I would genuinely like to hear a defense of sorts for such trash art. Like I know it's subjective but no person in their right minds would call Da Vinci's work ugly. It took Michaelangelo years to make David, something that is a phenomenal piece of art that took a lot of effort. I can acknowledge this despite the fact that I don't like it that much. Have you seen Levitated Mass? It is a piece of "art" that is just a fucking boulder. A boulder. No fucking effort. Completely ugly compared to classic art. I just can't understand why rich people value this shit.
Other Why is modern art so ugly, low effort and expensive?
- Thread starter The_Omega_Effect
- Start date
Chimney Swift
i am confusion
I have similar questions about music, film and theatre.
It seems that effort, intricacy, beauty and finesse are not as desirable as they once were. I'm not a big fan of minimalistic, abstract, "ironic" or intentionally unappealing art... but it just won't go away.
It seems that effort, intricacy, beauty and finesse are not as desirable as they once were. I'm not a big fan of minimalistic, abstract, "ironic" or intentionally unappealing art... but it just won't go away.
Architecture is worse too. We've gone from immaculate houses to giant rectangles.
Axel The Englishman
The Holy Crusader
Breakdown the creation of art into two different phases: theory and application.
Masterpieces such as Napoleon Crossing the Alps and The Creation of Adam made good use of both the former and the latter. Each convey a powerful message using equally powerful means. Nowadays, there is more emphasis on theory than application. This is why modern artistsbullshit craft a deep message in their work but do not work to create visuals of expressing this supposed meaning. Back in the day, the application was constructed to convey the theory. Nowadays, the theory is too broad and so can be applied to simple things. Theory is only as effective as the application allows it to be.
It’s obvious that humans have gotten lazier and lazier in the past century, and now everything is mostly about speed over quality. Apparently it has gotten to the point where people will spend $40 million on a blue table tennis table.
Masterpieces such as Napoleon Crossing the Alps and The Creation of Adam made good use of both the former and the latter. Each convey a powerful message using equally powerful means. Nowadays, there is more emphasis on theory than application. This is why modern artists
It’s obvious that humans have gotten lazier and lazier in the past century, and now everything is mostly about speed over quality. Apparently it has gotten to the point where people will spend $40 million on a blue table tennis table.
Axel The Englishman
The Holy Crusader
To show the results of modern art...
This is something I made in photoshop during my free time from a photograph I took.
This is something that sold for over $40 million and has just essentially set someone up for life. Scary, huh?
This is something I made in photoshop during my free time from a photograph I took.
This is something that sold for over $40 million and has just essentially set someone up for life. Scary, huh?
Holice
Junior Member
Art is only as expensive as the people that buy it allow it to be. So as long as there are people with millions willing to buy a blue background with a white stripe, art like that is not going anywhere.
Black Sun
\\\///
Postmodernism, The Frankfurt School, and Cultural Marxism is to blame. There is literally no other element at play.
Rusty of Shackleford
Ten Thousand Club
I agree. I find myself liking older painters because they made art that easily and intelligently conveyed an emotion. I especially like one painter who painted these vivid and horrifying works that showed what Hell looked like. They look like something from a fever dream, and easily instill dread and discomfort. Nowadays they just paint some lines and say they mean something.
Blackwind
Magic Eight Ball
It does have something to do with the art market as well. Not the first time this discussion pops up, and I would warmly recommend to check out this interview with Gerhald Richter (who is actually extremely talented in terms of composition and color)
hologram
mostly inactive
Art has been weird for as long as art has been a thing and this particular type of 'modern art' has been around for well over a hundred years at this point. Personally I'm all for it, the styles of art that other folks in this thread are fond of haven't gone away in favor of the more abstract stuff. Plus I really like that example put in this thread of the painting that sold for 40 million dollars. I feel something when I look at it and I can appreciate what the artist did. There's a lot of genuine effort that goes into works of art that appear quite simple at first glance.
It's fine if it's not your cup of tea but I think it's disingenuous to assume that all art of this variety is low-effort and lazy.
It's fine if it's not your cup of tea but I think it's disingenuous to assume that all art of this variety is low-effort and lazy.
