Let's get something out of the way first. I'm not a fan of modern art. Don't take it personally if you are a fan yourself, but it would probably be best for you to skip to the last paragraph here.

Recently, I decided to go to the Tate Modern gallery in London. "Now," I thought to myself, "this would be a great time for me to restore my faith in modern art, after my trip to the Modern Art museum in Venice, Italy tore it to formaldehyde-saturated chunks." I wandered in, and took a look around. Suffice to say from my opening lines, it took those chunks and fed them through a shredder made of disdainful thoughts. I like my art in the classical style. I like Monet and Da Vinci. I like DeGas and Van Gogh. What I don't like, however, is something obscure such as a bird nailed to a wall. If you go to the Tate Modern, relax. You won't find that there. What you will find are three stuffed birds attached to the wall with arrows, next to a basic drawing of a house - fifteen lines at most. Some of the items do not even begin to qualify as "art". Yes, they have no purpose except for their own existence, but so does a Jeffery Archer book and I won't go near that unless I was paid twice my weight (what can I say, I'm a thin guy) in gold. Art, for me, needs to be a respresentation of a scene or mental image. I admit that I'm partial to a bit of abstract art, or perhaps some cubism, but as I wandered through the Venice Museum and saw a cow cut up vertically into half-foot long sections I failed to find anything that even vaguely qualified as such. There was, instead, a wall made of mirrors and pills, and a repeating out-of-sync video of a woman in a clown suit and face paint apologising.

When one of the artworks on show is named "Genital Panic", I can't say that I have a particularly high expectation. The room containing that piece also consisted of photos of maimed limbs and plaster casts. "Oh," I hear you cry, "plaster casts can be brilliant pieces of sculpture!" Well, I fully agree with you, but when it is a plaster cast of the maker's, shall I say, bathing suit area and streaked with his own blood, it loses much of its appeal. Another was literally this: a stack of bricks.

Modern Art: Clearly Serious Business.

This was on display as art. To paraphrase the great surrealist Magritte, ce n'est pas le dessin (correct me if I'm wrong, my French is a little rusty). It is just someone making a bit of a mess on a piece of canvas and selling it off for several million. I'm sure that some of you have heard that Damien Hirst, the British modern artist, has made £100 Million in one auction after selling off some of his pickled animals. To his credit, he did saw off the hooves of a pig and replace them with gold replicas, but a pickled pig is still a pickled pig, regardless of the smile put on its face by the purported artist. Some works hardly even qualify as abstract.

Clearly Serious Business Indeed.

They look like nothing and are merely dribbles of paint of a canvas, yet they still fetch several hundred grand and are snapped up by the rich, famous and naive. In the Tate Modern, they have the remnants of an artwork which was just a crack painted in the floor. One celebrated exhibition had a man in a bear suit running about as one of the main attraction. The final travesty is that some of the Turner Prize finalists/winners have included an unmade bed and an amphibious shed.

So, all rants out of my system, I pose a question for you for some discussion. Do you think "Modern Art" qualifies as art? Please elaborate on your opinion, if you would. If you disagree, please explain how it fails to meet your criteria, and if you agree, explain how it does.

Modern art to me is nothing but a mess. When a urinal sells for 30k you know someone is out there easily manipulating the masses. A URINAL! How can that be 'art'?

What ever happened to landscapes and self portraits? Is there something wrong with them? Or does the modern in modern art really mean, a lazier generation?

It is an individual's expression of themselves. It is creative to an extent, and fosters thoughts and imagination in the minds of others. However, sometimes it fails to connect on many levels... And is wasted expression on the masses. Sometimes, it's just plain ridiculous, just like many games released these days as well...

Johnn Johnston:
Do you think "Modern Art" qualifies as art? Please elaborate on your opinion, if you would. If you disagree, please explain how it fails to meet your criteria, and if you agree, explain how it does.

Yes and no. Oxymoronic answer out of the way, allow me to explain.

Modern art is not all paint dribbles and dogs tied to posts. I've seen a piece where a man created a giant, functioning fan out of cheap fabric, a broken leaf-blower's engine, and some chicken wire. It was a giant, slow-moving cloth fan, but it actually worked. As such, it qualified as modern art, and I genuinely liked it.

