Ever since Professor Smaldone’s visit to the Dia Beacon (and the entertainingly heated discussion about modern art that ensued), I have been noticing modern art all around me. From the large concrete balls outside of the Klapper building to the Jackson Pollock copy that hangs in my basement, the debate of modern art’s expertise and value is an ongoing one in my head. In class, many of us were confused as to why some things, such as large sheets of metal, are considered art. To quote Professor Smaldone, Jackson Pollock’s canvases may resemble “the drop cloth of a busy painter!” Yet these paintings are worth millions of dollars. So what does it take to get your artwork displayed in the MOMA? Before I exploited my six-year-old sister’s artistic skills to become a teenage millionaire, I decided to research America’s response to the extensive collections of abstract sculptures and non-pictorial collections around us. While my research is still in progress, I was highly amused by the condemnatory video I happened upon. CBS’s Andy Rooney explicitly captures the opinion that many of us hold about modern “art.” Irritated by the growing number of unsophisticated sculptures and statues springing up around American cities, he exclaims, “the people looking were better looking than what they were looking at.” See for yourself…
The Arts in NYC, Professor Smaldone, Fall 2011
Queens College
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t think that modern art should be considered art, because, for the most part, it is not pleasing to look or and does not give me anything to think about. In short, it is ugly and pointless, and I don’t understand the appeal. The only function I can think of is that the spheres outside Klapper are quite comfortable for sitting in.
I think I agree with you. Two questions though:
1. Is art supposed to be an aesthetic experience?
2. Is art supposed to be functional?
If the answers to those questions are both yes, then modern art is most definitely ridiculous. If the answers are both no, then we have right there an entirely different perspective.
But at the end of the day, are those Klapper spheres actually art? Doubtful.
Best.
Post.
Ever.
Is it more important for Art to “function” or to make us think?
but I love Andy Rooney…
I have to disagree with Ilanna’s comment. All modern art isn’t ugly and pointless- modern art doesn’t immediately get the brand of “ugly” – a perfectly realistic picture of a flower can be considered “modern” simply for the time period it was created in. Andy Warhol, for instance, while he was famous for his Campbell’s soup can art and multicolored portraits, did perfectly “pretty” looking pictures of flowers, as seen here: http://www.google.com/search?pq=modern+art&hl=en&cp=21&gs_id=2a&xhr=t&q=andy+warhol+modern+art&qe=YW5keSB3YXJob2wgbW9kZXJuIGFy&qesig=nWjg3jBWg0f1QxoS39ktCg&pkc=AFgZ2tkbQY5Z_NxFjBzfw9j4sZAIX4jMS1t3omLzHTEZTYu5Hqhd4bpmTyF0iCUd51FSi6qCiCLUmDrRJrM4FMWE-rPBwG_0Vw&gbv=2&authuser=0&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1110&bih=626&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=Q6jvTvqsGsXg0QHs9rWsCQ#um=1&hl=en&gbv=2&authuser=0&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=andy+warhol+flowers&pbx=1&oq=andy+warhol+flowers&aq=f&aqi=g9g-m1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2992l4102l0l4212l8l6l0l0l0l0l170l601l4.2l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=537433a41d9c5b2e&biw=1110&bih=626
I believe that anything that is intended to make a statement can be considered art. Tracing a picture of a Disney princess just to practice your tracing skills, for example, wouldn’t be art because you aren’t intentionally making a statement. Like people, though, art takes many different forms. There are ugly people, deformed people, stunningly gorgeous people; people with all different quirks, but if society deems them “ugly”, are they no longer considered human? Of course not. It is my humble opinion that the same applies to art.