Posts
I frequently find myself being labeled as "the guy who doesn't like abstract art". Let me correct that statement: I'm the guy who doesn't like modern art. Let me tell you why.
What we call "modernism" began to emerge at the tail end of the 19th century, a result of prior movements and ideas, such as Romanticism, Impressionism, and the philosophy of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Originally labeled as "avant-garde", the modernists sought to overthrow all forms of tradition and order in favor of discovering radical new ways to approach art.
In the 1920s, the Dada movement in Europe took things a step further. Dadaists prided themselves on being "anti-art", intentionally creating art which was ugly and without meaning. To quote a reviewer from the American Art News, "The Dada philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man."
Postmodernism is, essentially, an extension of Modernism. While modernism was based in ideals such as rationalism and progress, Postmodernism questions whether these ideals (or any others for that matter) exist at all. Postmodernism revels in fragmentation and disorder, stressing subjective experience as the only reality.
Why do I find it difficult to appreciate modern art? Well, it originated from a worldview that stands in stark opposition to mine. As a Christian, I believe in objective truth, tradition, beauty, and order, all of which Modernism rejects.
So please do not describe me as "the guy who doesn't like abstract art". However, feel free to call me "the guy who doesn't like modern art" anytime you like. In fact, I'm proud of it.
The study of Modernism is sad, depressing, but most of all, human. Without the theological framework of the Gospel, we are lost in a tumultuous sea of confusion and despair. Thank God he has provided an alternative: Himself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm not a fan of viewing such art. However, it is quite enjoyable to make.. of course the emphasis there being more on the emotional release of the experience itself and not the resulting amusing mess that I'd hardly try to pass off as art.
However, I am a fan of theater of the absurd. It comes from the same sort of mindset, and yet, by the often hilarious randomness it manages to scream a message that there has got to be something more to life than this insanity we humans create in the name of our "logic".
I'd love to see the Eiffel Tower Wedding Party done by someone in a Monty Python vein who could pull it off with less of the focus on the humor of each line delivered by itself, and more on the deeper absurdity... and need for looking elsewhere for any true logic.
Well, I love you even if you don't like modern art!! :)
Can art be rejected based on the creed of its creator? Hmmm . . . I wonder. I lean towards the answer, "No." Although our criticism of art is of course informed by what we know of those who created it, when assessing a work's value we must attempt to set down some of the baggage of what we know about the personalities of its creators and the particular movements which they or the work itself may be associated, and take the work in on its own.
Shall we reject Stravinsky, O'Keefe, Stieglitz, Matisse, Picasso, Le Corbusier, and e.e. cummings--some of the great artists of the 20th Century--simply because of their ideals or creeds (or for their lack or creeds)? Do we even know what these people truly believed at the various points of their life? Doesn't an artist often put things into their work that they don't even claim to give creed to? Don't we see Christian themes surfacing even in the work of so-called "atheist" or "subversive" artists?
Stravinsky got back in touch with his Christian (Russian Orthodox) roots in the 1920s. I suppose we can then as Christians accept all his work from this point forward? Or does this somehow redeem even his earlier work? This whole line of reasoning seems like a fairly problematic way to approach our viewing of art.
Just as all truth is God's truth, all beauty is God's beauty. And I can't help but find both--and therefore, God--in so many of the great modern works.
-James Gregory
I must also point out that your blog page uses sans serif fonts, a development of the Bauhaus movement--one of the most famous and innovative movements of Modernism.
The modern sans serif ("without serifs") fonts were quite controversial, and were even considered grotesque by many when they started to be used.
You may want to try a more classic (and less subversive) font.
I love you, James. You're right, of course. Truth can be found in many places. But there is on ongoing stream of modern thought that stands in antithesis to order and beauty (i.e. when artist creates something that is intentionally meaningless) That is what I reject aesthetically. But certainly artists like Picasso and Matisse created some beautiful art. Modernism, as with any movement, gave birth to some good things along with the bad.
I understand what you mean, but it still doesn't change the fact that Modernism was birthed out of a desire to rebel against tradition and order, the very things that Christianity is founded upon. But I think we're probably more on the same page than we think.
Post a Comment