Talk:Modern art and architecture

	This Philosophy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Dadaism & surrealism

It would be worth adding something about the Dadaists, and perhaps the Surrealists. Specifically, the Dadaists, who protested World War I ("bourgeois nationalist and colonialist interests" according to WP). Bongolian (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of things that this article can cover. Dada is definitely one of them. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 00:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow

Way to show off my blind spot. Nicely done, I like it. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess Clifton Williams is a huge one if I'm to name names. But still, I have a huge blind spot in that period. Thanks for the pointing-out. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Missional?

Can anyone enlighten me on this? Also, is this article something our readers will understand? I hardly understood it and I'm still struggling to see the point of it. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön is the person to ask since they wrote most of this article. CowHouse (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have bothered, but it was a requested article and the subject interested me. Any more specific problems with the readability? It is borderline, but missional, I think; whatever your opinions of stuff like abstract expressionist art, serialist music, or box architecture, these things were big in the last century, are incomprehensible to many, and the ideas behind them and the urge from the high culture set to ram them down people's throats are worth discussing, I think. At minimum, the ideas lurking behind box architecture were strikingly authoritarian and elitist. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön Yeah, I gave it a read and the architecture stuff does seem missional, as it's also about how some of the architecture was designed to make the poor's lives harder. Overall, though, the article feels more like an opinion piece. Mind you, it's rather interesting opinion piece, but it just seems out of place. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also the elitism involved. Clement Greenberg, a hugely influential figure for the mid 20th century, all but comes out and proclaims that the purpose of the art he likes is to serve as a dividing line that separates the elite from the hoi polloi. I tried to make this the theme that ran through the article, largely as a way to keep it on mission. The material is baffling to ordinary people for a reason, and at times it took concerted effort to keep popular tastes from creeping back in. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I see, I recognize little room for individuality, whimsy, or humor -- or any elegiac tragedy. It's hard at times to see any effort at expressing anything. I painted, drew, sculpted, or wrote this, so admire me because I am... Art beyond judgment is usually bad art.Pbrower2a (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

A general summary of 'modern art and architecture'

A certain amount of modern art is derided at the time because it is not part of 'the current way of seeing things.' Some will be accepted over time, other material will be 'paths not taken.'

There is no direct correlation between 'shocking the viewer' and 'artistic merit.'

A high proportion of 'modern/current art' is #always# destined to be 'attic or land fill'/shoved in the deepest recesses of the museum/art gallery stores (having been bought under the 'rising artist forgotten in six months' program).

A number of artists will be promoted as 'the best in field since (dead artist of choice)' - and the going rate for their work will promptly drop for all pieces once you have 'invested' (apart from the one piece you decided not to buy).

Most art considered wonderful/of long lasting merit at the time is not highly regarded afterwards. (There is a quote of the time somewhere to the effect that 'JMW Turner's art does not stand up to Mr X' - and nobody now knows Mr X's given name.) The reputation of some will revive later on (but not necessarily for the reasons it was highly regarded at the time.) The stuff you buy will not fall into this category.

Collect modern art (and other material of a decorative nature) #because you enjoy those particular pieces# not as an investment.

Just because it is state of the art architecture by a rising star does not mean that 'the dwelling/the building' is habitable/fit for purpose.

Some modern architecture derided by 'all right thinking critics and sellers of newspaper space' will become accepted parts of the built environment - such as BT tower.

And generally - there is no accounting for (lack of or bad) taste. Anna Livia (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)