Soap Box Rant – Why ‘Modern’ Art Sucks, But the Media Loves It

I go into a public art gallery and hate everything I see; Monochrome panels (it really doesn’t inspire much contemplation); pieces of coloured paper torn up (how exactly is this an examination of colour theory?); excrement in a box (if you want to ask ‘what is art’, please do it articulately). Yet I go to a commercial art gallery, or browse about on Deviant Art, or even open a pack of Magic the Gathering Cards, and I see beautiful, evocative, witty pieces of art that make me want to hug the artist.

The thing I can’t understand, is why someone thinks what the public wants to look at is these vacuous works of modern art? And why, more over are they always making the headlines and winning awards?

It must be the one area of culture where commercial interests don’t rule media coverage. A handful of people love opera, but the media concentrates on Lady Gaga. A handful of people love poetry, but the media concentrates on Harry Potter. So why, when only a handful of people love modern art, does the media not concentrate on the super talented artist that make computer games, adverts, book illustrations and all the lovely pictures I see on dA?

I think the exposure given to modern art falls into two camps, either; ‘this is high culture, you should take the time to understand and love it’; or ‘this is shockingly-bad-talentless-crap, you should be outraged public money funds it and idiots will pay millions of pounds for it’. This is of course how everything is reported in the media. All substances either cause or cure cancer. All immigrants are either hard working members of society or the ruination of our livelihoods. There is no room for something uncontroversial when controversy equates to viewers and readers. Having a ‘nice’ painting or realistic sculpture win a prize, would not be controversial.

I read the Stuckist manifesto recently www.stuckism.com/stuckistmanif… and really connected with what they were about. However, I didn’t agree with everything and thought I could do a better job. So here is my opinion of what makes art, good art.

-Art is primarily about using a visual medium to create an emotional reaction in the viewer, whether it be awe, wonderment, sorrow, revulsion or just a spontaneous giggle. Inspiring mild perplexity is a poor substitute.

-Good art can be technically well executed, evocative or clever. The best art will be all three.

-If it has to be put in an art gallery to be recognised as art, it isn’t art. It is a ‘think piece’. Please put it in a ‘think piece’ gallery.

-If your art is primarily witty or conceptual, either make the meaning transparent (e.g. Banksy) or provide an explanation. Placing an obscure piece of work on a wall with an enigmatic title and no explanation relegates it to the level of wallpaper.

-Expressionism should always win over impressionism. We want to see what is in YOUR head, not constantly have to fill the gaps in your imagination myself.

-Just because your art is abstract, it doesn’t mean it cannot be evocative. Music is abstract, but can still make us break down in tears or leap for joy.

-Genres exist to provide a frame of reference for a work and help an audience relate to it. They shouldn’t be ignored merely for the false totem of originality. Being original within a genre is a much greater feat than trying to demolish every rule.

So here is some of my favourite work on Deviant Art which shows skill, makes me have an emotional reaction and has an intelligent concept worked into it.

Mature Content