Isn’t the idea that modern art is “uniform” in any way just ridiculous?
In the early 20th century we had a huge mix of different ideas. The idea that it’s all just a big swath of ‘generic modern art’ is just silly. I’m better at music in terms of knowledge, but I find it odd to immediately denounce Stravinsky’s works simply because it’s ‘modern.’
I mean I don’t denounce John Cage because it’s ‘modern.’ I denounce it because it doesn’t sound and makes no aural sense and things like that.
I believe he was using ‘modern art’ in a nontechnical sense, but my point doesn’t really change. Just replace John Cage with a Total Serialist composer.
I mean modern art (that is, early 20th century art) was the time period where we had an explosion of different ideas in all the different artforms. Dismissing them as ‘uniform’ in any way is crazy. Many of Stravinsky’s works are perfectly accessible to non-music people. It’s not like Realist Artwork or Tonality just vanished or something. There is Modern Realism and Modern Tonality.
Edit: Besides, isn’t this aggression towards modern art a “curiosity stopper”?
I suspect the colloquial use of “modern art” in this thread is perhaps better described as some unholy conglomeration of abstract expressionism and minimalism. Think Pollock, Rothko, Mondrian and Malevich. (Yes, I know they seem quite distinct to you, but the common link for most people is “my five-year-old could do that.”)
And I can’t speak for others, obviously, but I actually quite like modern art. Sculpture and architecture more than paintings or music, though.
Isn’t the idea that modern art is “uniform” in any way just ridiculous?
In the early 20th century we had a huge mix of different ideas. The idea that it’s all just a big swath of ‘generic modern art’ is just silly. I’m better at music in terms of knowledge, but I find it odd to immediately denounce Stravinsky’s works simply because it’s ‘modern.’
I mean I don’t denounce John Cage because it’s ‘modern.’ I denounce it because it doesn’t sound and makes no aural sense and things like that.
Contemporary art != modern art.
I believe he was using ‘modern art’ in a nontechnical sense, but my point doesn’t really change. Just replace John Cage with a Total Serialist composer.
I mean modern art (that is, early 20th century art) was the time period where we had an explosion of different ideas in all the different artforms. Dismissing them as ‘uniform’ in any way is crazy. Many of Stravinsky’s works are perfectly accessible to non-music people. It’s not like Realist Artwork or Tonality just vanished or something. There is Modern Realism and Modern Tonality.
Edit: Besides, isn’t this aggression towards modern art a “curiosity stopper”?
I suspect the colloquial use of “modern art” in this thread is perhaps better described as some unholy conglomeration of abstract expressionism and minimalism. Think Pollock, Rothko, Mondrian and Malevich. (Yes, I know they seem quite distinct to you, but the common link for most people is “my five-year-old could do that.”)
And I can’t speak for others, obviously, but I actually quite like modern art. Sculpture and architecture more than paintings or music, though.