What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG), you might think, but the artist has us believe that their creation goes much deeper than their stating the obvious, that there is depth and meaning and a philosophical point of view blurted out of that fat blob of paint marring a canvas, or that incongruous growth that spikes off like a bizarre assault to the senses. That riches are to be exuded from a modern work of art that either looks like it was thrown together by a five-year-old, or whose incongruity makes it point-blank at odd to the accepted laws of beauty and balance and the classical form of talent that is meant to take an oeuvre through the times, perdure and leave an indelible mark on our collective heritage. And maybe this is where Modern Art develops into a fallacy, thus turning into its own worst enemy.
Maybe this is the frustration of Modern Art: wanting to rewrite the rules by breaking them, and the finished product failing to convince and impress as a result, as the viewers feel they are being taken for a ride. Failing the recognition and admiration and blessing of the Art community as a whole, failing to simply be Fine. Mirabelle is not here to judge, but rather to ponder a Modern Age-old concept: Is Art for Art's Sake a reason for creating Art?
Source: All photography, part of the Champagne Life exhibition currently featured at the Saatchi Gallery in London, UK, until 9th March 2016. (1) 'Moje Sabz' by Iranian artist Soheila Sokhanvari (2011). (2) 'Domestic Terrorist Burt' by American Suzanne McClelland (2014). (3) 'Untitled 21' by Canadian artist Julia Dault (2010). (4) The Truth About Modern Art, a must-watch critique by Paul Joseph Watson! - [Beware: use of strong language].
No comments:
Post a Comment