Art???
Since I haven't been very present here recently, I shall strive to put into words those thoughts foremost in my mind--I detest modern art! Now I know why I was so hesitant to take Art Appreciation. I was beginning to be quite immersed in it and couldn't think why I thought it would be such a dreadful class. In fact, I was ready to go tour Europe all over again. Then came impressionism, and I started getting that niggling feeling of dread. Now we're into full-blown modern art, and it just makes my system revolt.
I could just rant and rave at the utter waste of time and the assault of the senses. However, I shall confine it to the most outrageous of them all--the work of Marcel Duchamp. The first one we looked at made me just want to laugh hysterically, for he only took a urinal, placed it on its back, signed it as Mr. Mutt, and called it Fountain. Honestly! And how does he defend it as art? He says this, "Whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He chose. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under a new title and point of view ...[creating] a new thought for that object." When the "morality" of such an object was questioned he responded, "It is a fixture that you see every day in plumbers' show windows... The only works of art America has given [us] are her plumbing and her bridges."
While he has many more ridiculous works including drawing a beard and mustache on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, his Bride stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even also known as Large Glass leaves me totally bamboozled. It truly doesn't look like anything. However, what it represents is too crass for my puritanical sensibilities to discuss. So, if your curiosity must be satisfied, I shall leave it to you to research it yourself.
Our professor tells us that we don't have to like anything we see, we only need to understand the larger context of what the artist is saying. And what does all this modern art say to me? More the fool are they who actually convince themselves that such art is art just because somebody says it is. But there you go, that's just what it says to me. Maybe it says something different to you.
So now that I've poured out my most burning thoughts and feelings of the moment, on to the more mundane. I have one week of this semester left. I shall be greatly relieved not to have two classes next semester. It's just a bit much to prepare for 2 tests per week while working a 40 hour week. Since it's Friday, and I have Saturday and Sunday ahead of me to study, I have forgone my 2 hour study period in favor of procrastination.
I could just rant and rave at the utter waste of time and the assault of the senses. However, I shall confine it to the most outrageous of them all--the work of Marcel Duchamp. The first one we looked at made me just want to laugh hysterically, for he only took a urinal, placed it on its back, signed it as Mr. Mutt, and called it Fountain. Honestly! And how does he defend it as art? He says this, "Whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He chose. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under a new title and point of view ...[creating] a new thought for that object." When the "morality" of such an object was questioned he responded, "It is a fixture that you see every day in plumbers' show windows... The only works of art America has given [us] are her plumbing and her bridges."
While he has many more ridiculous works including drawing a beard and mustache on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, his Bride stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even also known as Large Glass leaves me totally bamboozled. It truly doesn't look like anything. However, what it represents is too crass for my puritanical sensibilities to discuss. So, if your curiosity must be satisfied, I shall leave it to you to research it yourself.
Our professor tells us that we don't have to like anything we see, we only need to understand the larger context of what the artist is saying. And what does all this modern art say to me? More the fool are they who actually convince themselves that such art is art just because somebody says it is. But there you go, that's just what it says to me. Maybe it says something different to you.
So now that I've poured out my most burning thoughts and feelings of the moment, on to the more mundane. I have one week of this semester left. I shall be greatly relieved not to have two classes next semester. It's just a bit much to prepare for 2 tests per week while working a 40 hour week. Since it's Friday, and I have Saturday and Sunday ahead of me to study, I have forgone my 2 hour study period in favor of procrastination.
posted by Sara | 8:12 PM
4 Comments:
I believe art will be determined by what stands the test of time. Everything we see in history books has been around forever, but for every DaVinci, Monet, or Picasso I'm sure there were countless other artists of those eras that faded into obscurity just like much of the modern "art" that we find distasteful probably will. I'd be surprised if some of the modern paintings you saw recently will make it into an art history book 50 years from now.
I'm sure you're probably right. Modern art sort of reminds me of the story of the emperor with no clothes. People are afraid of being politically incorrect by pointing out the total nonsense of the "art" that is somebody's expression of some emotion or symbolism of some obscurity.
I'm came up with some pretty good art in church yesterday. I called it "Navajo in Hiding." Would you like to see it?
Bring it on. It can't be any worse than Duchamp's Fountain.
Post a Comment
<< Home