This week's symposium regarded a topic I have always been a little hesitant to acknowledge: The meaning of modern art. Prior to the symposium, I had only the utmost disdain for what appeared to me to be lazy acts of self-indulgence. Mondrian and his remarkably simple interlocking rectangles, Rothko and his ventures into expressive color theory, Pollock and his random drippings were all images that once made me cringe. I had the childish mindset that if what I saw was not immediately recognizable, explainable, or personally meaningful, it must be unworthy of praise. But thanks to Brett's illuminating speech, I have come to see the truth of this perplexing concept.
Artists all work toward the same goal of displaying the real world through art. This means that when Monet removed the sharp details and added flowing textural patterns in his work, he was not distorting reality, but creating what to him seemed a more emotional reaction to the world he was trying to recreate; the world as he saw it. This is true of all great and influential artists. Modern art has experienced all its various forms simply because artists were trying to make sense of the world and what makes it what it is. The idea that the purpose of art could be more than aesthetically pleasing advertising, political rallying, or decoration, is a highly philosophical and beautiful one. Art can be about the truth of all things observed, felt, and believed. It can reveal the reality that we all exist within but do not see for ourselves. This concept changed my stance on the peculiarities of modern art immediately, and I will now go forth with an open mind, hoping to learn a little more about the existence we all share through the eyes of the artists that used to perplex me.
No comments:
Post a Comment