Re:On Unread Books
by keiferski on Saturday November 04, 2017 @06:28PM
(#15627210)
Is there a name for the specific kind of modern art that has red canvases, soup cans, and splatter-painting as central examples? I'd be glad to change my usage if there were a clearer term.
No, because there is no broad "type" that does such things.
I'm not sure what you mean here; I was using "modern art" to refer specifically to the works of the Modern Art movement—which tended to have a lot of 'scribble-drawings'—rather than more generally to "art made in modern times."
I'm not sure how you are aware of the Modern Art movement but somehow equate it to scribble drawings. You consider Picasso's work to be "scribble drawings"? Art made in the past ±30 years is not considered "modern art", it is considered "contemporary art."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art
This is silly; a book can tell you a story without you needing to know anything about the time and place the book was written in. You need to know the language of the book, yes, but a book with a considerate author will often subtly teach you any jargon it uses, or the significance of cultural signifiers it refers to, etc. This is why outsider protagonists in fiction are so common.
You're missing my point. The language of the book (English) corresponds to the language of art. A lot of contemporary art is a reaction to things within its own field and cannot be really understood without understanding its context. If you don't understand its context (and have a hostile "they're just art snobs" attitude toward it) then no, you probably won't appreciate it. Not to mention the fact that again, contemporary art is truly a massive field filled with every possible variety of artist and intent, ranging from political statements to pure works of craftsmanship, and everything in between.
Ultimately, contemporary art has its own vocabulary. If you don't bother to learn it, don't expect to understand it. Furthermore, understanding a piece doesn't mean you like it or think it's a good piece of art. Whether contemporary artists should or should not aim to have their work intelligible to laymen is another question entirely.
No, because there is no broad "type" that does such things.
I'm not sure what you mean here; I was using "modern art" to refer specifically to the works of the Modern Art movement—which tended to have a lot of 'scribble-drawings'—rather than more generally to "art made in modern times."
I'm not sure how you are aware of the Modern Art movement but somehow equate it to scribble drawings. You consider Picasso's work to be "scribble drawings"? Art made in the past ±30 years is not considered "modern art", it is considered "contemporary art." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art
This is silly; a book can tell you a story without you needing to know anything about the time and place the book was written in. You need to know the language of the book, yes, but a book with a considerate author will often subtly teach you any jargon it uses, or the significance of cultural signifiers it refers to, etc. This is why outsider protagonists in fiction are so common.
You're missing my point. The language of the book (English) corresponds to the language of art. A lot of contemporary art is a reaction to things within its own field and cannot be really understood without understanding its context. If you don't understand its context (and have a hostile "they're just art snobs" attitude toward it) then no, you probably won't appreciate it. Not to mention the fact that again, contemporary art is truly a massive field filled with every possible variety of artist and intent, ranging from political statements to pure works of craftsmanship, and everything in between.
Ultimately, contemporary art has its own vocabulary. If you don't bother to learn it, don't expect to understand it. Furthermore, understanding a piece doesn't mean you like it or think it's a good piece of art. Whether contemporary artists should or should not aim to have their work intelligible to laymen is another question entirely.