Home

[Somertime]

This picture to me is not "Modern Art" but Commercial Art that has no value except to fill up space in a commercial environment.  Tasteless, talentless.. Commercial Art is what is hung in Restaurants, Hotel Rooms or Lobby spaces etc................. 

[Kachina624]

@jubilant    I think you're taking a rather simplistic view of so-called "modern art".  Did you know this period in art started in the 1860s and extended through the 1970s?  It includes many of the masters like Van Gogh, Cezanne, Serrat, Matisse, Gauguin, Picasso.

You may be thinking of something more recent which is referred to as "Contemporary Art" which is more of a period than a style of painting, sculpture, weaving of textiles etc.  I think you are referring to abstract contemporary painting.  It is an interpretation of realism and may or may not show recognizable subjects.  Perhaps it should be thought of an application of color or texture added to a wall to make it more interesting rather than as a moose or a rock.  Accept it at face value rather than trying to see something in it.

[stevieb]

@Kachina624  I could be wrong but I believe Serrat is a musician while Seurat was the post-impressionist artist.

[Kachina624]

@stevieb    I could easily have misspelled it.

[KathyM23]

I see a bird flying in this piece of art.  I must say tho that I have no interest or knowledge regarding art.  I can appreciate the talent it takes to create Art but it does not really speak to me.

My home is filled with just mass produced pictures and most are of flowers.  That is what appeals to me.

[Jersey Born]

@jubilant - As an Art lover, I can say that Art truly is in "the eye of the beholder".  What appeals to one person will disgust another. In the image below, I see something unappealing to my eye.  I find the yellow "smears" out of place, and I am not particularly fond of the shapes or colors in the remainder of the work. It looks like digital art made quickly and hastily by someone using a computer program and then printed out and stuck on a wall. I am uncertain whether the white image of a building in the image is part of the artwork, or just a reflexion from glass covering the image, assuming there is glass covering the image. Overall, I find the image unpleasant to look at.

That said, I never understood what one of my favorite artists, Georgia O'Keefe, saw in the works of Mark Rothko. I see only blotches or blends of two or three different colors when I look at his works, and nothing more.  She, however, admired his works greatly.

I do love the works of Henri Rousseau, and two of his works are hanging in the MOMA in NY. While others ran to "The Starry Night" by Vincent Van Gogh, I ran to the adjacent wall with two Rousseaus. We are all different in our tastes in Art.  (Not that I don't admire the works of Van Gogh-- I most certainly do!)

[on the bay]

Well, I think we can all see it is a reindeer on a starry snowy night!😄🦌❄️✨

So if that is what the artist meant, I like it, if he/she didn't, well I don't know what they meant!

Interestingly, (or not🙄) "Modern Art" is the period of art from 1860-1970 when artists created art against all tradition and went for creativity.

I thought it was art of the current age but many may still name it as that.

Some famous ones-Van Gogh -who knew?!, Mondigliani, Picasso, Andy Warhol, Dali, Mondrian, Matisse, Cezanne, O'Keefe, even Monet, Munch, Dumas and many others that might be less familiar.

Whereas "abstract art" was initially a part of the modern art period and it is defined as art that does not depict reality but uses shapes, colors,light forms-examples-Mondrian, Miro, Pollack, the first acknowledged abstract by  Wassily Kandinsky, a watercolor-"untitled."

What do you think of that?!

And there, thankfully is the end of our art history today! We all get an A!😅 

[Oznell]

@jubilant,  I'm firmly in @faeriemoon 's camp, which is, I have likes and dislikes in a vast range of different types of art.  In addition, "modern" art itself covers a huge range, of abstract, semi-abstract, and on and on.

I don't care for the example given, which looks to be one of those pre-fab illustrations, for commercial use.

To answer your question, when I like a piece of art in the modern category, it's for the same reasons I might like an art work that is traditional.  It has to have a spirit, a "feeling",  that the artist has manifested out of his own thought and emotion, and can successfully communicate that emotion.

I tend to be drawn to Cubist art, like that of a French painter like Delaunay--

The color, the movement, the way simple or complex shapes intersect, have to engage me somehow or make me curious.

In a more representational way, "modern" American artist Charles Burchfield produced what are called "transcendental" landscapes and townscapes.  To me they have a turbulent, almost shivery authenticity and wild beauty--

To paraphrase the old saying,  I know very little (almost nothing) about art, but I know what I like!

[stevieb]

A point well taken is that many people use abstract, modern and contemporary art almost interchangeably, me included, and really, they're not. Let me simply say I'm not a fan of most abstract art or most contemporary art while there is a bit more modern art I find appealing.

[wilma]

I love looking at all different kinds of art, and I think art history is very interesting. I generally prefer art that looks like "real" people, places, and objects, although I do like some abstract and geometric pieces.

I don't like the colors or design of the art posted by the Op. I see antlers and stars. The yellow splotches look like a sun and a hand.