modern art sucks (EPQ)

Art has existed for tens of thousands of years, going as far back as cave paintings. Of course, over the course of history it has been through countless different eras; classical, gothic, baroque, to name a few. They each in turn had been shaped by the society of the time, reflecting its morals and values, as well as embracing discoveries of techniques and materials for improvement - thus art has evolved. But can modern art be really seen as an improvement? It seems to me that all the skill and technique that was used to create the masterpieces of the past is absent from what are considered the ‘masterpieces’ of today. Classical-style and baroque paintings, sculptures and architecture (for example) used to be astonishing. They were supremely awe-inducing and jaw-dropping due to the skill and talent of the artist who made them, managing to give life to mere physical material. In contrast, modern art looks laughable. Now, an artist cuts a hole in a canvas and it is framed and hung on a gallery wall. It is considered ‘art’ just because it has a ‘meaning’ which is utterly rubbish. This ‘symbolic’ gash which will have taken less than 10 seconds to cut is categorised the same as works like the Ecstasy of St Teresa which will have taken hours and hours and hours to make. How can you compare the two??? Doesn’t it seem like art is no longer moving forwards, but instead backwards? There are of course some artists today who possess the same astonishing talent of those of the past, but they are not famous or rich like some abstract expressionists are. Most of the time I see phenomenal art from creators on social media, not in galleries, but because their names are not well-known, their art does not have the ridiculous value of pieces like those of Jackson Pollock. There are also artists from the previous eras who were not very good due to their lack of understanding of proportion or perspective or whatnot, like the Egyptians. This goes to say that I am talking about what is apparent of most of the work of an era, not all of it.

The above is what I am going to explore in my EPQ.

I would be interested to hear any counter arguments to this point, or if you somewhat agree perhaps you have criticism on how to adjust it incase there are any parts that should be changed to make it a stronger argument

Do you think art isn’t about beauty, but instead about expression? That it is subjective?

Update: I’m not doing this for my EPQ anymore 💀 I will be discussing the portrayal of women in greek mythological art. I will still keep the thread up though

(edited 16:07)

Reply 1

letiziac

Original post by Songbird19

What a great topic!! I totally agree with you. The Tate modern makes me role my eyes. Last time I went there was a pile of nails on the floor representing some war thing and a bricked in doorway representing feminist repression or such like. Can we just call any everyday object art if we decide it ‘represents’ something else 🙄?
There’s a kinda mini documentary on nepo babies presented by spice girls Mel B’s daughter and in it she tongue-in-cheek uses it to pretend she’s an artist and towards the end, some real (old, upper class, elite-type) art critics/dealers make some unbelievable comments about her ‘art’ that made me laugh out loud. It’s on BBC iplayer. I totally recommend it just for their serious and declarative statements about her ‘pieces/style’ (she says herself she has no skill and threw the paintings together in like an hour) So ridiculous 😂

REAL! Thank you so much will check it out x

Reply 2

insidedesigner

Something i'll always remember is something a teacher told me before we went into a modern art gallery. He said "it's ok to not like everything in here. In fact you might hate some of it, that's fine."

It's quite possible you don't 'get' lots of modern art, but that doesn't make you stupid. We all have different tastes. But that doesn't mean it's all rubbish. If you keep going to galleries, one day you'll see something that makes you stop dead in your tracks and think 'wow'. It might be photography, or sculpture, or video, or a painting - just keep looking.

Reply 3

studious1234

Original post by letiziac

Art has existed for tens of thousands of years, going as far back as cave paintings. Of course, over the course of history it has been through countless different eras; classical, gothic, baroque, to name a few. They each in turn had been shaped by the society of the time, reflecting its morals and values, as well as embracing discoveries of techniques and materials for improvement - thus art has evolved. But can modern art be really seen as an improvement? It seems to me that all the skill and technique that was used to create the masterpieces of the past is absent from what are considered the ‘masterpieces’ of today. Classical-style and baroque paintings, sculptures and architecture (for example) used to be astonishing. They were supremely awe-inducing and jaw-dropping due to the skill and talent of the artist who made them, managing to give life to mere physical material. In contrast, modern art looks laughable. Now, an artist cuts a hole in a canvas and it is framed and hung on a gallery wall. It is considered ‘art’ just because it has a ‘meaning’ which is utterly rubbish. This ‘symbolic’ gash which will have taken less than 10 seconds to cut is categorised the same as works like the Ecstasy of St Teresa which will have taken hours and hours and hours to make. How can you compare the two??? Doesn’t it seem like art is no longer moving forwards, but instead backwards? There are of course some artists today who possess the same astonishing talent of those of the past, but they are not famous or rich like some abstract expressionists are. Most of the time I see phenomenal art from creators on social media, not in galleries, but because their names are not well-known, their art does not have the ridiculous value of pieces like those of Jackson Pollock. There are also artists from the previous eras who were not very good due to their lack of understanding of proportion or perspective or whatnot, like the Egyptians. This goes to say that I am talking about what is apparent of most of the work of an era, not all of it.
The above is what I am going to explore in my EPQ.
I would be interested to hear any counter arguments to this point, or if you somewhat agree perhaps you have criticism on how to adjust it incase there are any parts that should be changed to make it a stronger argument
Do you think art isn’t about beauty, but instead about expression? That it is subjective?
Let me know

Art is a ln curve of memories in my opinion. But our mind is not that simple. We forget and forgive. Mostly it's about keeping our friends and families close, and sometime looking back at our memories in abstraction.

Reply 4

aspalax

I think modern art is often about deliberacy. Even if the act of making this thing didn't take long, it has been done this way, with these tools, at this time, exhibited or displayed in this way - for this particular reason. I think that's often overshadowed. In much the same way as photography. Taking the picture might not take long but it's been set up and framed and prepared in a certain way, right?

People often complain that modern artists' work is only popular because of their prior reputation as well - but that's absolutely true of every artist ever. Lots of less polished work of some of the great painters would never have got the notoriety it has if it weren't for the name attached.