An issue of modern art.

[TMA_1]

Well this is going to be an extremely general post, because frankly I just dont have the time to go into the specifics of the various kinds of modern art. You have photography, paints and other mediums, writings, blah blah. So many different kinds that I just couldnt list all of them but you get the idea. In this post I am dealing with something specific, which is film.

I saw part of this movie not too long ago called "Bully". Basically, it is a theme on how far kids will go when they really have no high hopes, and how deviant those kids can be if they are pushed far enough. In it, a bully constantly bothers this group of kids, who themselves are no saints at all. The bully goes so far, and treats them so horribly that they end up plotting tokill him, and eventually they do.

The same director who directed this also did an infamous film called "kids", which was praised as well as derided for it's complete lack of tact. Drug use, sex and all around hedonous living is shown, and it is also shown in Bully, the film I am talking about.

The story is indeed interesting, and a good one at that. It is based on a true story as well. The problem I have with it is I couldnt even finish watching it. Dont get me wrong, scenes with sex or drug use do not bother me at all, and infact can help the depth of a movie if there is a point to it. This film though would become so voyeristic and at times so pointless in it's use of nudity and whatnot. It just got a little out of hand.

Basically what I am asking you guys is am I some old-fashioned philistine? I mean I have had people laugh at me for disliking this kind of thing. See, Art is a wonderful thing, and some of my most favorite works of art are extremely controversial, but now days it seems that lots of art pieces are so blunt and filled with so little value (whether it be good or bad) that it just makes me sick. Art should mean something, but many times it doesnt mean a damn thing and that just bothers me. People get around this problem by saying it means many different things to different people. They say art is subjective.

How the heck can it be subjective when we praise some artists, while say others have no talent? If art is turned subjective, than why couldnt I show my art to others and praise my own pieces as equals to other great artists? The answer is I couldnt! I am not a horrible artist, but I am nowhere near good.lol I know that and I acknowledge that because I love doing art for the fun of it, and for its meaning.

It just seems with less and less meaning, and growing subjectivity that people can take anything controversial, stamp it with the name of Art and nobody can say anything against it or they are branded as idiots or "not with the times".

What do you guys think? Does naybody here know what I am talking about? I mean can anybody sympathize?lol I know that sounds weird, but it is jsut getting out of hand to me and fewer actually understand where I, and many others are coming from with this.

Art can be beautiful in so many different ways, but there is indeed a talent at art. Some people make beautiful abstract, progressive, or classic pieces full of different values that might be hedonistic and lustful, or full of nobility and truth. The point is they have some sort of value! I am not slamming any style, but in every style there is some sort of talent, and it seems that with the lack of talent, people use more and more shock value to get praise for their "art".  It looses its value then to me.

[Caid Ivik]

Destruction

The Demon is always moving about at my side;

He floats about me like an impalpable air;

I swallow him, I feel him burn my lungs

And fill them with an eternal, sinful desire.

Sometimes, knowing my deep love for Art, he assumes

The form of a most seductive woman,

And, with pretexts specious and hypocritical,

Accustoms my lips to infamous philtres.

He leads me thus, far from the sight of God,

Panting and broken with fatigue, into the midst

Of the plains of Ennui, endless and deserted,

And thrusts before my eyes full of bewilderment,

Dirty filthy garments and open, gaping wounds,

And all the bloody instruments of Destruction!

- Charles Baudelaire (his most brilliant poems are on http://www.fleursdumal.org/)

[Sneakgab]

I sympthasize with you TMA, I often find occurences of some respected people finding something to be intelligent, and then most intelligent people are forced to view it as intelligent or are attacked by what I call 2nd level thinkers. And then, people take advantage of this for profit, as in you're case where anything called art is given immunity to criticization

[Wolf]

Yeah, I sympathize with you, too, TMA. It seems that people, to get the same effect, need to get more and more shocking in order to fully surprise us. It's a chronic illness. A self-sustaining cycle. A feedback loop.

[nemafakei]

"Basically what I am asking you guys is am I some old-fashioned philistine?"

You're entirely right to condemn such abhorrent media, though to answer your question, yes, you're old-fashioned - in that the modern generation is devoid of moral standards when it comes to media.

[danielsh]

The idea of having "good art" and "bad art" has always struck me as silly.  People have differing tastes, and should respect the ability required to produce a given piece (or the simple fact that the piece is a legitimate form of self-expression) without trying to decide for everyone else whether it constitutes Art-with-a-capital-A.

I say that art is subjective.  And I say that if you have art that you've created, you should be given respect and recognition for expressing yourself artistically, and let the test of time show whether or not it becomes High Art.

[TMA_1]

hey thanks for the replies guys, dont feel so dumb now.hehe :)

I know what you are getting at Dan, but it doesnt make much sense to me personally. You say in a sense that art shouldnt be judged, yet the future will judge pieces of art.

Even if I am wrong in this assumption on what you say, you are using terms that demand a judging of those pieces of art, and when you judge pieces of art you are creating an objectivity to find what pieces DO and DO NOT have what it takes.

See, it is this simple. Art can be subjective in it's interpritation. Some man (a nut, but there is a growing amount of modern artists who are nuts.lol) see's a five year old draw a stick figure, and holds it as one of the greatest pieces of artistry ever. Well of course he has a right to believe so, and in that sense there is subjectivity.

But In reality art is objective. Some artists and art works are praised over otehrs, while some others are well... just horribly done.lol There is an objectivity.

I hope you see what I mean Dan.:)    Also, anybody else have opinions on this subject about the change in art,and the problems I raised above?

[danielsh]

I see what you mean, but I still disagree.

What I should have said was that generally, history will find people at a consensus, more or less, regarding art.  The praise or criticism typically comes from critics or those regarded as authorities, but I don't really hold them .  I still think that each person can decide for himself what he likes and doesn't like, and that there is no Good Art or Bad Art.  Maybe I'm contradicting myself, I don't know... I'm not a student of Art.  Or art.

[Caid Ivik]

TMA is talking about his own view. As everybody. I dislike some forms of art as well, and quality is an equation of how many people dislike them. However, sometimes the borders between art and other forms of presentation (ie science, sociology, pure fun, sport, mocking) are fading, and results may be, when compared to other art, insultive to word "art" itself...