I can feel something when I look at that painting too m8. I feel disappointment that this is the kind of shit that rich people pay money for. Modern art in general is low effort compared to what art used to be. Artists used to spend years on their paintings, perfecting every single stroke. Sculptors wanted to make sure that every single part of their creation was perfect. Now, modern or "abstract" art takes nowhere near as much skill, talent, or effort.
hologram
mostly inactive
'What art used to be' is still being created alongside abstract art. This is hardly a new phenomenon, I can show you abstract works from over a hundred years ago. Like I said, it's cool if it's not your favorite style of art but genuine effort does go into producing these sorts of works.
memphis
head empty and i like it that way
One hundred percent true. It's not like these old techniques and skills have been lost entirely, they simply are no longer at the forefront, and no longer the only art being produced. It's not like artists make abstract art without any sort of thought. Contrary to popular belief, it does take a fair deal of training with color, composition, etc. to make an abstract work that is aesthetically pleasing.
Now to contribute to the conversation on a broader scale. I think as a rule of thumb, art made during any given period of time reflects the availability of resources to artists, and the demands of the public (there are many more factors that contribute to the art that is made during any given period, but this is a pretty simple examination of the matter at hand). For example, in the day of renaissance masters such as Michelangelo and Da Vinci, most art was made with the support of sponsors on an almost purely commission basis, as art was a very costly hobby. It almost exclusively was made to either reflect the wealth and status of the buyer, or express religious dedication, so most art was commissioned by churches or nobility. This is pretty clearly reflected in Renaissance and Baroque art, where a vast majority of the subject matter is either religious or some sort of portraiture of nobility.
Today, there is a much more varied demand, and resources are generally available to a much broader audience than any other period in history. We also have adopted a much broader and open definition of art and idea of what constitutes art. Art today allows for more expression, and more people have access to the resources to create it—meaning not every work of art we see now has to be religious propaganda or a portrait of a duke posing in lavish attire. I think it would be a bit silly and an extreme over-generalization to say all modern art is ugly, cheap, and low effort. As I mentioned before, people do still make art using the techniques and skills similar to the masters of the Renaissance and older artists, but there is no longer the same demand for these types of works, and there is much more variation and creative expression in the art we see today, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
To conclude, I have a brief thought for everyone; you choose the media you consume, so if you don't like what you're seeing, hearing, watching, etc., then maybe you're making the wrong choices.
Also, just for fun:
adrian_
julie my beloved 🥰
It doesn't matter how stupid it is as long as people buy it, i find this piece aesthetically pleasing:
But you may not, and i know for a fact that it could have been sold for over fifty million. Because it's art. And people like art.
Edit: Saw that somebody brought "postmodernism" into a discussion about art,
.
But you may not, and i know for a fact that it could have been sold for over fifty million. Because it's art. And people like art.
Edit: Saw that somebody brought "postmodernism" into a discussion about art,
.
Last edited:
Ashfeather
Have a great day will ya
Sometimes an art piece has different functions.sometimes it aims to perfectly explain a picture to you, sometimes it aims to NOT explain the picture to you but let you figure it out, sometimes it is simply a decorative piece of interior design, sometimes it likes to do all things at once. Trashing all modern art because you dislike a certain type is kind of extreme in my opinion. I for one would consider modern art to also be that which has inspired many of my favourite Tumblr artists, or comic books, or the designers making patterns I want to print and pin on my wall. And they are very varied! My landlady has a collection of posters from a museum of modern art. Some are thought provoking photographies from Japanese artists, some are picasso prints, some are just a series of squares arranged in a harmonious way. Just to give an idea of what modern art can be.
Last edited:
Gallus
Fit For The Gallows
First off, I should say that Modern Art is characterized as pieces extending from the mid-1800s to the late 1970's, with artists such as Munch or Cezanne being technically characterized as Modern Artists. Your idea of "Modern Art" is more akin to Contemporary Art, which are made from the 80's onward and encompass minimalism. Granted, this definition is loose at best and can be greatly debated, such as art movements within the periods, but I'm going by generalizations here for sake of brevity. Sorry if I sound a bit snobbish with this, haha. I just love art history.
Having said this, however, I will say that I both agree and disagree with your dislike for "modern art". Some are obvious cash grabs, looking to sucker out rich people into thinking that they're art-aficionados when really they've just bought a rock from the side of the road. But others are fascinating, well worth the prices attributed to them.
Earlier, someone posted a painting of two blue rectangles claiming that the outrageous price was "scary". To that, I point you towards Mark Rothko, arguably one of the most influential action painters behind Pollock. So what's so special about Rothko? Well, he paints things like this:
or this:
.
Hell, he even was even commissioned to paint the interior of a chapel purely black! So why did he get so famous if all his works looked more or less like that $40 million "scam"? Emotion. His colors invoked emotion. Red and yellows to mimic the stuffiness of a brick home; pure black to mimic the somberness of a life questioned. They were his emotions and, using art, others felt it too. Granted, you may not feel the exact same, but others did, which is how these simple squares of color got so popular. There was meaning behind his work, and though it was simple, it affected people. Which is exactly what he wanted.
