- Messages
- 7,998
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Early 19th Century?
and please use their services
Martin Parr, love him or hate him?
- Thread starter rjbell
- Start date
- Status
Early 19th Century?
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Hard to pin down exactly, but yeah... modern art has it's roots in early expressionist art... it really only started to be regarded as such around 1840-ish though. It came to prominence in or around 1860 as "proper" modern art though.
If, by not liking it, you actually do think it's genuinely crap, yes, because that's just your opinion. It's neither true, nor false. It may be crap to you... and that's how you think of it, but that doesn't really, actually mean it's demonstrably crap does it. If there was something fundamentally wrong with Jazz, I may argue that it's crap because it's flawed in some way, but if that was the case, I'm sure we'd have all dismissed jazz as not being a serious music art form by now. I just don't like it... but it's clearly not crap.
Last edited:
S
SimonH
Guest
No it wasn'tIt was rebelling against traditional art (and at the time, traditional art dismissed photography utterly as an art form) "Modern Art" stems from Fauvism, and has it's roots clearly in a rebellion against Pictorialism. "Modern Art" dates back to the early 19h century with Expressionism and Fauvism... it's not actually modern at all.
We could argue over dates, and thus modernism vs "modern art", but I'm sure I don't need to point out that the Pictorialism, which you say "Modern Art" is a rebellion against, is a movement in photography. So I'm not entirely sure what it is you're disagreeing with. :shrug:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm disagreeing because modern art was not in response to photography, as you stated. At the time, photography was just as ridiculed by academia and established art critics as expressionism (and later impressionism) was. There's no mention in any art movement manifesto of that time, or any historical record I'm aware of that mentions a rebellion against photography as it's raison d'etre.. or even mentions it at all. Back in 1840-60... photography wasn't taken seriously by anyone of note really. There were the few early pioneers we're probably all aware of, but it was something you used to have your likeness captured with for most people. It was completely dismissed by pretty much every artist as a cheap imitation of art.
The first art movement I'm aware of that expressively rails against photography, was in itself a photography art movement: The f64 club.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Keeps me out of trouble. Well.. except on here... where the opposite seems to be true
- Messages
- 16,798
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I meant this, as in what the thread is about. Not jazz.
So, someone deeming it 'crap' is wrong, and therefore stupid, by your weak logic? Doesn't that make you equally as wrong, for deeming them to be of lesser intelligence, based on a loose opinion?
I'm just wondering, you seem more heated and defensive and obstreperous than anyone on this one.
S
SimonH
Guest
Pookeyhead, I'm still baffled by your assertion that modern art was "not in response to photography", but was "clearly a rebellion against Pictorialism." 
Bottom line for me is that, unlike other works of art, Parr's work - and indeed almost all Modern Art - does not have any intrinsic value as a work of art. Its value is instead bestowed upon it and perpetuated by its peddlers, and their followers.
It is definitively the model upon which the Enron business model was built - an illusory value which is as fragile as an opinion is fickle.
Bottom line for me is that, unlike other works of art, Parr's work - and indeed almost all Modern Art - does not have any intrinsic value as a work of art. Its value is instead bestowed upon it and perpetuated by its peddlers, and their followers.
It is definitively the model upon which the Enron business model was built - an illusory value which is as fragile as an opinion is fickle.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Not really no, and I'm not insinuating that they not intelligent either. It's stupid behaviour, and shows ignorance, but intelligent people aren't necessarily immune to those traits.
Not liking something doesn't make it crap... it just means you don't like it. It really is simple. "It is crap" and I think it's crap" are two entirely different statements. You think Martin Parr's work is crap.. yeah, we get that. It doesn't mean it is though.
Pookeyhead, I'm still baffled by your assertion that modern art was "not in response to photography", but was "clearly a rebellion against Pictorialism."
Pictorialism isn't exclusively a photographic term.. it's been appropriated by photography, but it refers in the context I'm using it to the highly stylised, traditional art where formal values are praised above intent and meaning. Paintings that look pretty in other words.
I've put the key point in bold there for you.
You are wrong.
All modern art? You including Cezanne, Monet or Matisse in with that generalisation as well? They're part of the modern art movement after all, or is your prejudice selective towards the few artists you don't personally like?
So because you don't like it, modern art has no intrinsic value? Ok.. would you care to give an example of art that DOES have intrinsic value, and then explain the fundamental differences between it, and someone you deem to have no intrinsic value? Or are you suggesting that NO art has any intrinsic value?
Last edited:
I can see why you might consider modern art as a reaction to photography but really the reaction was to photography taking the place of painting and other older art forms in document making (because of its speed, apoarent accuracy and reproducibility).
So, modern art was a reaction but not a reaction AGAINST more a reaction BECAUSE OF.
So, modern art was a reaction but not a reaction AGAINST more a reaction BECAUSE OF.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It wasn't a reaction to photography at all.. full stop
- Messages
- 1,770
- Name
- john
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree. You need to view it as a body of work and understand what he is saying in the body of work. There is a huge amount of thought and reserch that goes into the body of work like the one mentioned in the first post.
