Modern Art: Fact or Fiction?

Is Art become obsolete in our culture? Has it been mass marketed and critiqued into safe little corners? Has it been squelched into submission under the impressive weight of what has Gone Before? How can Art escape the suffocation of a culture that puts protesters into "free-speech" zones, and give the label of highest artist to he or she who makes the most money? As we move more and more into a techonological age musicians and film actors lose their artistic cred but writers and visual artists are on the verge of being revolutionary in and of themselves.
America today seems so obsessed with the disposable--from relationships to cleaning wipes--and Art is no exception. We worship only that which is flashy, beautiful, shocking and young so the Britney Spears and Eminem's sell the most records and are hailed as wonders of the universe. Celebrities become the new royalty, more than that, the new deity, and being acknowledged is more important that being well reviewed. Rather than live our own lives we are content to sit on the couch and in the movie theatre, existing vicariously in the glamorous, and highly fake, lives flashing on the screen. That which is difficult, that which makes us think, in a word, Art, is no longer valued unless it can be commodified thus losing at least some of what it makes it Art in the first place--trading steel for gold.
There is, of course, still Art to be had, and not just in coffee shops where moody, caffeine addled youth gather to muse bitterly over steaming cups. There are enough people out there who still desire true Art, who are willing to pay for it, that some of it slips through the cracks and gets published, produced, displayed, allowed. But those numbers of people are dwindling, an endangered species, those who want to feel and think, those who don't want to be numbed into submission. It is easier, of course, to be numb, to watch the pretty, flashing lights. But the cost is our soul, not to mention damage to our psyche's and our self respect. How many of us devalue our bodies because they don't look like Brad Pitt's or Jennifer Aniston's? How many of us toss aside our relationships when they get difficult instead of, like in the movies, maintaining that end of film kiss feel forever? How many of us say we are not 'writers' because we are not Stephen King's? How many of us are willing to forego that which is difficult and worthwhile in favour of that which is entertaining and easy?
We live in a society with many flaws and many beauty's. We all know this, and are at turns horrified by it and grateful for it. But allowing the solving of the murder mystery on TV to sate us from worrying about the murder down the street is death to passion and heart. Allowing the lie of media to pass for Art will be what creates A Brave New World, 1984.
"I thought America was a Free Speech Zone." Said by a protester who was being hauled away by the police for stepping off the curb, and out of bounds, of where protest was "allowed."
395 views 5 replies
Reply #1 Top
I liked your article and innocence. Since the artist left his cave drawings behind, art has been institutionalized, which means that only those in certain circles decide on what's art and then pass it down to the masses. Therefore, navels, and elephant dung are in; serious art is out for commoners.
Reply #2 Top
In my humble opinion, it would seem like people are pushed towards the mass-produced, flashy gems of creation nowadays. Everyone wants to be cool by having their "arty" Ansel Adams poster on their wall, or they pretend like they have a good taste in art by having Van Gogh's Starry Night displayed. People do the same with music... they want to be listening to Britney Spears, because she's the one that happens to be popular at the moment, getting the most radio play. Maybe going for something commonplace is a way to fit in. Or maybe I'm just the one with odd tastes here. I tend to go for more of the alternative music, a good mix of hollywood and indie films, and my taste in photography lies in anything from the works of Sabastiao Salgado to Mathew Brady to a bunch of photographers on the internet / in local shops. Maybe I just put more effort into building up my tastes than I should. But, it would seem that the masses go for the status quo out there. Isn't it grand?

Nice posting.
Reply #3 Top

How many Warhol screenprints of Brittney would he have sold????????


Thoughtful post, all is not lost though, just very difficult to find.......

Reply #4 Top
Nonsense. Nothing has changed. The beauty and sophistication, of Venice, for instance, is hindsight. Venice was the Las Vegas of its day (see Robert Venturi, "Learning from Las Vegas"). It was disposable, glitzy, meant for show. Warhol would have loved it, like he loved Vegas and mass-produced cookie jars. Art is an expression of its time, and once in a cliched blue moon, it transcends its time and becomes a masterwork. The Winged Victory of Samothrace is no more nor less important than Rembrandt, Degas, Warhol or even the glitzy and disposable works of Jenny Holzer or Mark Ryden. And for me in a "paint off" between Mark Ryden and Rembrandt, Ryden wins hands down. Art by definition makes a person happysadangrydisgustedsickfearfulsensualetc all at once. Do we still have that? I was angry at a painting just yesterday. And, by the way, are you sure that the fame, for instance, created by Brittany Spear's navel is unique to our times? Sex sells. Always did. Free speech exists at a price. Always did. Art is commercial. Always was. Your points are naive. Read a couple books.
Reply #5 Top
I think people will always be supportive of what touches them. I don't think people listen to anything just because it is popular. Something gets popular because a lot of people like it. I totally agree that art is an expression of the time period. Just because something is created with new technology like computers, it isn't any less an art form.

Fads come and go but there will always be art.