- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
Part of OP's question seems to be, why should I care about any of this Post-Modern Art bullshit?
This is long. So here's my best TLDR about appreciating art from the various schools:
1) Classical Art is like bottled water- ready to consume: Modern is more like choosing between drinking water from the tap, drinking diet coke from your fridge, or saying “fuck that shit” and driving to the store to buy whole milk- you're allowed to engage it on whatever level you'd like, and if you'd like to go hog wild, go for it: Post Modernism is going to drop you off somewhere unknown, and expect you to scrounge up something to drink for yourself- and the best artists will give you some pretty clear signs towards interesting beverages.
So here's the briefest, relevant art history I can do-
Some dudes were doing photo-realism, well before the photograph was even around. That's why you'd hire a cat like Michelangelo or Rembrandt, because they could represent shit at near 100% fidelity.
When Modernism first gets going (mid/late 1800s) the photograph is starting to take over. Suddenly, an artists' #1 money-maker is getting squeezed out by photography. It's cheaper, much quicker and produces multiple copies. Also, you don't have to train a lifetime at it, to be successful.
So getting Modern- stylish and whimsical, was a pretty natural place to go for artists to go in response to photography- innovate or die, basically. And once you start getting really crazy (like Dali) you start rubbing up against Post-Modernism.
And once you start asking the question, "How do we innovate after Modernism?" the answer is Post Modernism.
So earlier, I said PMA is a puzzle. What I mean by that, is- when the creator is finished working on the project, it remains in a state of incompletion. It's not fair to judge a puzzle, until you've assembled some of the pieces. You need to interact with a puzzle, before you can judge it fairly.
So I thought I'd talk through my interpretation of some PMA you're likely acquainted with, and some of the processes surrounding why they work for me. Talking with a friend helps you unpack a lot.
When you engage Post Modernism, you're deep-sea fishing into the mind, and symbolism and history and stuff. So when you see an apple, it's rarely just an apple. It's the fruit Eve used to tempt Adam, it's something you pack for lunch, it's what laid out Snow White, etc. A good artist will use context or emotion to give you a hint what the apple means- "Pssst, it's Snow White!"
Can't end without a brief word about art installations- it's one of the pillars of PM. It's basically where an artist takes over a studio space, and creates an art piece that the audience walks through, viewing pieces from all angles, and the artist creating a flow. It's unprecedented in the history of art, and completely unique to Post Modernism. It might be the highest form, or at least the most difficult to consider, as a creator.
LOL at how much I've written, for what's going to amount to one "like" and maybe two agrees.
But I hope this at least makes one or two people a little more receptive to the crazy world of Post Modernism. And hey. it's okay to say, "this shit sucks. It's confusing, and shocking for it's own sake." I've said that plenty of times.
This is long. So here's my best TLDR about appreciating art from the various schools:
1) Classical Art is like bottled water- ready to consume: Modern is more like choosing between drinking water from the tap, drinking diet coke from your fridge, or saying “fuck that shit” and driving to the store to buy whole milk- you're allowed to engage it on whatever level you'd like, and if you'd like to go hog wild, go for it: Post Modernism is going to drop you off somewhere unknown, and expect you to scrounge up something to drink for yourself- and the best artists will give you some pretty clear signs towards interesting beverages.
So here's the briefest, relevant art history I can do-
Some dudes were doing photo-realism, well before the photograph was even around. That's why you'd hire a cat like Michelangelo or Rembrandt, because they could represent shit at near 100% fidelity.
When Modernism first gets going (mid/late 1800s) the photograph is starting to take over. Suddenly, an artists' #1 money-maker is getting squeezed out by photography. It's cheaper, much quicker and produces multiple copies. Also, you don't have to train a lifetime at it, to be successful.
So getting Modern- stylish and whimsical, was a pretty natural place to go for artists to go in response to photography- innovate or die, basically. And once you start getting really crazy (like Dali) you start rubbing up against Post-Modernism.
So earlier, I said PMA is a puzzle. What I mean by that, is- when the creator is finished working on the project, it remains in a state of incompletion. It's not fair to judge a puzzle, until you've assembled some of the pieces. You need to interact with a puzzle, before you can judge it fairly.
So I thought I'd talk through my interpretation of some PMA you're likely acquainted with, and some of the processes surrounding why they work for me. Talking with a friend helps you unpack a lot.
So, here's how I talked out Warhol with a friend.
One of the greatest things about this piece, IMO, is that it's accessible on it's surface- it's something people don't mind hanging up in their house. Too often, confusion or outright horror, are considered virtues in PMA and I think that's a big pile of bullshit. Also, the art snobs just love it when the general populace can't "get it," and so they love to classify Warhol as a "Pop" artist, which is elitist bullshit IMO.
So it looks pretty good. What else? Well, I'm a big color whore, so the first thing I notice is the color schemes, and I instantly think of the American 1960s- and what we'd today call, retro-futurism.
https://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/50/a1/96/50a19684218c4eca7342e08314d03756.jpg https://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f3/5e/80/f35e807d691a076975b58d848ebf64ec.jpg
And it's Marilyn Monroe... And there's a bunch of her. But how different are they, actually? Well they're all the same photograph, right? Just colored differently. Sometimes. If the grid of MM was a telephone keypad, then you'll notice Marilyns 1+3 are exactly the same, and 4+6+8 are virtually identical.
Also, we shouldn't get too hung up on Marilyn specifically, because he did a whole bunch of celebrities: Elvis, Elizabeth Taylor, MJ, Lennon... So I think focusing on her being a vixen, or some sort of seductress would be a logical dead-end. This piece doesn't feel particularly sexual.
Or warm, really. There's something kind of cold about the whole piece, right? The colors are warm, but something about the repetition is cold. Detatched, like you're thumbing through a book of mugshots, and you're about to turn the page.
So I can't tell you exactly what it all "means," but when I put the pieces together, I think it's about celebrity, and manufacturing, and the audience getting spammed by forty variations of the same damn person. It's about entertainment noise, and identity- what actually makes her, or any of us, special? Prophetic, really.
And I feel, because it's such strong work, that most people will arrive at a similar place, when they talk it out It's all there, if you treat it seriously, like a puzzle...
One of the greatest things about this piece, IMO, is that it's accessible on it's surface- it's something people don't mind hanging up in their house. Too often, confusion or outright horror, are considered virtues in PMA and I think that's a big pile of bullshit. Also, the art snobs just love it when the general populace can't "get it," and so they love to classify Warhol as a "Pop" artist, which is elitist bullshit IMO.
So it looks pretty good. What else? Well, I'm a big color whore, so the first thing I notice is the color schemes, and I instantly think of the American 1960s- and what we'd today call, retro-futurism.
https://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/50/a1/96/50a19684218c4eca7342e08314d03756.jpg https://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f3/5e/80/f35e807d691a076975b58d848ebf64ec.jpg
Also, we shouldn't get too hung up on Marilyn specifically, because he did a whole bunch of celebrities: Elvis, Elizabeth Taylor, MJ, Lennon... So I think focusing on her being a vixen, or some sort of seductress would be a logical dead-end. This piece doesn't feel particularly sexual.
Or warm, really. There's something kind of cold about the whole piece, right? The colors are warm, but something about the repetition is cold. Detatched, like you're thumbing through a book of mugshots, and you're about to turn the page.
So I can't tell you exactly what it all "means," but when I put the pieces together, I think it's about celebrity, and manufacturing, and the audience getting spammed by forty variations of the same damn person. It's about entertainment noise, and identity- what actually makes her, or any of us, special? Prophetic, really.
And I feel, because it's such strong work, that most people will arrive at a similar place, when they talk it out It's all there, if you treat it seriously, like a puzzle...
So I thought this was a good example, because it had a lot of shock value and made most folks roll their eyes.
I don't know why, but I instinctually liked it at the time, and wasn't sure why until I found out later that they put it in some museum, and that Lady Gaga actually knows what she's doing. She's done some pretty out-there performance art stuff, and I think she was teamed up with a reputed artist to do the whole dress thing.
So, this one you can talk out pretty quickly. The first thought is, it's going to rot! It's going to spoil and get all fucking nasty and stink and shit. The second thought is, it's meat. Meat market. Selling meat.
That and everybody freaking out. That was part of everything too. The audience was part of the performance piece.
IMO Lady Gaga's dress is a piece about celebrity, whoring yourself out for fame, and how it's all going to rot, sooner rather than later. Pretty fucking terrific and subversive, if you ask me. Later on, she a did an SNL skit that made me feel like I was right.
(FWIW I'm mostly indifferent to her actual music. She absolutely CRUSHED the Superbowl and Oscars though.)
I don't know why, but I instinctually liked it at the time, and wasn't sure why until I found out later that they put it in some museum, and that Lady Gaga actually knows what she's doing. She's done some pretty out-there performance art stuff, and I think she was teamed up with a reputed artist to do the whole dress thing.
So, this one you can talk out pretty quickly. The first thought is, it's going to rot! It's going to spoil and get all fucking nasty and stink and shit. The second thought is, it's meat. Meat market. Selling meat.
That and everybody freaking out. That was part of everything too. The audience was part of the performance piece.
IMO Lady Gaga's dress is a piece about celebrity, whoring yourself out for fame, and how it's all going to rot, sooner rather than later. Pretty fucking terrific and subversive, if you ask me. Later on, she a did an SNL skit that made me feel like I was right.
(FWIW I'm mostly indifferent to her actual music. She absolutely CRUSHED the Superbowl and Oscars though.)
Anyway, I'm done explaining stuff, but I wanted to link to an installation artist I really like, Mike Kelley.
He's famous for doing stuff with stuffed animals. This is from Deoderized Central Mass with Satellites
http://sneed.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-WS249_kelley_G_20130315090604.jpg
Ai Weiwei is another famous dude. He's doing some really cool shit at Alcatraz.
Here's another, outside piece. That's another PMA thing, stretching the idea of what a canvas is, and likewise, what a frame is. Also, I don't know that it's worth getting all super-analytical about a piece like this. Sometimes, you just do shit because you think it's going to look cool, you know?
https://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5c/62/4d/5c624da828da92eede4fd42b17bc95dd.jpg
Christo, "The Gates"
He's famous for doing stuff with stuffed animals. This is from Deoderized Central Mass with Satellites
http://sneed.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-WS249_kelley_G_20130315090604.jpg
Ai Weiwei is another famous dude. He's doing some really cool shit at Alcatraz.
Here's another, outside piece. That's another PMA thing, stretching the idea of what a canvas is, and likewise, what a frame is. Also, I don't know that it's worth getting all super-analytical about a piece like this. Sometimes, you just do shit because you think it's going to look cool, you know?
https://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5c/62/4d/5c624da828da92eede4fd42b17bc95dd.jpg
Christo, "The Gates"
But I hope this at least makes one or two people a little more receptive to the crazy world of Post Modernism. And hey. it's okay to say, "this shit sucks. It's confusing, and shocking for it's own sake." I've said that plenty of times.
