I know there's def already a post like this but I think the reason people arbitrarily disliking modern art styles because "anyone can make it" bothers me so much is that it implicitly relies on the idea that the value of a piece of art is dependent on the effort you put in, which is. So fucking damaging to any discussion of art
When you equate the value of a work to the amount of labor involved in its creation, it is no longer Art, it is a Product. By putting the emphasis on labor, you are no longer looking at it through the lens of meaning and artistic value, but that of economic and utilitarian politics.
This is also one of the main methods facists historically used to devalue the things they called 'degenerate art'. They would take anything that wasn't a perfect exercise in realism or technical beauty, anything in a style that could be considered not traditionally appealing- mostly styles native to non-white cultures, but also things like surrealism and other cutting edge movements of the time- and go 'look at this! Look at how simple and unskilled it is! This is why we, with our Correct way of doing art, are Superior!'
And I know that bringing that up will put a lot of people on the defensive. Because I know a lot of people who dont engage in art history or discussion think that they're being Morally Correct in their take that modern art is bad, because for some reason a lot of people are very firm in the belief that all modern art is 'rich people nonsense'
But heres the thing. It Really Isnt
Yes, some modern art is commissioned or made by rich people, some is pretentious and made for the wrong reasons and traded around by shitty people who want to look cultured. But Ill tell you a secret- that happens with Any style of art. And just because some people do it for the wrong reasons, that doesn't mean that anything made in that style can NEVER have value.
And for those of you who just think it's too simple to be 'art'- listen, I get it! I actually really don't like a lot of modern art. It doesnt make me feel anything and I have trouble understanding it.
But just because it doesn't affect me, doesn't mean it can't make someone else feel something.
Art is more than the time, or effort, or material you put into it. If artwork's value could be defined by the hours spent and paint used, it'd be the same as anything made on an assembly line. A piece of art's value comes from what you get out of it- emotionally, spiritually, or intellectually. If you look at a piece and think it sucks, guess what? You just got something out of it. It made you feel something. "I hate this" is still a feeling! And if you actually go into it with good faith and try to Engage it, you can get even more- ask yourself Why you hate it, what about it upsets or bores you, what it might mean or what you would change or try to say instead. That's the point of making art- not some concrete immediate satisfaction or hard numerical value. Sometimes art being simple, visibly unpleasant, or seemingly pointless is the Point- they want to say something, they want you to see it and think it sucks and then use that to say something about the world.
The point of art is to make you Think, to say things. It's to engage the viewer, and if you engage with art with that mindset, if you're open to having that dialogue, I promise that no matter how 'bad' a piece is, it will always have SOME value. You don't have to like it, or agree with it, but by trying to place limits on what art is allowed to look like, or make sweeping statements about what has value or what doesn't, you are not being nearly as revolutionary as you think. Art is about complete and total freedom of expression. No matter what morals you think you're preaching, by trying to put anything in a box or place objectivity into the sphere of art, you are directly harming that discussion and parroting arguments that have always been used to stifle creativity and put down others. It doesn't help anyone.
0 notes