Another examlple is an artist named Jean-Michel Basquiat. He is honestly one of my favorite artists and the producer of the priciest piece created by an US artist ever auctioned, sold for $110.5 million dollars. So what did this masterpiece look like? Was it a stunning mural or a dazzling sculpture of a modern Venus of Urbino? Well, no. It was this:
.
Erm, the picture on the right is the artwork. Not the guy on the left. Sorry, bud. This crude, colorful head comparable to that of sidewalk graffiti or a blind baby's doodling. Yet it sold for more than $100 million dollars. To some, this fact is astonishing. Horrifying, even. But to me, it's amazing. While this is an overpriced doodle to some, to me it's a reflection of culture. More specifically, the culture of inner-cities in the 80's and a reflection of history's impact.
Rambling aside, the point I'm trying to come across is that art is objective. To you, these can be nothing more than a mockery of the art world. To some, it's an example of how art is an ever evolving media, where refusing to experiment and try new things leaves one scrambling in the dust as time races by. Perhaps there is more of a focus on Theory than Application, but that may not inherently be a bad thing. And neither is disliking one type of art and favoring another. However, I don't think it's right to outright generalize all "modern" art as low-effort and lazy. At least, that's my opinion on it.
Having said this, I will also add as a side note that a major factor in how famous you get in the exhibition art world is nearly completely reliant on contacts. If you know the right people, you'll get in the right places.
Having said this, however, I will say that I both agree and disagree with your dislike for "modern art". Some are obvious cash grabs, looking to sucker out rich people into thinking that they're art-aficionados when really they've just bought a rock from the side of the road. But others are fascinating, well worth the prices attributed to them.
Earlier, someone posted a painting of two blue rectangles claiming that the outrageous price was "scary". To that, I point you towards Mark Rothko, arguably one of the most influential action painters behind Pollock. So what's so special about Rothko? Well, he paints things like this:
Hell, he even was even commissioned to paint the interior of a chapel purely black! So why did he get so famous if all his works looked more or less like that $40 million "scam"? Emotion. His colors invoked emotion. Red and yellows to mimic the stuffiness of a brick home; pure black to mimic the somberness of a life questioned. They were his emotions and, using art, others felt it too. Granted, you may not feel the exact same, but others did, which is how these simple squares of color got so popular. There was meaning behind his work, and though it was simple, it affected people. Which is exactly what he wanted.
Another examlple is an artist named Jean-Michel Basquiat. He is honestly one of my favorite artists and the producer of the priciest piece created by an US artist ever auctioned, sold for $110.5 million dollars. So what did this masterpiece look like? Was it a stunning mural or a dazzling sculpture of a modern Venus of Urbino? Well, no. It was this:
Erm, the picture on the right is the artwork. Not the guy on the left. Sorry, bud. This crude, colorful head comparable to that of sidewalk graffiti or a blind baby's doodling. Yet it sold for more than $100 million dollars. To some, this fact is astonishing. Horrifying, even. But to me, it's amazing. While this is an overpriced doodle to some, to me it's a reflection of culture. More specifically, the culture of inner-cities in the 80's and a reflection of history's impact.
Rambling aside, the point I'm trying to come across is that art is objective. To you, these can be nothing more than a mockery of the art world. To some, it's an example of how art is an ever evolving media, where refusing to experiment and try new things leaves one scrambling in the dust as time races by. Perhaps there is more of a focus on Theory than Application, but that may not inherently be a bad thing. And neither is disliking one type of art and favoring another. However, I don't think it's right to outright generalize all "modern" art as low-effort and lazy. At least, that's my opinion on it.
Having said this, I will also add as a side note that a major factor in how famous you get in the exhibition art world is nearly completely reliant on contacts. If you know the right people, you'll get in the right places.
Last edited:
Jupiter
Monster Maker
I'd like to add, as someone who is part of the art world, that the level of detail in paintings such as Da Vinci's is due to something we now take for granted. Bearing in mind that the creation of 'modern art' started in the mid 1800's, you have to remember as well that it really blossomed when the camera was born. During Da Vinci's time, there wasn't camera technology, so the meticulous paintings of his era were commissioned to document in great detail things that could have been documented with cameras. If you can see, they strive to achieve a realistic quality that nowadays is extremely easy to achieve, just point and shoot. Look at it with this example in mind;
The Raft of the Medusa by Theodore Gericault, painted in 1818. At this point the only camera prototype, almost-camera, as I call it, was made in 1816, but it couldn't be used to document historical events, like the horrific events of the Medusa. At this time this was what was considered contemporary art, but it had a direct link to the events that had only recently, at that time, been documented by words, not pictures. It's my firm opinion that art like this was created to document rather than to necessarily be imaginative.