Optionally, I also saw a series of a series white cloth strips in various shades of dirty. It was an art student project, and most that fit into "modern" were random jumbles, but there were a few that really did a good job of conveying emotion and purpose. Most were weak, but one hit home very well, for which I was surprised. To be fair, they conveyed bondage, which did do well with the clinical-white-on-disheveled-dirt-brown. I generally liked those that did well.

So, I'm going to say "It depends." There's a lot that could be done with it, especially if you're more creative with the medium. But if you simply leave the insanity with artistic license, something devoid of artistic meaning and effort shouldn't simply be called art.

Ultimately, though, you're right to say modern art is kinda screwy. It's insanity conveyed in a weird way, mislabeled art, and sold for millions. Frankly, that's no more or less art than this.

internutt:
Modern art to me is nothing but a mess. When a urinal sells for 30k you know someone is out there easily manipulating the masses. A URINAL! How can that be 'art'?

I know some artist once put a toilet on display to symbolize how art was going down the drain. Now, you would not think of that when you first saw it, but it does have something behind it. If the art can't accurately get its emotion or whatever it's trying to say, it's not a successful piece of art. It's still art, but not good art.

I prefer the ancient civilization art in art museums though. I feel like I'm learning something and it's genuinely interesting. The number one reason I hated the Smithsonian art museum in DC was because every painting was "Oh look a rich merchant", "A rich merchants wife", "There's a rich woman with a dog on the side". I don't care if it's done well, I don't care about some rich person from 1578.

Of course modern art looks silly if you take it out of context and make no attempt to understand the motivation behind it. You could say, "Oh it's just a urinal," but that's totally missing the point. Usually it exists to comment on something of particular relevance at a specific point in time; Tracey Emin's work, for instance, has examined issues of womanhood & femininity by tracing the progression of her life alongside her psychosexual development. Her art can (arguably) only be fully appreciated with a full awareness of her life story, further blurring the line between art as a medium of entertainment and art as a depiction of reality. The artist is brought closer to her audience and vice versa.

I can appreciate that certain people may have no interest in attempting to engage with certain artists but the suggestion that something beyond our understanding is "not art" is dangerous & regressive.

NewClassic:
So, I'm going to say "It depends." There's a lot that could be done with it, especially if you're more creative with the medium. But if you simply leave the insanity with artistic license, something devoid of artistic meaning and effort shouldn't simply be called art.

Oh, of course. I've seen a few modern art pieces that have the ingenuity to really pique my interest and gain my approval, although they are in the minority. It's a shame, as they perfectly portray the potential that modern art has.

harhol:
I can appreciate that certain people may have no interest in attempting to engage with certain artists but the suggestion that something beyond our understanding is "not art" is dangerous & regressive.

Those that really do mean something are fine by me as well; I enjoy art (or anything, for that matter) that provokes intelluctual thought. Unfortunately, those works of modern art that really do provoke that are in the minority. Sadly, I've seen many an artwork that meant nothing, such as the out-of-sync apologising clown.

A few years ago I went to a museum and saw some strange metal thing. I asked someone if the museum was doing renovations or something, and the person told me it was modern art.

I stopped caring about art after that.

Modern art? I feel as a whole its a good new medium for expression. Examples of modern art I like include pictures made using different colour bottles (can you tell i'm at uni? ;) ), self creating art and self destroying art (eg the piece where a polystyrene block had acid poured on it so as the acid ate through it new shapes and forms were continualy created and destroyed-hope I explained that right). There is a lot of "art" that hides under the term modern art however (like your genital panic exmaple) that in my opinion need not have been made.

harhol:
Of course modern art looks silly if you take it out of context and make no attempt to understand the motivation behind it. You could say, "Oh it's just a urinal," but that's totally missing the point.

Art shouldn't require a context to be effective.

My high school philosophy class had a debate on modern art. Instead of voicing my opinions, I demonstrated them. I walked to the front of the class, flipped one desk on top of another, put my empty Cream Soda can on the floor underneath the two desks, and said "it's a depiction of my teenage angst with regards to ambivalent politics and the crumbling social order. I'll start the bidding at $500,000."

edit -- I forgot to mention this, but excellent rant.

well i consider mysef someone of simple tastes, soetimes i prefer see a nicely drawn fanart of my favorite anime character than some painting that was madeby just throwing buckets of paint thats suposed to have some deep meaning.

