position.


United Kingdom

AdCast - Ads from the Community



Add a Comment:
TonHaring Featured By Owner 14 hours ago  Professional Traditional Artist
Thank you for faving!
david-harris Featured By Owner 21 hours ago
Thank you very much.
SineLuce Featured By Owner 6 days ago  Professional Artist
thanks for:+fav:!:wave:
Frogstopper Featured By Owner 5 days ago
You're very welcome
Bernardumaine Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Thank you for faving !
Frogstopper Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2014
You're welcome
Hunkinart Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2014   Traditional Artist
Thanx 4 Fav'ing 👍👍
Frogstopper Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2014
You're welcome
Monkey-Fromthebridge Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Hug thanks for faving ! have a nice day : )
Frogstopper Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2014
You're welcome; you too.
Add a Comment: