I have never been more certain of my belief that "art is in the eye of the beholder" than when I am looking at "modern art" like the piece of crap depicted above. People are welcome to call that "art" if they wish -- their choice, their perceptions -- but I personally see no "art" in a black canvas with a white spot in the corner, or random splashes of paint thrown at a canvas, or a meaningless jumble of browns and reds and blues. To me, art actually needs to depict something, so when I see a red canvas with a blue section and a green section and somebody has pretentiously titled it "Mountain in the Mist", I get really annoyed.
"Untitled" also annoys me. I think that music and photography and fine art should generally be titled, because then we have some idea of what the artist was intending with the piece.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-06 02:29 pm (UTC)"Untitled" also annoys me. I think that music and photography and fine art should generally be titled, because then we have some idea of what the artist was intending with the piece.
cheers,
Phil