They are far from snapshots!
john
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Er, you should probably read back David - as I'm not one of the ones that said it was crap at all
I never said it was just you.
Pookeyhead, I'm still baffled by your assertion that modern art was "not in response to photography", but was "clearly a rebellion against Pictorialism."
Bottom line for me is that, unlike other works of art, Parr's work - and indeed almost all Modern Art - does not have any intrinsic value as a work of art. Its value is instead bestowed upon it and perpetuated by its peddlers, and their followers.
It is definitively the model upon which the Enron business model was built - an illusory value which is as fragile as an opinion is fickle.
Crikey, just about spot on!
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't "modern art" start to gain popularity along with the consumption of Absinthe, and then enjoy a revival when more potent chemical concoctions were available?
People who think it is crap should read all of Pookeyhead's posts, you could learn a thing or two. You do notice on here whenever a successful photographer or past master comes up it seems de rigueur to rip them apart or act aloof. It feels like a photograhy forum for people who loathe photography sometimes.
- Messages
- 16,798
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Do you actually like it? And why? just out of interest.
I would say it's more a forum for the high horsies at times. People who happen to know of a few "past masters" because they googled them or read the odd book seem to think they are of a higher grade than those who haven't heard of half these people.
Personally, I never said it was crap, I actually said I was on the fence about it. I can see the point, sort of, but master? huh? brilliant? erm ... [note, I'm not actually quoting anyone here]
People shouldn't read anything into anyone's opinion, they should be free to make up their own minds without being scolded every time for it.
I would say it's more a forum for the high horsies at times. People who happen to know of a few "past masters" because they googled them or read the odd book seem to think they are of a higher grade than those who haven't heard of half these people.
Personally, I never said it was crap, I actually said I was on the fence about it. I can see the point, sort of, but master? huh? brilliant? erm ... [note, I'm not actually quoting anyone here]
People shouldn't read anything into anyone's opinion, they should be free to make up their own minds without being scolded every time for it.
simon ess
Just call me Roxanne.
- Messages
- 9,623
- Edit My Images
- No
Threads like this only continue because of misunderstanding.
The scolding is only aimed at people who take the view that, "I don't like it, therefore it's crap."
I actually think that some people deliberately misunderstand what is being posted.
The scolding is only aimed at people who take the view that, "I don't like it, therefore it's crap."
I actually think that some people deliberately misunderstand what is being posted.
S
SimonH
Guest
'Scuse me, but... what the hell???
You don't get to redefine terms and bend them to fit your argument! Pictorialism IS a movement in photography. The term IS specifically photographic. And as you correctly, and I suspect accidentally copy/pasted, Modern Art WAS a rebellion against it.
And if you really need it knocking out of the park, you can consider the Camera Obscura "cheat" used by the Dutch Masters in the 17th century as a photographic innovation in realism which spawned Modernism.
HELL no. I'm REALLY not!
I don't know who you think I am, but I'm NOT some wide-eyed idiot who wandered off the street this morning into this whole world of art, and will suck up whatever argument from authority you deem to preach that day. :nono:
Last edited by a moderator:
S
SimonH
Guest
I don't think ANYONE has actually said that it's crap. This seems like a deliberate quote-mine for the purposes of finding something to contest.
NOW you recognise the subjective nature of assessing modern art? But you can't recognise the subjectivity caveat in "I don't like it, therefore it's crap"?
Since you ask, I think modern art has suffered a marked, progressive degeneration in intrinsic artistic merit particularly over the last hundred years or so. I don't think the progression is entirely accidental; I think Warhol is a good example of someone who laid it bare in his Pop Art, which I think is in significant part a self-parody which his clients in large part didn't detect.
There's a lot to address here, and I'd prefer not to respond to glibly or in short. So instead I'll correct some apparent misunderstandings: a) I didn't say I don't like ANY modern art, or that none of it has intrinsic value; b) No, I'm not saying that NO art has any intrinsic value. Silly.
You seem incapable of recognising that an individual can have a good appreciation of art and STILL find nothing of worth in some (or, for some, even any) forms of modern art. IF it's true that people who don't "get" Parr are ignorant, then the ignorance is matched or even excelled by those opposite.
I know, what good has reading a book ever done anyone?
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
you seem to be forgetting that people have opinions and just because someone is famous/well known/well publicised does not make them good.
people like/dislike images for various reasons and you can't turn round and say that they are wrong which is the only problem.
people like/dislike images for various reasons and you can't turn round and say that they are wrong which is the only problem.
- Messages
- 10,534
- Name
- Suz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Crap is short hand for 'I do not like this'. Why worry whether someone thinks something you like is crap. It's no more significant than any other preference.
Conceptual art is for other black polo neck wearers. It is not for the masses who like things to look like what they're supposed to. It's not for those that like pretty or visually appealing. The art world claims that they are better because they understand some art work that the rest of the world thinks is a bad joke. Each side pities the other's naivety. It's how it is
Conceptual art is for other black polo neck wearers. It is not for the masses who like things to look like what they're supposed to. It's not for those that like pretty or visually appealing. The art world claims that they are better because they understand some art work that the rest of the world thinks is a bad joke. Each side pities the other's naivety. It's how it is
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So you are really saying;
- No conceptual art is pretty or visually appealing
- The masses don't understand any conceptual art and can only accept the norm
OP
- Messages
- 4,422
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Crap is short hand for 'I do not like this'. Why worry whether someone thinks something you like is crap. It's no more significant than any other preference.
