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

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.

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.

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.

Ah!

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

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.

My thinking at the moment, before I decide , 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 ...

Yes, very hard to land on one piece, osso.

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!

I think I might just change the title, boomerang! Good idea!

No, I'm not familiar with the Ashcan scholl, bommerang. I feel I should be. I'll check them out.

A more workable title, boomerang?

Yes indeed! I think that might help people stick their necks out a bit!

Good! I hope so!

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'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.

I knew there was an ulterior motive! :wink:

Yes, yes ......?

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.

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.

I'm going to have to find out more, osso ...