Andy Warhol is overrated

[Vanguard]

If you want to point the finger at where modern art went disreputable, why not start with Caravaggio? Warhol might have painted cans and looked weird, but Caravaggion murdered people.

Yeah, it's been all downhill since the 16th Century.

[Nostromo]

nm

[bipolarbear]

Any Modern Art > Thomas Kinkade

[-Jrabbit]

True dat!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



Has modern art ever been reputable? How dull, if that were the case.

Well not among the phillistines, obviously. But a good portion of the bourgeois liked modern art, from the Impressionists, to the Secession, which had quasi-official status in Vienna, to the New York School, which also had quasi-official status. Maybe its having grown up in NYC (and Jewish, at that) , and being taken to MOMA by my parents as a kid, but yeah, I think modern art WAS reputable among a certain class of non-artist.

[General Ludd]

It's kind of funny how modernist artwork is so widely disliked while the architecture produced from the same movement is largely popular. I guess it's because it's all about minimalism/economy of means, (supposed) utility, and arrogance, so it fits capitalism well. I guess living and working in a building created with those ideas is all well ang good, but extending them into one's decor is a little much for most... atleast, unless you've got the money. But maybe that's the whole point.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by General Ludd
It's kind of funny how modernist artwork is so widely disliked while the architecture produced from the same movement is largely popular. I guess it's because it's all about minimalism/economy of means, (supposed) utility, and arrogance, so it fits capitalism well. I guess living and working in a building created with those ideas is all well ang good, but extending them into one's decor is a little much for most... atleast, unless you've got the money. But maybe that's the whole point.

"I guess it's because it's all about minimalism/economy of means, (supposed) utility, and arrogance, so it fits capitalism well."

Im not sure the schools of architecture that immediately preceded modernism were any less arrogant.

I suspect that its the emotional reaction to the loss of representation in non-representational modern art (the most representation modern art, being rather more subservise and disturbing, and less inspirational) In fact we almost define modern art by this reaction, dont we? I mean from the standpoint of technique, art history, etc werent the impressionists and post-impressionists really the break from traditional art, not the cubists or late expressionists? But because that art is widely accepted, not just by the educated bourgeois, but by the lower middle class, (just as the bauhaus architecture you cite is) its not "modern"

Theres no similar attachment to premodern architecture. And unlike modern art, utilitarian minimalist architecture was provided to the lower middle class, at least in the US, in the form of the ranch house/rambler and other vaguely Wright influenced designs, so its practical advantages are accessible to the ordinary folks. And architects, who are visibly connected to wealth and power, are not seen as subversive in the way even establishment modern artists are, the view of whom is contaminated by their association with more genuinely subversive art movements.

[MosesPresley]

Andy Warhol is the only genius I've ever known with an I.Q. of 60.

Gore Vidal

I love that quote.