Modern Art

Maybe an incoherent idea but just wanted to throw it out there ... You hear from guys like Oswald Spengler how art moves with culture, how as a culture changes the dominant artform of the culture will change (sculpting, painting, poetry, novels, classical plays, architecture, operas, etc.) Thus we now ask, especially with the seeming stark decline of modern music and movies, what is the defining art of today's American culture? I asked a friend who thought about it and he said "meme's", which I thought was funny and apropos of the modern social media era, but depressing as well because meme's aren't very sophisticated.

My idea is that the modern "art-form" defining modern America is algorithm design. This is obviously a shaky assertion in regards to how one chooses to define art, but certainly a secular, cynical definition of art could be that of Christopher Hitchens: "All art is propaganda." As Christians, I don't think we define art within this limitation (we focus on beauty), but for secular society it may fit well... For things like algorithm design and data analysis, I don't think "Normies" quite understand how much subjectivity goes into these designs and analyses. Algorithms dictate what we see and don't see on Google and YouTube, algorithms try to manipulate our habits (especially consumerist habits), and algorithms can funnel ne'er-do-well's into honeypots on the internet for doxxing. Algorithms are one of the most powerful forms of human expression today, working behind the scenes yet conveying all the hallmarks of powerful manipulative functions of the viewer that maybe architecture or movies performed in the near past.

Maybe wrong thread for this idea, but was just thinking about this question that must be on a lot of our minds: What is the Defining Art Form of the Current Era?
For the above description as well, I think it's important to distinguish that for an artform to be a dominant force in a society, it must be "emerging" (so hence new techniques and ideas coming to light that were previously unthought of). Thus I don't consider something like "TV Shows" capable of being a dominant artform, because it is not emerging and is an old technology.

I also don't think the fact that technology playing a part in the artform should remove it from consideration. Architecture, sculpting, orchestra's, etc were all dependent to some extent on utilizing the emerging technology of the day with people's creativity. Hence, I think algorithm design loosely works as an artform
 

Max Roscoe

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
The French are trying to deface some of their old beauty.

They hired a Satanic artist who paints figures of whites being raped and enslaved by Blacks to "improve" the Eiffel Tower.
The main piece was whites and blacks forming a 6 pointed Star of David with a Black man fornicating with a white woman in the center.

JewWhiteGenocideEiffelTowerMuralMeme.jpg


Warning, the art in the linked article shows Blacks raping, abusing, and murdering white women.

mural-eiffel-tower.jpg


 
Modern art is basically The Emperor's New Clothes on a global scale.
Yes.
See Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word"
And Roger Scruton's essays on beauty.

And remember marxists HATE beauty - literally - because they think it gives people false hope. Only when they see the world for how ugly it is will marxism prevail. Remember Lenin's famous comment on Rapheal - and remember the first thing marxists do is destroy beautiful things.
 

Towgunner

Kingfisher
What is "art"? I've heard that question asked many times by many people. Its a brain teaser. Today, I think art is very easy to describe. It's propaganda.
 

bucky

Ostrich
What is "art"? I've heard that question asked many times by many people. Its a brain teaser. Today, I think art is very easy to describe. It's propaganda.
My favorite definition of art is "anything that serves no practical purpose whatsoever."
 
I visited the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston when it was entrance by donations. I donated $1 and still felt I wasted my money. Despite wanting to leave within 10 minutes, I stayed longer thinking there must be something worth seeing. Basically, the whole museum was filled with nonsense passing itself off as art. Technically anything is art I guess. A punk spray painting 'school sucks' is art and so is a wad of used tissues in an outhouse if we want to stretch things enough. Modern art is often ridiculous and people spend millions for average paintings that Junior high school art students could make. In many cases, a kindergarten's finger paintings are better than some artwork selling for millions. I guess I am a traditionalist when it comes to art. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston is amazing and I could easily spend the whole day there. Here is an amusing link about overpriced modern art:

11 ridiculous paintings:

 
That's why it is said: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
To a huge degree, this is true. However, I think a lot of people don't actually think a lot of modern art is beautiful and they are just trying to show how intelligent they are in 'appreciating' art that other people are not smart enough to understand. Also, many people find art beautiful or special because they were told to. Why do so many people get excited about 'Mona Lisa'? I have seen hundreds of portrait paintings that exceed this quality but you don't see hundreds of people queuing up to see them.
 
To a huge degree, this is true. However, I think a lot of people don't actually think a lot of modern art is beautiful and they are just trying to show how intelligent they are in 'appreciating' art that other people are not smart enough to understand. Also, many people find art beautiful or special because they were told to. Why do so many people get excited about 'Mona Lisa'? I have seen hundreds of portrait paintings that exceed this quality but you don't see hundreds of people queuing up to see them.

Not quite. If people can agree on what is good but not on what is best. Then beauty is objective on a certain level. The eyes and ears perceiving through the senses and the mind instinctively applies measurement.

The ruler may differ but there is such a thing as a X amount of space being measured.

Its the same as perceiving color and sight. Just because some people are colorblind doesn't mean that the color "blue" as a result of light refraction doesn't exist. Or that white light because it is not perceived doesn't exist.

Just because people are deaf doesn't mean sound doesn't exist. The pressure waves in the airs still happen even when there is no human to perceive.

Of course perception of beauty can be fooled.
Just as fake sugar can fool our senses into perceiving the existence of real sugar. And pornography can fool our senses into believing that pixels on the screen are synonymous with real women.

But what they measured assumes the existence of what is being measured. Just as hunger assumes the existence of food to satisfy it.
 
Last edited:
I have no formal education on the subject, but classic works of art were a lifting of the heart to God, a form of prayer. Without God to lift one's heart to, the works turned inwards, towards man. Modern art reveals what we are without God, i.e., toilets and banana peels nailed to a wall and plastic bags of filth
 

Nordwand

Kingfisher
True story, this.

Many years ago, the BBC TV children's' programme, Blue Peter, had a feature on art and, as part of it, they had a series of prints from famous artists to talk about. Unfortunately, when the prints turned up, one of them, a Jackson Pollock print, was missing. To make up for this, the presenters asked some of the set builders to throw some paint around in a similar fashion, which they would then introduce as a generic piece of abstract art. The set builders did their bit, and all went well.

A little while later, lawyers at the BBC received a letter from the estate of Jackson Pollock, asking about the display of one of Mr Pollock's paintings.....................
 
True story, this.

Many years ago, the BBC TV children's' programme, Blue Peter, had a feature on art and, as part of it, they had a series of prints from famous artists to talk about. Unfortunately, when the prints turned up, one of them, a Jackson Pollock print, was missing. To make up for this, the presenters asked some of the set builders to throw some paint around in a similar fashion, which they would then introduce as a generic piece of abstract art. The set builders did their bit, and all went well.

A little while later, lawyers at the BBC received a letter from the estate of Jackson Pollock, asking about the display of one of Mr Pollock's paintings.....................
Reminds me of the incident in Bolzano, Italy where the cleaners threw an art exhibit in the rubbish bin because that's what they thought it was - the 'exhibit' was a messy display of used champagne bottles lying about.
 
Top