Modern, the new Liberal?
Van Gogh, Picasso, Leonardo usually the first names that come to mind when thinking about artists that have enriched the world of art. The Sistine Chapel, a tremendous piece of art that blows ones mind when first observed by the eyes. The Starry Night encompasses one instantly to a dream world that is at the mercy of ones imagination. Three Musicians, a work that catches the eye forcing the viewer take a step back, breathe, and comprehend.
Show nine out of ten people any of these three works and you’ll receive OOOOH’s and AHHHH’s. Ask these same people whether they consider these works art and you’ll receive an instantaneous YES! Inquire whether they believe these pieces are museum worthy and they’ll echo ABSOLUTELY! So it can be said that some pieces possess universal appeal and seem logical additions to any gallery in any museum. But pieces like the above mentioned three are traditional in their elements and styles and thus have the following of the Old World. How about the New World though and the twentieth century with its contrasting Contemporary art? Should the same rules be used for this new art when being judged by the eye?
The Museum of Modern Art in New York proves to be a hotspot for contemporary art. Sculptures, photographs, and movies seem to be the dominating mediums on display, while architecture and paintings also get their share of fun in the sun. Looking around the museum you’ll catch notice to many interesting pieces such as the Jaguar E-type, Richard Serra’s Sequence or David Smith’s Australia. As you continue, you’ll certainly run into an Andy Warhol piece perhaps his Orange Car Crash Fourteen Times or Jackson Pollacks One: Number 31, 1950. As you enter another gallery, you’ll witness Piet Mondrien’s Trafalgar Square or even John Chamberlain’s Essex but then there will lay the masterpieces of Picasso and Van Gogh. All these pieces are worthy enough for a spot in any museum around the world, yet they reside in New York surrounded by other classics bolted to the wall.
Doubts and confusion arise however when, after viewing the brilliant pieces on display, one stumbles upon Sol LeWitts Rip Drawing where a piece of paper is ripped apart and put back together. Follow this by Cy Twombly’s The Italians which to the average Joe seems like a piece done by a seven year old and immediately thoughts of confusion rise. As an average bloke you begin to think how can pieces like these make it to a museum of this caliber?
This conflict thus gives rise to the question, has modern art become too liberal? Can art be so ordinary and empty that only a master eye can judge its true impact and thus enjoy its true meaning? Has modern art become too abstract that the average person can’t appreciate its significance because he/she can’t understand its beauty or comprehend its purpose?
One thing is for sure the blatant beauty of traditional art will keep it as the fan favorite when viewing art since the heart can’t deny what the eye seems to love.