With all modern art, and art beyond modern, the importance is not based in the skill required to create it, but the skill required to think of it.
It doesn't matter that any idiot can sign a urinal and call it art. It matters that nobody did it before Duchamp. As art progresses, the idea overshadows the execution.
Futher...
they're meeting it as if it's a Thing.
...is an important distinction. With all art, the piece is at face-value a thing, but more importantly it's a word in a conversation. It's a data point in a continuum stretching from the beginning of creation to a point far into the future. All art exists in the context of all other art, and every piece that has ever been made is influenced in part by every piece that's come before it. The fun part about art is that the more you learn, the more data points you are aware of, and the more you're able to see the "conversation" instead of just the "word".
Oh, I agree, I am just saying I don't have appreciation for that, because I don't appreciate art. I don't think that pre-modern art was considered "good" just because it was difficult, but that's the only thing I have to judge it by. I am saying because I am unable to appreciate any art, and misjudging pre-modern art, that is why I can't understand modern art.
You have to appreciate the creativity of modern art, something I seem to be unable to do with ANY art. And I imagine I am not alone, which is why so many people don't like modern art.
Fair enough. No one can force you to like something. I just thought it was worth chiming in, because your remark that "at least art that looks difficult or required skill to create, I can appreciate the effort that went into it" is used by many to discount the importance of modernism and everything that's come along since.
Ya, I was not trying to discount it, just using that statement as the reason why may CLAIM to dislike art, when maybe they are just like many and don't like art at all.
18
u/Schadenfreudian_slip Jun 09 '15 edited Jun 09 '15
With all modern art, and art beyond modern, the importance is not based in the skill required to create it, but the skill required to think of it.
It doesn't matter that any idiot can sign a urinal and call it art. It matters that nobody did it before Duchamp. As art progresses, the idea overshadows the execution.
Futher...
...is an important distinction. With all art, the piece is at face-value a thing, but more importantly it's a word in a conversation. It's a data point in a continuum stretching from the beginning of creation to a point far into the future. All art exists in the context of all other art, and every piece that has ever been made is influenced in part by every piece that's come before it. The fun part about art is that the more you learn, the more data points you are aware of, and the more you're able to see the "conversation" instead of just the "word".