Conceptual art is for other black polo neck wearers. It is not for the masses who like things to look like what they're supposed to. It's not for those that like pretty or visually appealing. The art world claims that they are better because they understand some art work that the rest of the world thinks is a bad joke. Each side pities the other's naivety. It's how it is
Parr is the exactly opposite to what you are saying. Things look exactly as they're supposed to and for that, his work gets critiqued as snapshots.
- Messages
- 10,534
- Name
- Suz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I suppose. I hadn't considered looking it that way.
Most of the conceptual art I'd been thinking about had been more of the unmade bed, piles of bricks scenario. It's different with photographic work somehow.
S
SimonH
Guest
Ahh, but with modern art, if you think it's crap and you tell other people it's crap, and they agree, pretty soon word gets around that some people think it's crap.
If a bunch of people think it's crap, and that opinion is allowed to spread, then (because its value is a fragile popular, or "pop art", illusion) that devalues the work, materially.
So this is why, when someone says it's crap, they get landed on from a great height. They get told they're ignorant, or even that they should keep their opinions to themselves and not share it. It's what's called protectionism.
We all know the story of the Emperor's trendy new clothes, that only clever and intelligent, (who were not "ignorant") people could see. What the courtiers and furriers really feared was the one child in the crowd, who - not knowing or perhaps caring that he was required to run with the sheep around him - said "I don't see it, it's crap!"
- Messages
- 1,796
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ahh, but with modern art, if you think it's crap and you tell other people it's crap, and they agree, pretty soon word gets around that some people think it's crap.
If a bunch of people think it's crap, and that opinion is allowed to spread, then (because its value is a fragile popular, or "pop art", illusion) that devalues the work, materially.
So this is why, when someone says it's crap, they get landed on from a great height. They get told they're ignorant, or even that they should keep their opinions to themselves and not share it. It's what's called protectionism.
We all know the story of the Emperor's trendy new clothes, that only clever and intelligent, (who were not "ignorant") people could see. What the courtiers and furriers really feared was the one child in the crowd, who - not knowing or perhaps caring that he was required to run with the sheep around him - said "I don't see it, it's crap!"
Nice one, i think that just about sums this whole thread up
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Where do you get your insight into conceptual art, the Daily Mail?
As with all art forms there are many differences in styles and output and it is a pretty narrow view to think it is all unmade beds. Even the masses may like some of it if they opened their eyes to it...
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have you not thought that they may actually be ignorant?
I see it in this very thread, as soon as modern art is mentioned people come out with the same names of artists they think are crap. It is ignorant to think they are the only artists and not look further as who knows they might find something they like. I somehow think they won't be looking though.
- Messages
- 1,796
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
By the same token, have you thought that some may not be ignorant?
Yes, there will be people in both camps that are ignorant, but there will also be people in both camps who are not
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Of course, but I don't who the potentially ignorant people are and who is telling them they are ignorant. I was just pointing out that in a lot of cases they may be right. There are sadly far too many people who get their opinion on modern art from tabloid newspapers
S
SimonH
Guest
Sure! And I've concluded that they're not. They're honest. Perhaps brutally, but there's no substitute for honesty.
It's ignorant to presume that people, who think a particular artist is crap, are ignorant.
- Messages
- 1,675
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
So who's at fault, the art movement for relying on what seems to be whimsy to provide value or the man in the street for calling them out on what they see as a load of crap?Ahh, but with modern art, if you think it's crap and you tell other people it's crap, and they agree, pretty soon word gets around that some people think it's crap.
If a bunch of people think it's crap, and that opinion is allowed to spread, then (because its value is a fragile popular, or "pop art", illusion) that devalues the work, materially.
So this is why, when someone says it's crap, they get landed on from a great height. They get told they're ignorant, or even that they should keep their opinions to themselves and not share it. It's what's called protectionism.
We all know the story of the Emperor's trendy new clothes, that only clever and intelligent, (who were not "ignorant") people could see. What the courtiers and furriers really feared was the one child in the crowd, who - not knowing or perhaps caring that he was required to run with the sheep around him - said "I don't see it, it's crap!"
Whilst this is a simplified view, it's not that polarised for a start, it sums up the core of the issue.
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How have you concluded that all people that don't like modern art are not ignorant exactly?
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It would be, wouldn't it. However it is fine to say they are ignorant if they say they dislike all of modern art because they have seen two artists and didn't like their work (which was my point)
- Messages
- 1,796
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why does anyone need to be at fault, this is the problem these days, if someone doesn't agree with you there must be something wrong with then and there has to be a reason for it
Can't people just accept that people have different opinions and different ways of expressing themselves, and in doing so it doesn't always have to be done in Queens English and with proper grammar
- Status