EDIT:

I walked to the front of the class, flipped one desk on top of another, put my empty Cream Soda can on the floor underneath the two desks, and said "it's a depiction of my teenage angst with regards to ambivalent politics and the crumbling social order. I'll start the bidding at $500,000."

hahah thats just something that should have been recorded.

I heard about these guys in New York (I think) who took metal bits/garbage and put them in clear plastic cubes, selling them as novelty paperweights for five dollars or so. They realized that if they called it art, it would sell for 50-100 dollars. Well, they did.

I don't know if that's accurate, but I wouldn't be surprised.

broadband:
well i consider mysef someone of simple tastes, soetimes i prefer see a nicely drawn fanart of my favorite anime character than some painting that was madeby just throwing buckets of paint thats suposed to have some deep meaning.

I'm under the impression that modern artists throw a bunch of crap against the wall then make up a "deep meaning" while they're driving to the closest art exhibit to showcase their "art".

Maet:
Art shouldn't require a context to be effective.

I suppose this is where we differ. For me context is hugely important in determining the worth of any art.

Consider an obvious example: Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Taken as a individual work of literature it's pretty uninteresting. Ol' George's opposition to big government was certainly nothing new at the time and plenty of people have made a better case against "Big Brother" (even if he did coin the term). What makes it a worthwhile read is the insight it gives us into the hysterical sense of post-war paranoia felt by many people at the time, Orwell included.

That's my view, anyway.

harhol:

Maet:
Art shouldn't require a context to be effective.

I suppose this is where we differ. For me context is hugely important in determining the worth of any art.

Consider an obvious example: Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Taken as a individual work of literature it's pretty uninteresting. Ol' George's opposition to big government was certainly nothing new at the time and plenty of people have made a better case against "Big Brother" (even if he did coin the term). What makes it a worthwhile read is the insight it gives us into the hysterical sense of post-war paranoia felt by many people at the time, Orwell included.

That's my view, anyway.

I feel that while art can have a context, it should not orbit around one. Using your example, Nineteen-Eighty-Four can be a good read when you don't use the context, but the context enhances it. I feel the same should apply for art - feel free to add a context, but do not try to make the context be the heart of the art.

Johnn Johnston:
I feel that while art can have a context, it should not orbit around one. Using your example, Nineteen-Eighty-Four can be a good read when you don't use the context, but the context enhances it. I feel the same should apply for art - feel free to add a context, but do not try to make the context be the heart of the art.

That's basically what I would've said. Saying that the context and immediate relevance of a piece compensates for any of its deficiencies is something I don't agree with.

When it comes to my tastes, I'm more a fan of art that embodies timeless qualities. I prefer books, movies, paintings, sculptures and songs that aren't stuck in the moment.

As a general rule I have no patience for modern art.
If it's not a picture of something I can recognise, like say... A cow. Then I have no interest in it.
I prefer paintings that actually took along time to paint, in order to capture what they were painting looks like properly and in detail.
Not some squigily blue lines on a white canvas accompanied by the words "Raging Sea?" or some weird shit like that.

Maet:
Art shouldn't require a context to be effective.

Communication is impossible without shared context. For fine art, the whole museum is part of the context.

Would the Mona Lisa be special if it was produced today?

-- Alex

The Iron Ninja:
Not some squigily blue lines on a white canvas accompanied by the words "Raging Sea?" or some weird shit like that.

How about a piece from the Tate Modern which was a few squiggily beige lines on a black canvas accompanied by "Une Étoile caresse le sein d'une négresse" (French for "A star caresses the breast of a nigress")?

I define artwork as a picture of somthing that i can enjoy. Take for example the artwork present on many fantasy book covers these days. It took time to do and i can appreciate it. However modern art, like aformentioned "urinal" appears to me to be more like a poem. Its obvious meaning supllanted by the projected meaning of your own personal self.

But 100 million for pickled animal bits? Maybe i should shit in a bag and see if i can get on the forbes rich list...

Johnn Johnston:

The Iron Ninja:
Not some squigily blue lines on a white canvas accompanied by the words "Raging Sea?" or some weird shit like that.

How about a piece from the Tate Modern which was a few squiggily beige lines on a black canvas accompanied by "Une Étoile caresse le sein d'une négresse" (French for "A star caresses the breast of a nigress")?

