While in Paris, my grandmother was especially keen to take me to the Pompidou Museum of modern art, because she felt it was more my kind of thing than the Louvre. (Yeah, it definitely was. The Lourve was big, old, and boring. And all of the paintings were of Jesus! Nothing against Jesus or anything, but sheesh, isn’t there anything else to paint??) I’m a fan of impressionism and Van Gogh and things of that nature, and although I’m not big on Picasso some kinds of abstract art and cubism are pretty interesting. However, though some of the things in the Pompidou were really neat, I was dismayed at what has become called “art”.
See that picture? The one of the lady standing next to a black canvas? Yeah. That was an actual DISPLAYED PIECE OF “ART”. It’s called “Ultimate Painting” and was done in 1960 by Ad Reinhardt. I just researched this gem of modern “art” and guess what? IT WAS SOLD FOR $190,000.
Seriously?? A plain black canvas? I could pay for my college education with that kind of cash! I could pay for my brother’s too! This is disgusting. This is not art. Sure, you could tell your seller that it “demonstrates man’s knowledge of God and his own heart” or some crap, but it’s still A PLAIN BLACK CANVAS. A NEWBORN BABY COULD MAKE SOMETHING MORE INTERESTING BY VOMITING PEAS AND CARROTS ONTO A PIECE OF CONSTRUCTION PAPER.
Ok, so I researched a bit more, and on Reinhardt’s Wikipedia page it said this, “Reinhardt is best known for his so-called “black” paintings of the 1960s, which appear at first glance to be simply canvases painted black but are actually composed of black and nearly black shades. Among many other suggestions, these paintings ask if there can be such a thing as an absolute, even in black, which some viewers may not consider a color at all.”
See how close I was with my BS interpretation? THAT STILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SOLD FOR ALMOST 200 GRAND. And apparently, his “black” paintings were not the only monochromatic masterpieces. “His work progressed from compositions of geometrical shapes in the 1940s to works in different shades of the same color (all red, all blue, all white) in the 1950s”.
Good to hear that he had evolved in his creative style.
But there was some cooler stuff. Like here:
So those were cool things… but here is one more annoying exhibit. I’m not entirely sure what it’s told, but look. Just look.
Now, what you can’t see about this exhibit is that the two lumps are moving up and down as if breathing. There were no labels, no titles. It was just this in the middle of the floor. Wtf?
Art is obviously sooooo contrived, and for so long artists wanted to reproduce nature that it just got boring. So I think modern artists just said, “duh, art is contrived. Let’s portray it that way” so they got all abstract. In order to create something new, they had to create what people think of as the antithesis of art. Gotta start appealing to the emotion rather than to the eye.
It’s still stupid that that’s considered great while we stand here applying for jobs at taco bell, but understanding the philosophy behind it kinda helps you look at it more friendly-ly
I totally get how abstract art is legitimate, my main problem is with the COMPLETELY BLACK CANVAS. That doesn’t appeal to my emotion or my eye. But I get what you’re saying, yo.
check out “white on white” by Malevich.
*throws up*