Fine Art vs. Modern Art
Published on May 17, 2005
By
Ionolast
In
Is it only the passage of enough time that turns a questionable work into something to be respected? Why do a lot of people only consider an artist to be a genius after he or she is dead? While the artist was alive, he was a hack. After his death, he was a genius.
Did you see the movie Clueless? "She's like a Monet. She looks good from a distance, but up close she's a big old mess."
Or an episode of Designing Women titled "This is Art?" A pay phone, a pile of garbage. These are not art. Maybe in the future, a pay phone could rightly be displayed in a museum, but there is nothing artistic about it.
"Art, including music, represents the direct communication of human emotions, without the assistance of explanatory comments in the nature of writing or other artifacts. Similar to the awe we feel when we are face to face with the beauty of nature, we can be moved through a whole array of powerful emotions when we listen to a Beethoven symphony. On the other hand, paint poured at random on a clean canvas might, at best, communicate the chaos, avarice or contempt in the mind of such an "artist". How can emotions be communicated if we cannot even discern which side of the painting is up? It requires years of training and long periods of time to produce any object of value. Worthless junk can be produced by anyone, overnight."
A painting such as the one described above hangs in a gallery and a lot of people gather around it and discuss what it means to them and what the artist is saying. I think he's saying, "Look at you gullible idiots. I'm going to make a fortune off your stupidity."
As P.T. Barnum supposedly said, "There's a sucker born every minute."