MODERN ART: Not just for six-year-olds

For a lot of people-including myself, until recently-"modern art" is a dirty word. It conjures up images of a single brushstroke on a canvas or a painting that's all one color. Sure, these might be innovative, breaking with artistic tradition, but what is a person unschooled in art history supposed to make of them? We've all heard the standard response: "My six-year-old could do that."

0 comments

MODERN ART: Not just for six-year-olds

POSTED: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 1:00 PM

Filed Under: Arts

Rothko's Magenta Black Green on Orange

For a lot of people—including myself, until recently—“modern art” is a dirty word. It conjures up images of a single brushstroke on a canvas or a painting that’s all one color. Sure, these might be innovative, breaking with artistic tradition, but what is a person unschooled in art history supposed to make of them? We’ve all heard the standard response: “My six-year-old could do that.”

I can understand this viewpoint. Some art is weird for the sake of being weird, and I can’t say I’m particularly moved by the paintings of, say, Mark Rothko. But lately, when I hear people say they don’t like modern art, I just get confused. What I’ve learned from exploring the Philly art scene is that there’s simply no such thing as “modern art.” That’s because of its incredible diversity: Working for City Paper, I’ve seen pieces ranging from realistic paintings to photography horses built from lightbulbs. The only thing uniting these works is the fact that they were created recently. You can’t lump a Rothko painting together with a remote-controlled system of gears—but both would be considered modern art.

It’s completely fair to say that you dislike, for example, impressionism. It’s a recognizable style: There are identifiable similarities between, say, Monet and Pissarro, even to my untrained eye. Many of their subjects are outdoors; they mix colors for effect; the brushstrokes often give their paintings a kind of speckled appearance. On an even more basic level, they both use paint. If you don’t like Monet, it’s entirely possible you won’t like Pissarro.

The same cannot be said, however, of any pair of contemporary artists. Just because you don’t like a book artist doesn’t mean you won’t like a mobile designer. They’re completely different, but the works of both artists are found in contemporary art museums. Unlike impressionism, modern art isn’t a genre or style—it’s just a reference to when a piece was created. I’m ashamed I ever wrote it off.

Posted by Matt Cantor @ 1:00 PM Permalink | Post a comment

0 comments

Comments (0)

PHILLY LOVE NOTES: An ode to Spruce Street
Q&A with SHARI SOLANIS: "The goal isn't pornography"
ICE CUBE: In Memoriam: Joe Tartaglia
CONCERT REVIEW & PHOTOS: James Blake @ TLA 5/11
What we're trying to do this weekend
SEXY TIME Q&A: I've never had an orgasm during sex with a man — and I'm 30!
Coming soon to Philly: Two cockamamie movie promotion schemes
Q&A with Tony Goldwyn: "Life is gray, and relationships are, too"
CONCERT REVIEW: Primus (3D & quadraphonic sound) @ The Tower 10/17
ICEPACK ILLUSTRATED: The Archbishop meets the Geator, the Mayor goes suit shopping, Le Bec Fin fin.

About this blog

Featuring everything from event roundups to concert reviews and sex talk, City Paper's Critical Mass is a space for off-the-wall coverage of Philly's A&E scene.

Follow Critical Mass editors Patrick Rapa and Emily Guendelsberger on Twitter:

@mission2denmark | @emilygee

Search this blog:

Topics:

Blog archives:

May
April
March

February
January

Past Archives: