args

Art that has no discernible point--Modern or Postmodern--is not art

First let me clarify: There are several modern/postmodern artworks that I find appealing. They do take skill, and on some level they make a point. Frank, by Chuck Close, at the Minneapolis Institute of Art is one example I can think of. However, many more so-called works of "art" are everything but. I guess I can only really show you by example. I went to the Hirshorn Modern Art Gallery in D.C., and was amazed at how utterly pointless it all was. A few pieces especially stuck out. http://hirshhorn.si.edu... This is sloppy and pointless. It could have conceivably taken an hour to paint, I'd guess less. Where is the beauty? Where is the truth? Where is the art? This is compounded by the fact that the museum has 20 pieces by this artist, most of which follow this theme. No skill, no creativity. Or what about this one, by Lichtenstein, at the Minneapolis Institute, my home turf. http://www.artsmia.org... Once again, we see no point. At this link there is a short blurb, where you can see the museum's laughable attempt to give it a point. "Of Lichtenstein's various recurring motifs, the brushstroke, as depicted in this color screenprint of 1967, is among the most enduring icons of his art. In a parody of the painterly gesture associated with the Abstract Expressionists, he represents the brushstroke--the principal signature of the artist--as an object in its own right, a visual pun frozen in time and space. Placed against a field of colored dots, Lichtenstein's motif mimics the photomechanical printing methods commonly used to produce comic strips, thus reflecting both his Pop art sensibility and preference for the impersonal and machine-made image." So, it's a brushstroke, made to look like a comic strip, which shows us a preference for the impersonal. I'll ask again: where is the beauty? Where is the truth? Where is the art? I trust I don't have to give more links. I once saw a painting which was simply a canvas covered in salmon-colored paint, in different textures. Aside from the repulsive color, it had no purpose. It was not art. The Metropolitan Museum in New York is a prime example of this: they exhibited a picture of the Virgin Mary in a jar of urine. Why? Not to improve, art's true purpose, but to degrade. To desecrate. It is meant to shock. Once again, it is not art. Art, to define the term, is truth and beauty. It has aesthetic quality. It appeals. It is aesthetic. This trend in art, from Andy Warhol to Roy Lichtenstein to Pierre Alechinsky, is to move away from real art. Thanks, Sola Gratia