In comparison, as photography became more popular, abstract and other types of art began to truly blossom. There is no need to paint something that could then be captured on film almost perfectly. Artists were then able to show the world as they themselves saw it, not just as it needed to be shown to get a reaction. Bearing in mind too, the cultural differences back then would be astronomical in comparison to todays culture, so the reception would be much less open. I mean, it took a while to get people on board with creations we now look back on as beautiful, for instance Vincent Van Gogh. Now, I know that he's not a modern artist but the point stands that people viewed his works in the same way as people currently view pieces like Mark Rothko's.
Even as an artist myself I did find it hard to look at modern art and view it as art. In my opinion it couldn't possibly make me feel anything and I believed it to be a massive waste of time. I recently went to the Pompidou Centre in Paris, which has a large selection of modern art dating from as early as 1917 to a few years ago, and I won't lie when I say that it severely changed my mind. I think that viewing something on a computer screen is completely different to when you view something in person. The same as going to the Louvre, where I did see the Raft of the Medusa, and I have seen other classical pieces by artists such as Rembrandt and Da Vinci.
Initially when I looked at this (Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp);
I saw nothing, and still think it's quite a humorous piece, but it gets you thinking. An artist, a modern one, Ai Wei Wei, says that everything is art, and I am beginning to agree with him. I didn't think that this was in the first place, but when I look at it now I see something that is challenging the ideas of art, and not every art piece is going to be great, or brilliant, but it's starting to challenge, which is the important part. I think everything is art that invokes a reaction, whether that be hatred or confusion, questioning is exactly what pieces like this try to make you do, and if you hate it then I'd say that it's doing the job that it's supposed to do.
I can't sit by and say that these pieces are aesthetically pleasing to look at, but I can definitely say that they are art.
And this isn't fully related, but seeing the influences of classical art onto modern art is definitely something that should also be celebrated. An example being a highly controversial artist, someone who is considered a genius, and then a classical artist a long way ago.
Rembrandt's Slaughtered Ox (1655)
Soutine's Carcass of Beef (1925, I believe)
Francis Bacon's Figure with Meat (1954)
Damien Hirst's God Alone Knows (2007)
The similarities through art are severe, and no artist isn't directly influenced by someone who has come before him, so though it may not necessarily seem it to people looking at the piece, the meaning could be exactly the same, just a different visual take, as something that was created over four hundred years ago.
The Raft of the Medusa by Theodore Gericault, painted in 1818. At this point the only camera prototype, almost-camera, as I call it, was made in 1816, but it couldn't be used to document historical events, like the horrific events of the Medusa. At this time this was what was considered contemporary art, but it had a direct link to the events that had only recently, at that time, been documented by words, not pictures. It's my firm opinion that art like this was created to document rather than to necessarily be imaginative.
In comparison, as photography became more popular, abstract and other types of art began to truly blossom. There is no need to paint something that could then be captured on film almost perfectly. Artists were then able to show the world as they themselves saw it, not just as it needed to be shown to get a reaction. Bearing in mind too, the cultural differences back then would be astronomical in comparison to todays culture, so the reception would be much less open. I mean, it took a while to get people on board with creations we now look back on as beautiful, for instance Vincent Van Gogh. Now, I know that he's not a modern artist but the point stands that people viewed his works in the same way as people currently view pieces like Mark Rothko's.
Even as an artist myself I did find it hard to look at modern art and view it as art. In my opinion it couldn't possibly make me feel anything and I believed it to be a massive waste of time. I recently went to the Pompidou Centre in Paris, which has a large selection of modern art dating from as early as 1917 to a few years ago, and I won't lie when I say that it severely changed my mind. I think that viewing something on a computer screen is completely different to when you view something in person. The same as going to the Louvre, where I did see the Raft of the Medusa, and I have seen other classical pieces by artists such as Rembrandt and Da Vinci.