Yeah that too.

I personally don't like the term modern art to describe these paint splatters and brick piles that some random guy with a overly European sounding name and a pencil mustache (Steriotyping, I know) tries to pass off as "conveying emotion".

It seems to suggest that any art made in modern times is nonsense or requires no talent to create (Which really, modern art does not.) I've seen pictures sold for millions of dollars that my dog could have painted, and my dog has three legs. Plus he's been dead for well over two years. And he was the runt of the litter. Anyway, enough of that. My friends and I do have an ongoing joke that if we make a mess, break something or do something else that looks odd/makes no sense and someone asks about it we simply tell them it's modern art. I get a chuckle out of it.

Anyway, if we're in a time when a South American man can tie a dog to a poll, not feed it and call it art...I think we have a bit of a problem. (True story, guy's name is Guillermo Vargas)

"modern" art as you are calling it may be better defined as art you don't
1. like

or

2. understand

Question, is Picasso's "Guernica" art? It looks like a hot mess drawn by a four year old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_painting

Now, you seem to offer up an understanding of art that makes me wonder why I make this point. But art is about the message it conveys and how it chooses to convey that message. Not necessarily the materials or techniques used in the construction of the piece.

The difference between an artist slapping paint on a canvas and you doing it is that the artists is constructing something that is designed to make social commentary. The artist is using colour balance, white space, specific materials to achieve a specific technique.

I will note tossing out names like Monet and Van Gogh causes you to come off as someone who only looks to the message and talent in non-realism styled forms only if the artist was around in the 1920's or earlier. Which is a kind of snobbery worthy of the rich people who dump several thousands into a piece for little other reason than to say they are therefore connoisseurs of the arts.

For the record, I am a great fan of Cubism and therefore admire Picasso an all his work.

I am informed by my artist-girlfriend that the term "contempory art" is preferred over modern art, since modern art was a movement some time ago.

As with anything you can attach contempory to a subject and it automaticly gains +5 pretentiousness.

Personally, I think people who dis modern art just don't know about art. I know that seems inflammatory but I honestly believe that people grow up with an idea of what 'art' is and this correlates to the impressionist period and The Mona Lisa. When they are confronted with something outside of these parameters, they get confused and are quick to label it 'not art'.

'That which does not apply to my vision simply is not'

The people said the same thing about Pop Art, about pointilist and about expressionism but hose who went in with an open mind saw the redeeming qualities of the pieces and didn't just stop on the surface.

I admit that modern art can be nigh on incomprehensible to those not acquainted with the scene 'it's just a pile of garbage sitting there!', but you have to look deeper. Next time you go to a gallery, really try to think why it's there and don't just say 'it is not art'. It's just lazy, and doesn't confront you with questions about what art really is.

At the end of the day, art is perhaps the most subjective thing we humans have, so to label something as artistically worthless is not looking past your own nose to others who may revel in the message or the aesthetic the artist is trying to employ.

Jobz:
I personally don't like the term modern art to describe these paint splatters and brick piles that some random guy with a overly European sounding name and a pencil mustache (Steriotyping, I know) tries to pass off as "conveying emotion".

"Conceptual art" is the preferred term.

-- Alex

mark_n_b:
I will note tossing out names like Monet and Van Gogh causes you to come off as someone who only looks to the message and talent in non-realism styled forms only if the artist was around in the 1920's or earlier. Which is a kind of snobbery worthy of the rich people who dump several thousands into a piece for little other reason than to say they are therefore connoisseurs of the arts.

I'm not intending to come off as elitist or a snob; I was using names that I knew others would recognise rather than gamble on a more obscure artist. Sorry for the misconception.

Maet:
My high school philosophy class had a debate on modern art. Instead of voicing my opinions, I demonstrated them. I walked to the front of the class, flipped one desk on top of another, put my empty Cream Soda can on the floor underneath the two desks, and said "it's a depiction of my teenage angst with regards to ambivalent politics and the crumbling social order. I'll start the bidding at $500,000."

This is a perfect example of how I feel about "Modern" art.

I once went to a "Modern Art" museum exhibit once with my family.

I saw a circle of wood only part of it was askew, I saw bottles of water with varying hieghts of water in them, and I saw another circle of wood only slightly ovular.

