Modern Art - is it all crap?

[pdk42]

I went to the Oslo National Art Museum yesterday. It's an amazing place and well worth the admission price if you're in Oslo. There is an outstanding collection of Munch's work, including the original version of The Scream (Skrik):

• Panasonic - DC-S5
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/60 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• 0.3
• ISO 3200

Although my personal favourite of his is "Madonna":

• Panasonic - DC-S5
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/60 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• 0.3
• ISO 3200

I was also reminded of the work of Johan Christian Dahl, who is a master of landscapes. I think this in particular is a masterpiece, something for me to aspire to:

• Panasonic - DC-S5
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/60 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 1600

There are also works by Thomas Fearnley, August Cappelen, Harald Sohberg and many others - all of which are superb.



But then you get to the modern art. It really is universally crap (IMHO). As some tasters...

How about this contraption of four pulleys and a wire by the "artist" Viggo Andersen:

• Panasonic - DC-S5
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/60 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 200

and whose description includes:

• Panasonic - DC-S5
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/60 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 250

Why would anyone want to "reduce the subjective or emotive aspect of art"?; or worse to "liberate it from craftmanship and personal expression"? Who are these people?

Then there was a room full of polished metal spheres scattered seemingly at random (no idea why, but we were encouraged to touch them - I guess part of making it "art"?). This is not my image (I really didn't want to waste my memory card write cycles on it):



And then this little effort by Snorre Ytterstad, entitled "Study of the Red Square - Painterly Realism of a Peasant Woman in Two Dimensions". If you can spot a woman of any social class, let me know ! (although I guess we can agree that it's almost a red square - even if the artist clearly lacked a true 90 degree angle to use as a reference):

• Panasonic - DC-S5
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/60 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 320

Is this really all as crap as I think it is? Is there any lasting value in any of it?

 

[xaviergut]

Contemporary art is more about ideas than skills, composition, balance or copying the reality in a canvas...

Marcel Duchamp is guilty of all that. He started all this stuff with his "ready made" pieces.

 

[Pete_W]

Is this really all as crap as I think it is? Is there any lasting value in any of it?

Well, it doesn't do anything for me either!

 

[pdk42]

Contemporary art is more about ideas than skills, composition, balance or copying the reality in a canvas...

Marcel Duchamp is guilty of all that. He started all this stuff with his "ready made" pieces.

But the ideas are worthless too. I mean, which of these two actually provokes any kind of emotional reaction?:

 

[Oíche]

Yes I agree, those particular "modern art" pieces are a pile of shite (can I say that?). I've been debating this topic since school.

If you have to ask WTF is this about it instantly doesn't become art. The explanation is usually some hocus pocus BS and if you don't accept it you are deemed as a non-intellect incapable of such vision.

Damien Hirst the same, this psuedo artistic world is so far up it's own arse. They are successful charlatans. There were guys in my school far better artists.

Same as the best photograph, none of us on a level as them to understand it... It's superiority BS and somewhat akin to an old friend photographing his kitchen chair on magic mushrooms thinking it was a roman metropolis

 

[xaviergut]

But the ideas are worthless too.

those particular "modern art" pieces are a pile of shite

Hahaha

I agree with both. We have reached a point where any occurrence can be considered a work of art. And I know this art world very well. It is a very long topic to develop in a photography forum.

I must say that not 100% is crap. For example and focusing on photography, recently there was a retrospective exhibition of Gregory Crewdson in the Albertina Museum in Vienna that was really excellent:

Gregory Crewdson

www.albertina.at

 

[pdk42]

Hahaha

I agree with both. We have reached a point where any occurrence can be considered a work of art. And I know this art world very well. It is a very long topic to develop in a photography forum.

I must say that not 100% is crap. For example and focusing on photography, recently there was a retrospective exhibition of Gregory Crewdson in the Albertina Museum in Vienna that was really excellent:

Gregory Crewdson

www.albertina.at

Actually, I like that Gregory Crewdson work. Really excellent.

And interestingly, the discussion we're having now in this thread reminded me of something that blew up on Amin Sabet's mu43 forum some years ago:

Somebody Tell Me What I'm Missing With This Photographer's Street Photography

So, I'm not on DPReview anymore, because it's a repetitive, toxic wastehole of a website. But there's something over there that has always puzzled me, and it's one of the members in the Street & Documentary subforum who posts fairly prolifically. Here's one of the latest threads he's posted...

www.mu-43.com

At the time, I really didn't think much of the photographs being discussed (which are still up on the linked DPR page => https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4341714). However, looking at them again now, I can appreciate them some more. They're still not my taste, but I do see some merit in them.