I was upset last year to go into Tate Britain (not Tate Modern) and find it full of Damien Hurst shite, and no sign of Draper's 'Icarus' or Waterhouse's 'St Eulalia', or much of the stuff from that era that used to draw me. Victorian Romanticsim and the Preraphaelites I could gaze at forever, but modernism and post-modernist junk just makes me want to look away. I'm not at all interested by the cult of novelty and poor taste that masquerades as avant-garde art, or in the tedious pseudo-intellectual bullshit that is used to justify it.

Firstly, I absolutely love your articles. Especially the ones like this which question what is actually pretty obvious, just needs ourselves looking inside us. Now I know it's a terribly late reply but I haven't been on DA for the past few months and I just can't let this article slip without me commenting on it. So bare with me.

I think over the time, a general idea has taken over the masses that the greatest pieces of artworks must have deep/secret/hidden meaning. Something must be hidden in Mona Lisa's smile. Da vinci code? LOL. How this relates to modern art is the supposed deeper meaning in greater modern artworks, that the painter must have had a reason to splash the paint from a particular side or there should be a reason why there are two red dots and one green dot.... to me, they hold no meaning. More than usually, it's there because it looks good and fits/complements the general theme of the artwork. Rarely does an abstract/modern artwork interest me... but when it does, it is something special, over and above the rest. It clearly depicts/instills a feeling the viewer, not just lay out colors at random places for the viewer to make out whatever he wants to make of it.

Take for example a common man, with no interest whatsoever in art, who views a beautiful portrait or a landscape or a scene... something that he would feel interested in when he sees it. And then take a bunch of cubes colored differently placed at 1,9,4,5 millimeters apart each (because the artist was born in 1945) and he will make out NOTHING of it. Like every thought is not golden, not everything is 'beautiful/interesting' enough, for the lack of a better word, in itself for it to make a complete artwork.

I read the comments on this article and love how people related 'the rich' to 'modern art'. A correct relation in my opinion. Everything that I wanted to say has already been said. I've known plenty of people who bought modern artworks, but ask them what they represent? or how they know that it is not a novice artwork? They'll say it didn't cost a fortune for nothing. It must have some deep thought out meaning behind and they poses this 'treasure'. Maybe after the artist who made it dies, probably by a suicide, the world will be more interested in finding out what he lay beneath those random splashes of color... and the 'painting's cost will shoot up

You might be interested:

[link]

On modern art and where it comes from (subhumans). It's long though.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens all over the entertainment industry. Look at Rebecca Black. She doesn't deserve ANY money for that garbage song of hers...but unfortunately, she IS making money off of it. Even if only for its notoriety.

Art will behave the same.

Haha, I'd bet money that the first "modern artist" was a fucking hipster.

as a consumer, it's important that art make some connection with me. a lot of modern art seems to be created with nothing I can grasp on to. I do like modern art in general, as much as I like most visual arts, but it doesn't matter what kind of art, if it I don't connect with it at some level, it just escapes me.

I once looked at a piece of modern sculpture for 45min without realizing it. I was fascinated by it. it resonated with me on some level that I couldn't explain. those are the best pieces.