Understanding modern/contemporary art
Why do we need to define ‘art’ ?
Because it greatly enhances the encounter with art itself
Modern art has yet to be properly explained and given its own distinctive and authentic philosophy. It is almost always portrayed — openly or subliminally — as if it were somehow striving for much the same objectives as classical art, though perhaps by very different means. This has the effect of making modern artworks look slightly ridiculous in comparison with the grandeur of their classical counterparts, at the same time as making it an uphill struggle to try to argue the case for their supposed value.
The whole problem stems from the fact that modern artworks cannot meaningfully be judged by classical standards, and from classical perspectives, yet there doesn’t readily seem to be any other way of going about it. If ‘art’ is not about beauty and form, and sublime technique, then what on earth is it about ? How do we tell the dross from the gold ? One popular solution has been to propose that modern art is all about ‘interesting ideas’, and getting you to ‘see things differently’[1], but this just reduces art to a specialised form of brainteasing, perhaps an advanced form of classroom ‘show and tell’, with artworks as puzzles to be decoded, and chatted about. For many people…