On the Subject of Something

Modern art often baffles me; it is at times pointless, derivative and condescending. They revel in finding 'meaning' in simple objects or shapes--such as putting a old, worn-out rug in the middle of a bland, white room--while seemingly shunning the majesty of the Renaissance and Victorian era painters (including those of America, such as Thomas Chambers and William Ranney), from the baroque to the romantic. This was apparent in Europe this summer, every modern art museum I visited I felt like I wasted time and money, there was an air of boredom or restrained disinterest. On the other hand, visiting the great centers of classical works, the Vatican or the Louvre, there was a palpable sense of excitement and wonder, respectful awe at the skill on display--the attention to detail in the sculptures, the cornucopia of colors in the paintings, the realism of the bust. Below are some examples from a couple minutes of searching (including ones that I do and do not know), I will continue after the break.

----------Some examples:--------------
Classical:
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/americanstories/objectImages/TT.2.22.EL.jpg
http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/9/2/10429-the-raft-of-the-medusa-theodore-gericault.jpg
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/200159/1/Landscape-Inspired-By-The-View-Of-Frascati-1822.jpg
http://www.wga.hu/art/b/boilly/stage_co.jpg
http://com3w09.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/david-oath_of_the_horatii-17842.jpg
http://wortleyvillage.net/postimp/C_Corot/bridgepc.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Cole_Thomas_The_Voyage_of_Life_Youth_1842.jpg
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/b/bierstadt/bierstadt_landers_peak.jpg

Modernist:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.number-8.jpg
http://lookintomyowl.com/elisha_blog/what_you_missed09.jpg
http://blogs.princeton.edu/wri152-3/f05/fkherani/11-cubism_Picasso_Woman-Playing-Mandolin.jpg
http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/images/picasso_2-thumb.jpg
http://www.artquotes.net/masters/josef-albers/homage-to-the-square-62.jpg
http://emptyeasel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/broadwayboogiewoogiebypietmondrian.jpg

Modern-Classical:
http://v5.tigaer-design.com/gallery/painting/gte_std.jpg
http://www.visionafar.com/GFX/eventidebig.jpg
http://www.inetgrafx.com/gallery/albums/userpics/FJORD-1600.jpg
http://www.vision-afar.com/GFX/tarriance_1280.jpg
http://www.meduzarts.com/upload/portfolio/project/subaru/meduzarts_sub_modct1_ca_hr.jpg
http://www.visionafar.com/GFX/tranfull.jpg
------------------------

Most of the 'abstract' or modernist paintings do little for me, artist like Pollock produce works that are jumbled messes. Yes, some may find solace or meaning is the mindless clutter and supposed organization, I do not.

When in an art museum with modernist paintings, the defense I always get when I remark, "And I'm supposed to be feeling what?" Is that I do not understand or that I am supposed to be feeling nothing (?). The remark that I do not understand must defeat the purpose of art, which is to express the artist view and project it onto others. That I cannot even fathom, beyond things such as 'He is trying to show the clutter and waste of modern society; this works illustrates the plight of modern man; there is a message about our past and how it will shape us', is at times an indictment of the elitist culture they assume.

Now, that is not to say that the painters of old were not elitist, but their artwork could speak to you and even at first glance you could draw something from it. The abstract painters revel in your confusion, say that they have spoken to you, but that is not the case. It is more that I am biased toward the real--concrete, majestic or mundane--but have a dislike of the pointlessly abstract, when the same message could be given in a more sensory-pleasing fashion.

They [the modernist] disguise themselves as masters, when they are more like horrible writers, whose work so confounds the conscious that some may find it brilliant, but which in substance, it is lacking.