0
   

Major influences on "modern" art?: Your thoughts.

 
 
msolga
 
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 07:03 pm
Over 500 British art "authorities" nominated Duchamp's Fountain as the most influential piece of modern art. What would be your choice (if you HAD to choose Cool )& why?

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/12/02/03LOO_ent-lead__200x203.jpg

"A humble porcelain urinal - lying on its back, and marked with a false signature - has been named the world's most influential piece of modern art, knocking Picasso and Matisse from their traditional supremacy.
Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, created in 1917, came out top in a survey of 500 British artists, curators, critics and dealers."...

Masterpice or pisstake?:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Arts/Masterpiece-or-pisstake/2004/12/02/1101923268948.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 10,094 • Replies: 224
No top replies

 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 07:32 pm
I think I really agree with their choice. "Fountain" certainly stood the art world on its head and challenged preconceived notions about art.

My only other choice might be when SAIC art student Scott Tyler's "What is the Proper Way to Display the U.S. Flag?"

Since most people aren't familiar with it...

It was a large U.S. flag laid on the floor with a notebook inviting people to write what they felt about the flag. You had to walk across the flag to write in the book.

Not only did it stir up "what is art?" questions, it stirred up a huge controversy. Groups protested the exhibit wherever it traveled. Some protested that it was disrespectful to the flag. Others protested the protesters claiming that free speech was the reason the flag had any signifigance. Many veterans lined up on both sides of the battle.

I consider any piece that can raise those types of questions to be very influential.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 07:41 pm
That's an interesting choice, boomerang. I'm afraid I'm one of those many people unfamiliar with this work by Scott Tyler. (I will investigate further!) It certainly sounds as though it was influential to the many who participated & followed the deabate it created.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 07:57 pm
I doubt you'll find much on it, Msolga.

If I recall, he called himself "Dread" Scott and he was, after all, an art student. I have never heard anything else about him.

I remember it very clearly because I attended SAIC, not at the same time this guy did but I was still living in Chicago at the time.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 08:04 pm
Ah! Very Happy

DREAD SCOTT

Dread Scott is a multidisciplinary artist whose work addresses questions that are part of the public discourse from a Maoist point of view. He approaches these questions from the standpoint of the oppressed and the "have-nots" and they are often the subject of the work as well....<cont>

http://www.artistsnetwork.org/artists/dread.html
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 08:13 pm
Certainly Duchamp's piece was a keystone.

I have no idea if it is the signal piece of the twentieth century.

And less of an idea that signal pieces are other than what they are, important triggers to others thinking and doing.

To me, art is not only long, but wide, encompasses the world.

Someone was speaking about art made in concentration camps, with virtually no materials at hand, the merest art communication being of such value...

Hard to land on one piece, except that it affected mainstreaming and future valuations.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 08:15 pm
My thinking at the moment, before I decide Smile , is toward artworks & artists that "democracized" art, took it from the realm of the elite,the cultured, the wealthy & privileged & gave ordinary people access & ownership. The German Dadaists come to mind, but the works of Heartfield, Hoch & others were hardly as famous as those of Duchamp, were they? But never-the-less, I believe they had a big influence on the art of the twentieth century. The idea of group purpose, a manifesto & the notion of the artist as a worker whose ideas were readily accessible to ordinary people is very "modern". And disposable art! (as in the case of the photomontage posters)! What a concept! I keep coming back to Dada, in one form or another ...
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 08:23 pm
Yes, very hard to land on one piece, osso. Confused
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 08:32 pm
It might be easier if you took "most" out of your question and left the discussion to influential pieces of art!

Are you familiar with the Ashcan school of painters, msolga? They sound right up your alley!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 08:39 pm
I think I might just change the title, boomerang! Good idea! Idea

No, I'm not familiar with the Ashcan scholl, bommerang. I feel I should be. I'll check them out.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 08:46 pm
A more workable title, boomerang?
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 08:55 pm
Yes indeed! I think that might help people stick their necks out a bit!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 08:56 pm
Good! I hope so! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 09:00 pm
And with your new title I would be remiss (considering my profession) to not mention the advent of photography!

Which also makes me think of Seargent's influence with his informal composition.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 09:01 pm
I'd say Picasso's Guernica.

Duchamp was very influential, possibly the father, but I see a line from modernism going straight to picasso.

If you wanted to take it a step further, you could say Kodak and the increasingly widespread use of photography, creating a need for non-documentational artwork.

You could blame the changing nature of warfare and how it affected the human conscious.

You could even blame the shift of political structures from relgion to statehood power, and republicanism and the widening of the middle class.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 09:03 pm
boomerang wrote:
And with your new title I would be remiss (considering my profession) to not mention the advent of photography!

Which also makes me think of Seargent's influence with his informal composition.


I knew there was an ulterior motive! Laughing :wink:
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 09:04 pm
Portal Star wrote:
I'd say Picasso's Guernica.

Duchamp was very influential, possibly the father, but I see a line from modernism going straight to picasso.

If you wanted to take it a step further, you could say Kodak and the increasingly widespread use of photography, creating a need for non-documentational artwork.


Yes, yes ......?
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 09:11 pm
When it comes down to it, art is a profession. The trends in art (and fashion) will ally political trends and follow the money.

When the church has all the money, and needs holy inspiration, you have the religious art. [Michaelangelo, Raphael]

When kings and queens want their picture to show thier dominance, you use portraiture. [Rubens, Van Dyck]

When you have governments with money that want to be validated, you use history paintings [Copley, West, Peale ] [Or, Roman use of Greek art to validate concepts of humanism and republican democracy]

When the masses get the money, and art becomes cheaper because of reproduction, you get art that is what they want and in many different niches [Picasso, Tolouse De Lautrec, kincade]

So, when the audience changes, the art that you see changes.

There are artist who are exceptions to the rule (ex: Van Gogh) but for the most part, art follows the money.

There are pretty good artists all over the world, it is when they hit their niche that they become famous (and, unfortunately, oftentimes this is post-mortem) and we get to see them. Unfortunately, fame in the art world is very loosely linked to talent for artmaking.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 09:22 pm
I have liked the Ashcan folks.

I may be forgetting, but I think they were at the same Armory show as ... who - Picasso? Bracque?
anyway, whoever it was blew them out of the news water.

Among the ashcan folks - guessing off the top of my head, Henri, Bellows? Prendergast?

I suppose I'll have to review with google.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 09:23 pm
I'm going to have to find out more, osso ...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Major influences on "modern" art?: Your thoughts.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/24/2019 at 09:25:41