In defense of modern art

It’s not all awful

By ANJALI IYER — amiyer@ucdavis.edu

“Modern art is trash” has become an increasingly common sentiment across both news outlets and social media, often followed by an indignant “I could do that myself.” While I am a firm believer in the principle that anyone can make art, the sentiment behind the latter statement is usually an insincere attempt to delegitimize artistic talent. Simmering discontent with the state of modern art has remained a longstanding qualm since artists departed from the realism and portraiture emblematic of the pre-19th century world.

Criticism as an analytical pursuit is not inherently bad; artists need criticism to hone their craft and artistic direction. But critics who wholly dismiss the artistry behind modern pieces weaponize an array of disingenuous definitions — conveniently excluding styles they enjoy. Instead of creating a constructive discourse to explain their reasoning, modern art cynics lament that art has surely died and loudly yearn for les académies d’art of old.

Modern art cannot be defined by one single philosophy. Critics who dismiss the artistry behind modern pieces use a disingenuous definition, one that conveniently excludes art that leans realist. This is a style that is classified through its rejection of erstwhile traditions, institutions, techniques and genres. Though perspectives differ, most artists and scholars agree that modern art explores and expands the boundaries of artistic tradition with a focus on self-expression and social observation.

Modern art is challenging and experimental, which explains the controversy surrounding the movement. Critics who denounce modern art altogether tend to approach the style with a rigid understanding of art itself, saddling artistic expression with the purpose of portraying beauty.

Observing the vulnerability of a Mark Rothko painting will not evoke the same feeling as standing in front of a French-romantic depiction of charging cavalry. Similarly, the liveliness of ‘The Wedding Feast at Carna’ is undoubtedly more rousing than solemn portraits of medieval Catholic saints. Thus, modern art prompts the viewer to consider yet another emotional dimension — perhaps one that may not placate our preference for comfort.

The challenge of looking beyond abstract or surreal forms to explore the meaning of a modern art piece is laborious. This is not to say that pre-modern art lacks meaning, but the classical emphasis on realism allows the viewer to grasp familiar subjects. Techniques that reflect inner turmoil or self-change can be discombobulating.

Modern art also mirrors modern social conditions. Founded by artists who rejected institutions and structural restrictions, the movement marked the dawn of a new era in society. A rapidly evolving technological landscape and the emergence of contemporary culture inevitably changed how and why art was made.

The freedom of modern art provided artists with a medium through which they could reflect on the world around them, as the movement lived through an era of brutal military conflicts, human suffering and tumultuous political change. These creations were manifestations of an artist’s musings — thoughts and feelings mixed into paint, stretched onto canvas or kneaded into clay. Analysing artistic intention requires attention, usually demanding an uncomfortable exploration of wider sociopolitical dynamics.

Critics also seem to associate our acknowledgement of a larger scope of artistic talent as an indication of diminishing skill. But does exclusivity mean talent, or do those who were previously excluded from the artistic world challenge a once narrow view of artistry?

Those who entirely dismiss modern art as being “awful” or “ugly” are insincere and conveniently vague — modern art is incredibly diverse, so it seems unlikely that one would despise every piece that originated from the movement. It is regressive to demand all modern art be dismissed if some pieces do not reflect one’s personal view of the world because we descend into dictating who possesses the moral authority to define beauty and the parameters of self-expression.

Perhaps we need to sit in whatever discomfort modern art might evoke, because there is meaning in artistic expression if we are only willing to find it.

Written by: Anjali Iyer — amiyer@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.