Robert Florczak: Why is Modern Art so Bad?

by Matthew Innis |

“For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone. Modern art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins. What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated? Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and how it can be stopped and even reversed.”

58 comments

    Cadmium Scarlet
    |

    There is a lot of wonder art done today, and therefore ‘modern’. A better title would be ‘Why is Modernist art so bad?’, because that is what it is about. Modernism (I don’t care about the different sub-genres, they are all Modernist to me) is a novelty cult.

    The way I see it, there were three branches of classical greek philosophy that concerned related parts of the human condition and our being in the world.

    Logic was concerned with Truth, and how to distinguish truth from falsehood. Its modern manifestation is particularly in Science, which is concerned about methods to empirically distinguish true ideas about the world from false ones.

    Ethics was concerned about what is Right, and distinguishing between Right and Wrong. It has a practical manifestation in the Law, which distinguished good from bad behaviour.

    Aesthetics was concerned with Beauty, and how to distinguish what is beautiful from what is ugly. Its practical manifestation is in art, in all its forms.

    If Science no longer cares whether a theory is true or false, how is it science? If the Law doesn’t care whether something is right or wrong, but instead rewards wrong-doers, how is it Law? If Art no longer cares about what is beautiful but instead celebrates ugliness, how is it Art?

      George Perros
      |

      One of the great pitfalls of the human condition is cynicism. Human beings take our cues on how to behave from what we believe we understand Logic, Ethics, and Beauty appear to be. Our perceptions and attitudes are not perfect, therefore, our attempts at genuine inquiry, aspiring to the Good, and our understanding of the Aesthetic are similarly flawed.

      Science cares not about proving something right, but attempting to disprove an assertion; lawyers (at least those I know) try to work within the system, even though they are fully aware of the myriad grey areas; Modernist art, for all its detractors – and I often fall into that group – offers nuance and thoughtfulness from time to time, even as I believe a good deal of it is self-important, disposable drivel aimed at a particular market.

      The struggle to maintain an open mind is the real challenge in an age of mass information. Be interested; be interesting.

        George Perros
        |

        Apologies…line 1 of this post was unintended.

    |

    Cadmium Scarlet … nicely said.

    loretta
    |

    We all know about the slippery slope of what is “art”.
    When I have painted with friends who work full time and have no time to devote themselves I have notice comments like “I just can’t seem to get it” as if one afternoon a few times a year could garner results that satisfied. And it occurred to me people think that art apparently is something that doesn’t have to be worked at like learning how to play the cello or becoming a mathematician . You get my drift. Since I have been studying color theory my life has changed and I understand the milestones painters in the past have covered.

    Be interested, be interesting, the best advice yet. Thank you

Leave a Comment

Recent Articles

Color Palettes: Francesco Hayez (1791-1882), Part II

by Matthew Innis |

Color Palettes: Francesco Hayez (1791-1882), Part I

by Matthew Innis |

The Magic of Realism at Haynes Galleries

by Matthew Innis |