Do you get modern art?

What artistic skill does it take to paint a single black line or random splashes of color or make a really ugly difficult to appreciate sculpture? I don't like looking at it and I feel like my intelligence is being insulted.

Creativity, understanding of composition, understanding of context, ability to convey ideas and/or emotions visually, etc.

But really, why should I even care if the artist was skilled? I don't understand this argument at all. If a piece of art is effective, then what difference does it make how much [i]skill[/i] it took to create?

@KaliKali: Why should it matter if it took skill? Because if it takes no skill there will be a large quantity, if there is a large quantity readily available the market economics should hold that it is not anywhere close in value to something that is rare. Thus, if the painting looks like it was painted by a five year old, I could paint it myself, and shouldn't have it taking space at an art gallery where I pay to see paintings I couldn't do...

The idea that such pieces of 'art' are highly praised and valued when they are sometimes quite plane.

Now, I know I kind of included everything within modern art. But I am really talking about the sculptures and paintings that are literally a pile of trash or just splashes of color or a single black line, or an all red canvas... those types of things. Which I have legitimately seen in an art gallery.

What does economic value have to do with getting or appreciating a piece of art? This is missing the point anyway, the art you are criticizing does take to skill to create. Notice that not every canvas with a single line of color on it or "pile of trash" is held in high regard or valuable. What does that tell you? :?

@KaliKali: Some art critic people think it is valuable...that is what it tells me.

Perhaps the value of such paintings has less to do with what was made than it does with who made it. And who made it has to do with who they know, those same art critics... A sort of superior enjoyment of being able to be part of a group that understands/'gets' the 'pile of trash' even though it is just a pile of trash. So the 'art' is less art than it is a philosophical statement. If so, please don't hold it as equal to the incredibly beautiful,sophisticated, time consuming talent demanding art that is displayed in the like's of Michaelangelo's David, Ron Mueck's sculptures, or Akiane Kramarik's painting of eve.

Most (pretty much all) art critics think that [i]some[/i] of those works are valuable. However, if you tried to make pieces like that no one would care or pay anything for them because it does matter who made it. The people who make art that doesn't suck know what they are doing, they understand composition, color, context, etc. and so their work stands out and is meaningful.

It is so incredibly arrogant to assume that because you don't understand what makes a particular piece of art interesting/good/important/beautiful/whatever, then no one does, and that anyone who claims otherwise is only doing so to try to be part of some elitist club.

@KaliKali: I don't mean to say that I think that that is true. I suggested it as a possibility of truth.

If, like you say, the understanding composition, color, and context makes their work objectively better than if I threw together a pile of garbage then why should who did it matter?

Let's look at some pictures of modern art together:

These are amazing examples of incredibly beautiful paintings by a talented artist:
This last one I am not particularly sold on, but I can see it's artistic quality and value.


And here are some examples of bs art, that is still credited and as you can see in art galleries...

Jesus frak, you consider Rothko and Mondrian "bs art"? How do you not realize how arrogant/ignorant that makes you sound?

@KaliKali: I know very little about art, I don't claim to know anything. But you see I don't know who any of those people are and independent of their names I see nothing particularly interesting or beautiful about any of those four 'art' pieces.

I feel like the sophisticated world is kind of like the "emperor who wore no clothes" fairy tale. Only the child would point it out for fear that it was really sophisticated and they would appear stupid to point out it is nothing.

I don't think I am particularly arrogant and I am fairly well educated. I am not trying to be arrogant or self righteous or anything. I just appreciate the top four works and think they deserve more credit than the below four.

[quote] I know very little about art[/quote]

That is obvious.

[quote]I feel like the sophisticated world is kind of like the "emperor who wore no clothes" fairy tale.[/quote]

I understand that is how you feel, that is why I called you arrogant.

[quote]
I don't think I am particularly arrogant and I am fairly well educated.[/quote]

Maybe, but like you said you aren't well educated in the arts. Before making judgments about entire art movements and historically very important artists, you should probably know at least something about art. Right now you are coming across like Sam Harris when he tries to talk about philosophy. You may be thoughtful and you may be smart, but that doesn't make you qualified to talk about fields you know nothing about.

@KaliKali: I started with a question and continued with possibilities for the sake of discussion. Discussion through which I might learn. I never claimed to know much about art. But isn't the base of art the creation of beauty? So if you have to have three degrees to understand the "Garbage of New York" or a single bit of red on black is it effective?

If those last four pictures are valuable pieces of art why can't I understand them? Could you try to explain them to me?

I wouldn't give a lecture on these arts, but I am free to question am I not? A question is the first step to learning.

[quote]But isn't the base of art the creation of beauty?[/quote]

No. Art can be beautiful but it doesn't have to be.

[quote]So if you have to have three degrees to understand the "Garbage of New York" or a single bit of red on black is it effective?
[/quote]

You don't. Plenty of people with little or no education, and even more with no formal art education can find meaning in them.

[quote]If those last four pictures are valuable pieces of art why can't I understand them?[/quote]

Maybe you don't understand art in general. Maybe those pieces just don't speak to you. Maybe you aren't smart enough to. Maybe you haven't tried. Maybe you don't have the proper background? There could be many reasons, I don't see why you jump to "they are meaningless and anyone who disagrees with me is just pretending."

[quote]Could you try to explain them to me?[/quote]

No, I cannot.

[quote]I wouldn't give a lecture on these arts, but I am free to question am I not?[/quote]

Yeah, of course you are, but don't be surprised when people don't take your opinion seriously and think you are arrogant.

[quote]A question is the first step to learning.[/quote]

Yes, but generally you have accept the possibility that there are other people out there that can answer the question who know more about it than you do, and that the opinion you formed with no knowledge of the field is probably wrong.

@KaliKali: "Art: the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings" -as defined by the cambridge dictionary. So yes, I suppose it doesn't have to beautiful and is very subjective.

I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me is just pretending.

Oh, I am very much hoping that there are people who know more than I do and can answer my questions, that is why I ask them. However, I am sound in mind and won't just roll over when challenged, I expect a conversation and some explanation if someone wants to change my mind.

You should really start by reading about art and the different movements.