My father's girlfriend was with us and she was describing what she saw, like with one piece of "modern art" that was a bunch of sticks with a mold in the middle of it she said "It kindof looks like Africa and a man in the center of it" or with the water bottles she said "It looks like a wave in the water" which that one sortof did but I could easily do that myself.

I really, REALLY, hate "modern art" however that does not mean that I can't enjoy a piece or two like the giant/miniature sculptures of someone naked in various positions. It was nice, but overall the crap I see like the stack of bricks you mentioned or the urinal I just don't see as "art".

Like Maet said, Art shouldn't require context to be the center of the piece. Most of the old pieces of art I see have context to it, but overall it's a beautiful painting. However, looking into it's meaning, it's purpose, it's design and the painting just becomes more and more beautiful. "Modern art" does not do this at least in my opinion, you see a stack of bricks at first and think nothing of it. Then you have to think a bit harder as to what the hell the maker intended it to mean and then think "ohhh, it shows the structure and support of the American Family. That's great I guess".

/rant

Alex_P:
Would the Mona Lisa be special if it was produced today?

-- Alex

Special as in significant or relevant? By most standards, I think we can all agree that it's a good painting worthy of admiration. My point is that if anyone created the Mona Lisa at any time, the community would probably applaud it. Crap that someone glues together to make a statement about a particular government is generally only effective for a limited time.

Hey Joe:
I admit that modern art can be nigh on incomprehensible to those not acquainted with the scene 'it's just a pile of garbage sitting there!', but you have to look deeper. Next time you go to a gallery, really try to think why it's there and don't just say 'it is not art'. It's just lazy, and doesn't confront you with questions about what art really is.

At the end of the day, art is perhaps the most subjective thing we humans have, so to label something as artistically worthless is not looking past your own nose to others who may revel in the message or the aesthetic the artist is trying to employ.

But how condescending is it for the spectator when the artist (or their fans) talks down on them for being narrow minded? When I walk into a gallery, I want to be immediately drawn to the display. I don't want to have to be shocked into going, and then confused for a couple of minutes until somebody spends a half hour explaining it to me through a rehearsed speech. Snobbery in the art world works both ways.

(the above is not a direct response to Hey Joe's post so much as I'm just using it as a jumping off point)

Maet:

Hey Joe:
I admit that modern art can be nigh on incomprehensible to those not acquainted with the scene 'it's just a pile of garbage sitting there!', but you have to look deeper. Next time you go to a gallery, really try to think why it's there and don't just say 'it is not art'. It's just lazy, and doesn't confront you with questions about what art really is.

At the end of the day, art is perhaps the most subjective thing we humans have, so to label something as artistically worthless is not looking past your own nose to others who may revel in the message or the aesthetic the artist is trying to employ.

But how condescending is it for the spectator when the artist (or their fans) talks down on them for being narrow minded? When I walk into a Gallery, I want to be immediately drawn to the display. I don't want to have to be shocked into going, and then confused for a couple of minutes until somebody spends a half hour explaining it to me through a rehearsed speech. Snobbery in the art world works two ways.

We don't talk down on you for not understanding (well a few of us do but they're complete tools, ignore them), we look down on you for not trying to engage with the piece, trying to see the whole picture rather than the facade of ridicule most people employ when they don't understand something.

I'm a part-time conceptual artist myself, and it really annoys me when people say stuff like 'it's just a pile of trash, how lazy' because conceptual art is about the concept and what the artist is trying to say rather than meaning coming from the end product.

NewClassic:

Johnn Johnston:
Do you think "Modern Art" qualifies as art? Please elaborate on your opinion, if you would. If you disagree, please explain how it fails to meet your criteria, and if you agree, explain how it does.

Yes and no. Oxymoronic answer out of the way, allow me to explain.

Modern art is not all paint dribbles and dogs tied to posts. I've seen a piece where a man created a giant, functioning fan out of cheap fabric, a broken leaf-blower's engine, and some chicken wire. It was a giant, slow-moving cloth fan, but it actually worked. As such, it qualified as modern art, and I genuinely liked it.

Optionally, I also saw a series of a series white cloth strips in various shades of dirty. It was an art student project, and most that fit into "modern" were random jumbles, but there were a few that really did a good job of conveying emotion and purpose. Most were weak, but one hit home very well, for which I was surprised. To be fair, they conveyed bondage, which did do well with the clinical-white-on-disheveled-dirt-brown. I generally liked those that did well.

