Originally posted by Bosse de NageDepends on what we want to call art, I'd say. If we are wanting art to be transcendent, or at least touching that which is transcendent, then said expression ought to concur with the same.
Palynka asked this earlier, I think (still no answer yet).
Some might argue that the message of modern expression is doing that very same thing, in that the producers of the modern expression are touching on the futility of today's moral landscape.
Although futility is not a desired thought/emotion, most people at least have a sense of the same, and those opposed to modern expression likely do not appreciate the affinity they share with these espressions Their reactions say more about their state of mind, than perhaps they wished to reveal.
Sorry, will reread the thread.
For me though art isn't about the object, it's about
the viewers state of mind. It's the way a person looks
at an image or object with an open mind.
If modern art can encourage that then it's already
justified itself. But what happens when a person looks
at an object that isn't man-made with this viewpoint,
can it then still be considered art?
Originally posted by catfoodtimI'm not so sure, I think that some modern art is very unique and origional, but I think that most others look like a blob on a page.
modern art gets a bad press. it is labelled everything from being pretentious posturing to sensation seeking.
i disagree. modern art reflects the culture and society that it emerges from. it challenges the contemporary art world and society until it is appropriated by the cultural elite and then becomes mainstream. then new artists emerge.
for ...[text shortened]... it is you don't like about modern art? what do you think is better with traditional art works?