most of the man made art shown here does very little for me. i only understand art that looks like a photo.
Jon, I use to feel similarly about art. If it didn't represent something accurately, I didn't like it. One of the biggest problems with modern art, and what I came to appreciate about it, is it is art for the artist. Before Gustav Courbet, artists created for the pleasure of their patrons. That means they had to appeal to an audience outside the art community. It had to have Universal appeal and be understandable by anyone. Courbet painted subjects not sought after by high society patrons.
Instead, he painted to make social commentary for the working classes
. He still painted realistically, but it was of subjects of his choosing that often showed people at work.
When the Impressionists like Monet came along, artists began playing with technique, with nature of art instead of the subjects of art
.
After that, modern art became about what art can say and what art can do and what "Art" is, instead of the subject matter. I love seeing art that explores. Sometimes, it doesn't matter if I can understand the piece as long as I can understand the artist was trying to learn and explore something new
. If I think the artist is just trying to be "cutting edge" for the sake of being "cutting edge"
, I'm put off.
It's like watching a ballet being produced instead of the finished routine. I enjoy the look behind the scenes, but if that's where it stops, it has no cohesion of purpose and I'm unimpressed.
It's not the art I create, but I'm glad someone is making it.
-Will (Dragonfly)