So, I'm going to say "It depends." There's a lot that could be done with it, especially if you're more creative with the medium. But if you simply leave the insanity with artistic license, something devoid of artistic meaning and effort shouldn't simply be called art.

Ultimately, though, you're right to say modern art is kinda screwy. It's insanity conveyed in a weird way, mislabeled art, and sold for millions. Frankly, that's no more or less art than this.

I agree with NewClassic on this; there are tons of incredibly terrible pieces of modern art out there, but there is still some genius out there.... It's just much more difficult to find, plus you have to wade through the swamp of bad modern art to get there.....

What's challenging about Modern Art is that often it takes an enormous amount of education to understand and appreciate in full. Most people don't have this kind of education so their sole basis for judgment is technique. Specifically, they ask themselves if it's photo realistic.

Art, and painting in particular, was forced to move beyond the goal of photo realism with the advent of the photography. To offer a few examples, paintings became a means to examine the primal psyche, how we conceptualize space, and how we see. Modern Art is about broadened horizons and the boredom of understanding visual art in a purely illustrative sense.

So don't worry if you hate modern art, there are more than enough Norman Rockwell illustrations to quench your thirst for kitschy art.

The essential point is this: art should say something, have some central theme it represents, a point intended by the artist and consistently interpretable by those viewing it. A correct interpretation may require some background in art or literature, but it should not make a very specific, obscure reference. The problem with modern art is that many artists could give two shits about their message, and instead just cobble some random crap together and use their established fame to sell it. Naturally, not all artists do this, but a significant quantity seem to. The other fallacy of many modern artists is to cater to a very specific audience; the work of these artists looks like shit to the masses as well. Art is only meaningful when it gives universal themes; when it represents something meaningful to the general masses rather than a specific group. Not all modern artists have lost sight of this, but most certainly have.

If theres anything I leaned about art it's; if you vomit in a bucket, you can call it art

Hey Joe:

Maet:

Hey Joe:
I admit that modern art can be nigh on incomprehensible to those not acquainted with the scene 'it's just a pile of garbage sitting there!', but you have to look deeper. Next time you go to a gallery, really try to think why it's there and don't just say 'it is not art'. It's just lazy, and doesn't confront you with questions about what art really is.

At the end of the day, art is perhaps the most subjective thing we humans have, so to label something as artistically worthless is not looking past your own nose to others who may revel in the message or the aesthetic the artist is trying to employ.

But how condescending is it for the spectator when the artist (or their fans) talks down on them for being narrow minded? When I walk into a Gallery, I want to be immediately drawn to the display. I don't want to have to be shocked into going, and then confused for a couple of minutes until somebody spends a half hour explaining it to me through a rehearsed speech. Snobbery in the art world works two ways.

We don't talk down on you for not understanding (well a few of us do but they're complete tools, ignore them), we look down on you for not trying to engage with the piece, trying to see the whole picture rather than the facade of ridicule most people employ when they don't understand something.

I'm a part-time conceptual artist myself, and it really annoys me when people say stuff like 'it's just a pile of trash, how lazy' because conceptual art is about the concept and what the artist is trying to say rather than meaning coming from the end product.

But the thing is, why should I have to think deeper as to what the artist means to say in his sculpture or something?

You really have to be prepared when going to a Modern Art exhibit, because if you don't you're just going to end up like me thinking "What the hell is this?" If you go there, realizing that everything is supposed to have some sort of cryptic meaning or something then you can truely appreciate it but even then it's a bit difficult.

Paintings, the usual stuff from Van Gogh and Picasso, always had a meaning on the surface but like I said before if you dwell deeper in their meaning they become something more.
For "modern art" however, there's a meaning for it right in its front and you have to figure it out yourself. There's no subtle hint of meaning, it's just displayed right in front of you and you're expected to know what they're trying to communicate through you.

I'm not saying all "modern art" is like that, there are some truely shining examples of "modern art" like my previously mentioned Naked Giagantic/Miniature Sculptures I saw before, but most of it is just like what Maet did (on the surface atleast); Put up some random junk, place something extra in it, and expect people to pay a fortune for your "teenage angst" (not saying all modern art is like that, just an example)