

Why Is Modern Art So Bad? - billconan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

======
anotheryou
As with anything: the majority has bad taste, but this guy just has no
understanding of modern art...

\- Art != prettiness and genie: Art is more than craftsmanship, with creations
as pleasant as possible. Rainbows, Mona Lisas, naked bodies, all pretty and
good in their fields, but it can really bore you when you get to know art
better. It's like growing a decent taste in music and looking back at pop
(though of course, there are some really good pop songs too, but the majority
is plain booring). It becomes unbearable kitschy. The worst of it might be
hyperealism. Either go to a talent show or make a photograph, but don't expect
me to think of it as good art.

\- The old paintings may be good, but you can dwell on them in the museum.
Todays artists want to create something new too, so they move on. Sorry if
this is not always eye candy. And a good concept _is_ art too. Maybe you could
even draw it the same way, but you didn't! And if you want to see a mona lisa
yet again, just go and watch the mona lisa again.

\- if anything, I would claim that modern art still tries too much to be
liked. Media installations to entertain the crowds (nice in a science museum,
but not interesting as art), ever sharper photographs (yes photos can be art
too), "new music" that tries to avoid harmony so badly it's completely cliché
again, etc...

------
AnimalMuppet
Marcel Duchamps made pieces of "art" that were "found objects", that is, he
just found something and labeled it art. One of these pieces was a toilet
bowl. Duchamps was outraged that critics labeled it "pretty", because he was
trying to make a philosophical point. He did not believe that art was
possible, and he was labeling non-art as "art" to try to demonstrate that
point.

I think that at least part of the mess of modern art comes from the artists'
philosophies. If you don't think real art is possible, you don't try to
achieve it. If you think that all of human life and existence is ugly, you
produce art that is ugly. If you think that humans are just deterministic
machines made out of atoms, you produce art that a machine could produce. If
you think that there is no meaning possible in life, you produce art that has
no meaning.

~~~
gdubs
There's actually an interesting theory that Duchamp fabricated his Readymades.

[http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/20/arts/taking-jokes-by-
ducha...](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/20/arts/taking-jokes-by-duchamp-to-
another-level-of-art.html)

------
lazylizard
before we discuss what makes art good, we must first discuss what is art.

------
Nadya
Only tangentially related, I apologize in advance.

The top rated comment mentioned "Voice of Fire" [0]. I visited the Wiki
article and now I'm about to pass out from lack of oxygen to my brain.

 _> A further controversy ensued in 1992 when it was discovered that the
painting had been displayed upside-down following its acquisition._

I can't stop laughing. Please, send help.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire)

