When I've thought about the word “avant-garde” in the past I've always connected it movies or t.v shows with overly artsy people talking about what I saw as really bad modern art. So, I've always associated it as something negative. Our book lists the positive associations of the avant-garde, as forging ahead, breaking down barriers, caring nothing for expectations, being innovative, and challenging conventions. However it also states the its negative associations are, difficulty and incomprehensibility.
I can understand what the avant-garde means to do, by changing art as time goes on by challenging conventions. But at the same time I look at some of these works of art and I don't necessarily think that the avant-garde is always advancing art as a whole.
Just to get this out there, for the most part I can't stand a lot of modern art, and I absolutely cannot stand the topic “what is art?” because I've had that topic drilled into me so much, and the topic never goes anywhere. So, for a good portion of this quarter I'm more than likely not going to be very into/enjoying what we're reading, but I'm still going to give it a chance.
When I was going through our first reading, this is what I thought about the different examples of modern art: Mondrian's Composition with Yellow and White is not a bad painting, even though I'm not a fan of Mondrian he knew how to use color and composition in his art so I respect him; on the other hand I can't stand Marcel Duchamp, the book shows his L.H.O.O.Q painting and I understand that it's supposed to be mocking the Lisa, but my response to that is, “so, you copied a famous painting and drew a mustache on it and wrote that it has a hot ass, so what?” Duchamp is also the one who found a urinal and placed it in a gallery and had people question whether or not it's considered art. which of course there is no answer to; the other artist that I would like to point out is Damien Hirst, and I'm not entirely sure what to think of him between the diamond skull and all of the animals he has suspended in formaldehyde, such as the shark in our book or even the “unicorn.” I mean his work is really interesting, but at the same time I see it more as something that should just be in a science museum rather than as an art exhibit.
Now to move onto Manet's Luncheon on the Grass and how I think it challenges the viewer. Some of the things that Manet did that might have been considered avant-garde were, his use of brush strokes. Up until then paintings, from the Academy, had no traces of brush strokes in them. In Manet's painting he use quick brush strokes with thick paint. Because of this a lot of objects in the painting look like blobs and the painting looks more like a study rather than a completed work of art.
Another thing that Manet did was he depicted a nude of a modern prostitute, instead of depicting a classical nude, with modernly clothed men. One interesting thing about the prostitute is how she is staring out at the viewer as if you're apart of the picnic as well.
The other avent-garde challenge to conventional art that Manet put into the painting is the woman bathing in the background. Even though she's far into the background she is the same size as all of the other figures in the painting, when she should be a lot smaller. This makes the foreground/middle ground/background a bit confusing and a lot of the painting seems very flat.
2 comments:
You have brought up some interesting points! I obviously don't expect every student to leave this class with a passion for modern art. Perhaps your ideas about this type of art will change, or maybe they won't. I do think it's interesting, though, how you discussed the issues that you have with different avant-garde artists. The pieces by these artists have obviously bothered you (or "challenged" you, if you will). And that challenge (and even discomfort, to a degree) is part of the point of avant-garde art. So, in a way, we could say that these artists have created the reaction in you that they intended, to an extent.
(In my own humble opinion, I'll offer my own two cents on Duchamp. We'll talk about him in the weeks to come, and you are welcome to agree or disagree with me. I think you are right that there is no definite answer to the question, "What is art?" But before Duchamp, people were better able to define art. So even though today it might seem very passé to observe that art doesn't have a fixed definition, that idea was completely radical in the early 20th century.)
-Prof. Bowen
P.S. Check out the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip on Caroline's post. Calvin thinks that viewers aren't supposed to like avant-garde art. Ha ha!
Post a Comment