(Image courtesy of Anariel Design)
I ask because I haven’t seen it yet.
The idea for this article came to me from an experience.
A couple weeks ago, as of the writing of this article, I went to the Getty Museum as part of a field trip with my school’s art club. There were a mix of people from some of the art classes, including A.P. art, and some I’ve only seen or met through the art club.
During my time there, in between sitting and talking to one of my friends who too went on the trip, looking around at all the pieces, taking pictures of our favorites, and just talking about the world of art in general, I’d notice something about the other kids on the field trip.
They were loud. Quite loud, actually.
Since we had to do it off of groups, my group seemed to be the loudest. There were a lot of people cracking jokes from the sections over, sitting around on their phones at the seats scattered around the museums, or doing anything but actually looking and seeing the art around them.
This was in comparison to the mostly older people that were most likely there for the pure enjoyment of the art the Getty Museum was hosting. The kids I went on the field trip with? They didn’t seem to care, really. And if they did, they sure didn’t act like it.
The day after, when I had some of those kids in my classes the next day, I would talk to them about it and they would all mention how “boring” everything was.
It’s interesting to see it; a bunch of kids in a bunch of elective art classes, who would rather scream jokes from across the hallways and push each other around than look at the art they signed up to see.
I took mental notes the whole time, trying to figure if this was strictly a generational thing, with a majority of people (not just children) in the modern generation wanting to consume the automated content from their phones, rather than actually seeing content live and live in the moment.
Or maybe, it could be an art industry problem. The way art has tried to thrive in the modern day in the wake of AI and not a lot of people respecting the artists that make the art they consume.
My verdict: People don’t actually care about art.
It’s a loaded statement, but I feel from the way people behave towards modern art, art dedicated spaces, or even the profession of artistry is not out of malice for the medium, but a lack of understanding or care towards it.
Art is a broad term on its own, with it consisting of things like paintings and sculptures, but can also consist of writing, music, animation, comics, poetry…the list just goes on, really. Anything can be art, for as long as there is an intent to express one’s self genuinely.
I say this, because I’ve seen a trend circulate periodically.
People hate modern art.
There are articles and videos from artists, art critics, and even just regular people, who complain about modern, contemporary art. Reasons range from ambiguity, the “anyone can do it” mentality, and a lack of a clear narrative.
Contemporary art is often categorized as art, simply put, as being made from the 1970’s or 1980’s, up until now. There isn’t a direct criteria or guideline for what “modern” or “contemporary” art is allowed to look like.
Yet, there is this “I could make that” mentality that quite a lot of people have in regards to modern art.
In the Collegiate Times, an opinion contributor, describes abstract art, and modern art at large quite poorly, stating;
“Many people find problems with the abstract style due to the supposed meaning behind its pieces, or lack thereof. Haphazard marks of paint don’t often tend to speak to people, coming across as meaningless and chaotic. Why are such minimalist expressions allowed to qualify as art? What right does the abstract have to be among classic styles, taunting other pieces whose every detail was tirelessly worked on?”
The rest of the piece uses examples, such as “HI” by Texas artist Dana Frankfort, “The Comedian” by Maurizito Cattelan for abstract art.
Also within this statement, I have my thesis.
While art, yes, is subjective and that fact alone doesn’t excuse genuine, earnest criticism, a certain color choice or mark can describe a piece quite well, or apply the hidden meanings behind it.
Think of it this way: The Renaissance, filled to the brim with pieces of iconic art from so many different artists like Hugo van der Goes, Michelangelo, Jan Van Eyck, and so many others spawned in and widely influenced the wider art world of the time. This also popularized realism in the art world at the time.
But here’s the thing to understand about art (as an artist myself) is that there is only one wrong way to actually do art, and that is to not have a purpose for making it.
I feel the main criticisms with the world of modern art lies within people who are growing more accustomed to the way art “should” be, rather than how the art “can” be, which causes a distaste for anything that doesn’t fit that stereotypical “artsy” look.
In Current Affairs’ article on the subject, they make a similar argument, using the book written by Susie Hodge called “Why Your Five-Year Old Could Not Make That: Modern Art Explained.” They state the following:
“A lot of people get frustrated by the acclaim afforded to paintings like this, because they don’t look like the product of real artistic skill. Cultural conservatives tend not to like them.”
This also brings up the point that modern art isn’t the only form of art that has gotten this much vitriol. Many other styles have come before “modern” art, yet have received similar pushback.
“Impressionism, Fauvism, and Cubism were all met with horror in their day because it wasn’t immediately apparent to the casual viewer why the artist made the choices they made. But must everything be obvious?”
What’s interesting too is how these styles, those who were once despised years ago, are seemingly now praised in the modern day, and how they even sell for millions of dollars. A common example is Andy Warhol’s work. Something so simple as a couple of soup cans resulted in him kickstarting his art career.
There are many similar stories out there. Stories of artists who arguably didn’t have commercially appealing art styles according to the public, but they would soon swiftly come around to noticing and even praising the work the moment it becomes valuable and profitable.
This, I feel, rings true in the modern art world.
We live in a day in age where people are obsessed with aesthetics, the way things look, especially if they are pleasing to the eye. Once they are confronted with something that doesn’t fit in with that “aesthetic” they’re used to, or even blatantly searching for, they treat it as lesser than, which is the exact rhetoric that contemporary/modern art receives to this day.
The people love the works of the Renaissance era, because it perpetuated the popularization of realism in art, and from that, the people have that standard for other works of art. Even though some of the most popular artists to this day, like Picasso (despite his faults) and Van Gogh do have unconventional styles, I’m willing to believe it is because they are now profitable to the modern audience.
Because even the unconventional, even the weird, can be stripped away from its original meaning and marketed to, if it means giving people a quick buck.
Now, remember how I said that the only wrong way to make art is to have no reason to?
Researching a lot of modern works of art for this article, reading about what inspired so many contemporary artists to make the pieces they did, it makes the “I can do that” crowd’s argument shoot itself in the foot.
Sure, you can critique a piece of art. That is one thing. Art is subjective after all, but to say it doesn’t match other works is disingenuous to the artists’ work.
If anyone who says that actually did make it themselves, they’d do it with the intention of recreating it, not because it was out of inspiration, a cause, or anything for that matter. They just think it’s easy.
Unfortunately, art isn’t easy, and it’s not meant to be.
Art is meant to be messy, a little wild. Feral, even. It’s meant to make you stop and think. Even modern and contemporary artists gain their inspiration from somewhere, and paint and make their pieces with that inspiration in mind.
Even when as children, when classes would have craft time or even art classes, you’d do it for fun, to learn about the artists of the past. There was a reason to be creating. Motivation, drive. Passion.
The modern audience that critiques modern art just on the basis of it not being like the art of the past? They most likely aren’t passionate about the arts, or enough to understand that, indeed, art is subjective. Even to another artist.
Art is meant to express your soul, make a statement. To feel the feelings you struggle with or to speak when you can’t.
Art isn’t meant to cater, to pander, or to please. And I wish more people would understand that.