Initially when I looked at this (Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp);
I saw nothing, and still think it's quite a humorous piece, but it gets you thinking. An artist, a modern one, Ai Wei Wei, says that everything is art, and I am beginning to agree with him. I didn't think that this was in the first place, but when I look at it now I see something that is challenging the ideas of art, and not every art piece is going to be great, or brilliant, but it's starting to challenge, which is the important part. I think everything is art that invokes a reaction, whether that be hatred or confusion, questioning is exactly what pieces like this try to make you do, and if you hate it then I'd say that it's doing the job that it's supposed to do.
I can't sit by and say that these pieces are aesthetically pleasing to look at, but I can definitely say that they are art.
And this isn't fully related, but seeing the influences of classical art onto modern art is definitely something that should also be celebrated. An example being a highly controversial artist, someone who is considered a genius, and then a classical artist a long way ago.
Rembrandt's Slaughtered Ox (1655) Soutine's Carcass of Beef (1925, I believe)Francis Bacon's Figure with Meat (1954)Damien Hirst's God Alone Knows (2007)The similarities through art are severe, and no artist isn't directly influenced by someone who has come before him, so though it may not necessarily seem it to people looking at the piece, the meaning could be exactly the same, just a different visual take, as something that was created over four hundred years ago.
The Mechanist
Everyone's favorite cybernetic robot! 🤖
It’s because art is becoming more and more subjective these days, and people sometimes impulse buy to make themselves look cultured.
ReadingTheRunes
Proud to be pagan
Honestly that sums up what living in 2018 is like lol. Maybe that's why art is now like this.
Idea
The Pun Tyrant
If I may add my two cents, I'd say it's because "quality" as a notion has lost it's meaning with the advent of ideas like relativism. The idea that reality (the particular aspect of it to which this property is being assigned depends on the type of relativism in question) is relative to our perception of it. The concept that art isn't good or better because of anything in it, but because I or a bunch of people like it more. If I pick up a Pollock painting I see an empty canvas on which a bucket of paint was accidentally kicked. I don't doubt that many of these artists put a lot of hard work into their craft. But I propose this: Go to deviantArt. Regardless of what you think of the place, it's home to some pretty talented people and some really hardworking people. People putting their heart and souls into their art, but waht seemingly makes their art "worth trash" and an empty canvas in a museum worth millions is the subject matter of one group being weird and the other "expressive" and the first group takes the care to try to make their art look nice whereas the second can rely on symbolism that may or not be there.
I remember at one point a friend of my friend's sent him a picture he made where he broke down and analyzed the shape of a dorito with the same flair given to some of these paintings. "The triangular crusty shape represents the holy trinity and the trials of life..." to briefly quote it. You can ascribe meaning to anything after it's already done.
Overall, while there are, on occasion, some pretty interesting pieces and genuily intringuing artworks in the group, most modern art is based on ideas I just can't get behind, and as such it fails to provide me any satisfaction if I can even consider it art.
I remember at one point a friend of my friend's sent him a picture he made where he broke down and analyzed the shape of a dorito with the same flair given to some of these paintings. "The triangular crusty shape represents the holy trinity and the trials of life..." to briefly quote it. You can ascribe meaning to anything after it's already done.
Overall, while there are, on occasion, some pretty interesting pieces and genuily intringuing artworks in the group, most modern art is based on ideas I just can't get behind, and as such it fails to provide me any satisfaction if I can even consider it art.
smallnscrappy
Oddly enough
Oh gosh...I love Rothko. Don't diss Rothko.
*pulls up a chair* So let me simplify things. As an Art Major, I could easily go on a very long winded explanation as to why art 'today' really sucks. However I will not. Art today DOES and also DOES NOT suck. Modern art and many of the more pretentious genres suck. A lot of the stuff you find in museums, or in stores is terrible. They suck SOOOO bad. Live performance artists, hell even installation artists are making galleries and shows an absolute drag for the rest of us. We just don't get their loft brand of intellectual creativity and social commentary. Also...craft stores have made everyone an artist. My mother in law picked up a cheap canvas and some brushes, whipped out an imitation Pollock painting and sold it for $400 at the local coffee shop. I went to school for illustration and graphic design. I shelled out thousands and was trained to draw by professionals. It is MADDENING. Guess what...it is all over Etsy.
On the flip side...I'd encourage you to go to to INSTAGRAM of all places and check out some of the young professionals working online. JM Dragunas, Michael Reedy (one of my professors, he is amazing) J.A.W Cooper, Richey Beckett, Scott M. Fischer, Rebecca Leveille Guay, all of these people are professional artists working hard to ply their trade online. The platform for art has changed, so has the audience! Art is not defined by museums any more. Art is always changing. I wouldn't want you to be discouraged by the crazy stuff being sold at eyes wide shut parties. Pick up a Juxtapose magazine and see what is really happening!
