Skip to content

Modern Art, Really?

I was in the bathroom, and ran into a former classmate you took an two art history classes with me. We came upon the topic if whether taking a bunch of coke cans, or garbarge from the streets to create a meaningful piece should be considered a piece of art and worth thousands of dollars. I don’t agree. I think that art world today has pushed the line to much with modern and abstract art. Gathering garbarge to create art, or minimalism art is in a way considered abstract, but I don’t feel that it is art. Maybe my opinion on art is something that should be creative in it’s meaning, while beautiful or unique to the eye. When I see a piece of minimalism art, or the art piece created by an artist using light bulbs, I just don’t view it as art. I understand the idea of the light bulbs will go out, emphasizes the meaning of life, however, paying for a piece of art that will diminish with time is just not something I find reasonable. Even I can gather a bunch of garbage of the streets,and make it into something I find meaningful. However, it doesn’t mean I’ve created a piece of art that everyone will understand, or even have create art. I believe in abstract art, but I feel abstract should have a limit as to how far it should distance itself from traditional methods.My classmate who is a fine arts major, seems to thinkk the same. I’m wondering if anyone else agrees with me?


  1. Anna DSilva wrote:

    I’m a big fan of abstract art. I have never been very good with realistic art so I tend to lean towards abstract or modern art. I think that one of the greatest things about art is that it is open to interpretation. That is what makes art so dynamic. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. A piece of art could be worth thousands to one person or could be trash to another. I do know what you mean though. When you see a canvas painted completely blue and that’s it, its like…really? Is that art? But to someone, that IS art and they are trying to communicate a message with it.

    Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
  2. Trying to define what is art is an impossible task. Some say “It’s like porn, you know it when you see it.” With difficult art (like a pile of trash) I find it easier to skip past the “Is it art” question and look at what type of work it may be, like conceptual, abstract, minimalist, etc… While I dislike categorizing art, it is useful to critique it. In other words it gives you a framework to tell if it’s good garbage or bad.

    Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 7:01 pm | Permalink
  3. Rebecca Coleman wrote:

    Art has always pushed the limits; otherwise we would still be drawing squiggles in the dirt with a stick. I’m not quite sure what “traditional methods” you write about but, modern art refers to artistic works produced during the period roughly from the 1860s through the 1970s. It’s not so much what the subject is but when and in what context the piece was created. For example Malevich’s Black Square, Malevich described his aesthetic theory, known as Suprematism, as “the supremacy of pure feeling or perception in the pictorial arts.” Ok so a monkey can paint a black square, but Malevich painted this in 1913, he moved art past the visual imagery of your grandmothers’ portrait into pure form, the feelings that this contrast evoked was the “essence of art” in his words.
    A few years ago a friend of mine said “I think that we have developed computers as far as we can…” I almost fell off of my bar stool, technology is always changing, improving, getting smaller, there is no way one could say that it has advanced as far is its going to. Likewise art will always evolve, push the boundaries, and changing its definition. You are missing the point if you are looking to define art with a monetary amount.

    Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 10:39 pm | Permalink