The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Print Edition
Letter to the editor submissions
Have a strong opinion about something happening on campus or in Fort Collins? Want to respond to an article written on The Collegian? Write a Letter to the Editor by following the guidelines here.
Follow Us on Twitter
The Impact of Technological Innovations on Sports Betting in Colorado: A Primer
The Impact of Technological Innovations on Sports Betting in Colorado: A Primer
April 18, 2024

In the sports betting domain, Colorado stands as a unique arena where technological advancements have significantly reshaped the landscape. As...

Tougaw: When did modern art get so bad?

I truly believe that modern art is really, really bad.

Now I know what you’re thinking: Probably something along the lines of “You cant just say art is bad, art’s beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Its different for everybody based on their interpretation of it.” You would be completely correct in saying that. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion and interpretation about art. My interpretation is that it is awful.

Ad

Now that that’s out of the way, lets move forward. When I say the word ‘art,’ for most people it conjures up images of beautiful masterpieces; the Mona Lisa, David, Starry Night, etc. These works of art, however, have not occurred in the last 100 years. In fact, most pieces that we would consider ‘masterpieces,’ or at least ones well known by the public, have not occurred in the last 100 years. Did we just get really stupid in the last millennium and forget how to paint? Something tells me we haven’t forgotten how to draw beautiful mountains, starry skies, and furious thunderstorms. If I had to guess, we just stopped caring.

Artists used to aspire to produce the most aesthetically pleasing, soul-stirring pieces of their time. Think about Michelangelo’s ceiling in the Sistine Chapel, or the statue of David. These took years upon years to make and feature some of the most iconic statements known to man. David, showing the true, aesthetically perfect form of the human body is known as the absolute pinnacle of sculpture. The Sistine Chapel also depicts beautiful, awe inspiring images of human religion that brought church goers to their knees.

Images and subjects of art used to be impressive, profound, and above all, respectable. It could be religious, historical, or mythological. Think of the Dying Gaul or Napoleon on his majestic White Horse. Now compare those pieces with Petra, the pissing police officer. Seriously, google it on your phone. Petra is a silicone, ultra-realistic statue of a German police woman in riot gear, squatting and taking a piss on the floor. That is what we call high art now.

It seems that art is no longer about pleasing the people, but as a form of self expression. And more often than not, it seems to me, that form of self expression is used for terrible shock value and crass political statements. Take a look at a piece entitled “Artist’s Shit.” It’s literally feces put in a tin can and sold north of $150,000. How about “Piss Christ,” which is a crucifix in a jar of urine that sold for $15,000. These aren’t works of art, they are political statements. Obviously, this represents the worst and often unnoticed side of modern art, but more of the commonly accepted ‘art’ also falls under this category.

How often do you see a scribbly, chaotic painting on the wall, that literally looks like it was drawn by a four year old, going for thousands of dollars? If you don’t know what I mean, you can either go look at (some of) the art up on the walls in the Lory Student Center, or you can just google search Peinture (Le Chien) by Joan Miro, which sold for $2.2 million, to see what I mean.

It seems like art students are being trained to think this way. In a video for Prager University, Artist and Illustrator Robert Florczak tells us that at the beginning of every art class he teaches, he tells his students to analyze a painting. This painting looks remarkably like chaotic brush strokes with no real purpose. Only after his students call it ‘bold’ and ‘daring’ does he reveal that the painting is actually just a close up of his dirty painting smock.

This rebellion against the ‘old’ and stuffy isn’t new. The impressionists, a term some may remember from art class in high school, rebelled against the standard of their day as well in the late 19th century. However, these impressionists still maintained a level of beauty and poise in their art. Some of these impressionists include Monet and Degas. If you look at their art, I think you’ll notice a big difference between their ‘rebellion’ and today’s. They painted beautiful pictures of dancers, bridges, flowers, and happy people. These weren’t shock value political statements, but rather beautiful pieces that, while still rebellious, maintained a certain level of dignity; something lacking today.

View Comments (2)
More to Discover

Comments (2)

When commenting on The Collegian’s website, please be respectful of others and their viewpoints. The Collegian reviews all comments and reserves the right to reject comments from the website. Comments including any of the following will not be accepted. 1. No language attacking a protected group, including slurs or other profane language directed at a person’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, physical or mental disability, ethnicity or nationality. 2. No factually inaccurate information, including misleading statements or incorrect data. 3. No abusive language or harassment of Collegian writers, editors or other commenters. 4. No threatening language that includes but is not limited to language inciting violence against an individual or group of people. 5. No links.
All The Rocky Mountain Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • D

    Doug SinkSep 6, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Please tell me that you’re planning on publishing a counter-point to this trash. For someone arguing against artworks made for “terrible shock value,” you’ve been quite strategic in your selection of examples: you’ve pitted some of the most well-known, popularly accessible works of art, deep enough into history that they’ve become canonical parts of our own popular culture, against some of the most controversial and avant-garde works of art in the last 100 years. How could this, the frustration of someone who refuses to see art in anything other than beautiful sunsets and marble bodies, be anything but sensationalist drivel? How is this good journalism?

    How about, instead of crying loudly with nothing but negativity and ignorance, you engage with someone willing to discuss the issue and move the conversation forward? Instead of “Hey everybody! Taylor Doesn’t Like Modern Art” we could have had “Taylor Investigates Why Modern Art Can Be So Inaccessible.” That would have been worth the trees and ink.

    Reply
    • A

      aceSep 7, 2016 at 5:04 pm

      Agreed, Taylor could have addressed something more specific and debatable, like the current exhibition of “Women of Abstract Expressionism” at the Denver Art Museum. A few of these pieces made an impression, but most were inaccessible and mainly for the connoisseur. Take a look here: http://denverartmuseum.org/exhibitions/women-abstract-expressionism

      Reply