*pulls up a chair* So let me simplify things. As an Art Major, I could easily go on a very long winded explanation as to why art 'today' really sucks. However I will not. Art today DOES and also DOES NOT suck. Modern art and many of the more pretentious genres suck. A lot of the stuff you find in museums, or in stores is terrible. They suck SOOOO bad. Live performance artists, hell even installation artists are making galleries and shows an absolute drag for the rest of us. We just don't get their loft brand of intellectual creativity and social commentary. Also...craft stores have made everyone an artist. My mother in law picked up a cheap canvas and some brushes, whipped out an imitation Pollock painting and sold it for $400 at the local coffee shop. I went to school for illustration and graphic design. I shelled out thousands and was trained to draw by professionals. It is MADDENING. Guess what...it is all over Etsy.
On the flip side...I'd encourage you to go to to INSTAGRAM of all places and check out some of the young professionals working online. JM Dragunas, Michael Reedy (one of my professors, he is amazing) J.A.W Cooper, Richey Beckett, Scott M. Fischer, Rebecca Leveille Guay, all of these people are professional artists working hard to ply their trade online. The platform for art has changed, so has the audience! Art is not defined by museums any more. Art is always changing. I wouldn't want you to be discouraged by the crazy stuff being sold at eyes wide shut parties. Pick up a Juxtapose magazine and see what is really happening!
Midnightchan123
the Melon Lord!
I'm a janitor in a contemporary museum, in may you want to know what was featured? Cardboard, this cardboard stuff was something anyone could replicate, the artist didnt make their own cardboard, it wasnt recycled, it was just normal brown cardboard layered ontop of each other and probably hotglued, they werent intricate and anyone with a straight cut could do it, contemporary art is actually kinda meaningless and was made to be meaningless, the point is that anyone can do it so that museum directors can take someone off the street, give them a hotdog with everything and squish it all onto a canvas and get rich off of it. It's why anything with true meaning isint featured at an art gallary unless the artist owns it art gallaries for most contemporary art is there to make the owners money
smallnscrappy
Oddly enough
I would love, but also hate your job. I have so many questions for you. I could just sit and listen to you talk about your job/work place for hours.
Dr. Manhattan
New Member
The romanticizing of minimalistic approach.
kevintheradioguy
Salt
Fist things first, let's not forget that at some point Picasso and Modigliani were creating "modern art".
Secondly, I have asked this thing myself, and looked for an answer dor a long time, for an interview, and I think I got it, referencing the works of Van Gogh and the tendencies of modern abstract artists.
I think that nowadays, in the world of post-post modernism, all the techniques have been explored, and themes dwelled upon. And people are loking for a new way of expression. So, nowadays, instead of, say, painting a raging woman, artists look to convey rage itself, to draw raw emotion, feeling, and not a person or an object to represent this feeling. It's like they try to show what would a feeling look like if it had form, and feelings themselves are chaotic and formless, and when an artist lets this feeling to get to him, amd guide his hand, this is what he creates: chaotic and formless thing, but guided by emotion only. Not technique that has been eplord by hundreds and thousands of other people, but just emotion. They try to draw their might in simplicity, so you look at the chaotic red angles and understand "this is rage", or on elongated turquoise lines and see sorrow.
PS
Secondly, I have asked this thing myself, and looked for an answer dor a long time, for an interview, and I think I got it, referencing the works of Van Gogh and the tendencies of modern abstract artists.
I think that nowadays, in the world of post-post modernism, all the techniques have been explored, and themes dwelled upon. And people are loking for a new way of expression. So, nowadays, instead of, say, painting a raging woman, artists look to convey rage itself, to draw raw emotion, feeling, and not a person or an object to represent this feeling. It's like they try to show what would a feeling look like if it had form, and feelings themselves are chaotic and formless, and when an artist lets this feeling to get to him, amd guide his hand, this is what he creates: chaotic and formless thing, but guided by emotion only. Not technique that has been eplord by hundreds and thousands of other people, but just emotion. They try to draw their might in simplicity, so you look at the chaotic red angles and understand "this is rage", or on elongated turquoise lines and see sorrow.
PS
Um... actually... I do think they're ugly. And while on that note, "no person in their right mind would" sounds like "you MUST find it beautiful, because we were taught to", as if people cannot have brains of their own and choose what they like or what they do not. I can see, for example, how some might not like the works of Modigliani, but I love them nonetheless.
Last edited:
