Comments on: How modern art can be so horrid

By: Kelseigh

Kelseigh — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:33:19 +0000

Great article. I would have to argue that beauty is not subjective; rather, attraction is subjective, while beauty remains objective. Thus, the pile o’ candy wrappers sculpture may really click with me, while you hate it, but we are both left drooling at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

In any case, I’m saving the page. Thank you for an excellent article.

By: How to really oversell a lecture on a laser cutter | Jonathan Birge

How to really oversell a lecture on a laser cutter | Jonathan Birge — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:23:12 +0000

[...] In previous posts, I’ve talked about the breathless pretention of a lot of modern art, and how most of the effort seems to go into technobabble rationalization of the art, and not the art itself. Well, somebody giving a lecture at the MIT School of Architecture has recently scaled new heights on the tower of babble: Architecture reimagines how humans inhabit the earth — how they organize themselves spatially and shape their everyday lives. If architecture is viewed as the material alteration of the earth’s surface, it has astronomical consequences: it can alter the very shape of a planet. Come see one way designs develop, through a demonstration of laser cutting in our fablab. [...]

By: Jan

Jan — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:32:10 +0000

“But now that you know he’s “interrogating classical notions” you have the satisfaction of getting it, which is really the only stock in trade of much of art.”

I couldn’t have put it better – well done!

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:02:24 +0000

Johnny:

I have to admit I agree with you that my use of MOMA vs. Met statistics is not a very good way to estimate the public perception of modern art, for all the reasons you state. (And I’ve added a note to that effect in the post.) Having said that, a factor of five is hard to entirely account for by differences in size or price, and to the extent that people are going to see the timeless art that is there, that is even fewer of them who are going to see the post-modern pap that I’m talking about in this post.

You’re preaching to the choir on the brutalist buildings! I work in a the 70s era concrete box next to Stata, which looks to be modeled after a minimum security prison.

By: Johnny

Johnny — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:51:45 +0000

The basis for your post is something I struggle with. Is it “art” if I need to read a thesis about it and if so, is it worthwhile? Suspending a giant bathrobe in a gallery or writing a phrase in ten foot tall neon letters doesn’t seem all that brilliant. When one imagines the effort to create the actual piece it seems downright ludicrous. I think modern art is a dialogue that a casual observer may not understand by hearing bits and pieces. Maybe that bathrobe is clever because it’s really a response to some other artist’s performance art but nevertheless, it will certainly be discarded and forgotten.

Obviously, the most frustrating part about starchitects is that their work is permanent and is supposed to serve a function. So if they design a mediocre building that’s mildly interesting because it’s different then we may be stuck with it forever. Especially since it seems like every building more than ten years old has preservationists clamoring to save it.

One place where I found your argument to be particularly weak was your comparison of the number of people who visit Moma and the Met. The Met is at least 5 times the size, is cheaper (suggested donation) and has thousands of years of art to choose from and therefore a much higher quality overall. And also don’t discount the entire Moma as the type of “art” you are describing. I think everyone would consider a few artists in their collection to be exceptional and likely to stand the test of time.

And as far as bad Boston buildings, one has to look no further than the brutalist City Hall to find one that is both horrifying and completely dysfunctional. The only advantage City Hall has over Gehry’s is that there will likely be no opposition when they tear it down

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:55:39 +0000

greg: For the most part, I agree with you. I probably should’ve been more clear in my essay that as far as the artist is concerned, it’s all about ego, and little more. In fact, at this point the art world is in such disarray that I don’t think the artist matters; he’s just the charlatan du jour. And there will always be a surplus of such people. But what’s harder to explain is why our culture allows these fools to be so successful. Gehry makes a lot of sense to me; he’s just a guy with a big ego and little patience. But what I’m still trying to get my head around is how people keep hiring him.

By: greg

greg — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:17:11 +0000

I’ve only just heard that MIT is suing Gehry. Of course I’d prefer they shoot him, or draw and quarter him. But these are squeamish days we’s a livin’ in, and I suppose a lawsuit is the best I can hope for.

I saw the Stata center a couple of years ago, not too long after it was finished. Jonathan is right, on an abstract level, in saying, “It’s somehow unsatistfying and dehumanizing. The problem is, we can’t explain why.”

But you can viscerally know the explanation you can’t abstractly specify. Looking at the Stata center, I could clearly hear Gehry saying, “F**k you, a**hole. This is all about me.” That was all the explanation I needed.

I must agree with Jonathan that this sort of architecture takes more effort than the bomb-proof cinder-block bunkers of the 1970s. But then again, that says nothing more than the truism that it takes more effort to say, “F**k you, a**hole” than it takes to say, “Ehhh…whatever.”

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:29:35 +0000

I will say this about Gehry’s stuff: at least it takes more effort than the concrete boxes we got in the 70s. But I don’t think his stuff will stand the test of time. I predict that Gehry’s architecture will begin to look very tired in less than a decade.

By: Anatoly Yakovlev

Anatoly Yakovlev — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:04:02 +0000

Excellent article!
I have not seen The Stata Center, although I very much would like to; however, the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles surely fits the “art” category you described. All I can say about this kind of art is that it appears to be a meaningless pile of glossy metal, and only fame of architects give it any kind of (undue) authority in art.