The Blue & Gold

The official newspaper of Chamblee High School, preserving the past for the future today!

The official newspaper of Chamblee High School, preserving the past for the future today!

The Blue & Gold

The official newspaper of Chamblee High School, preserving the past for the future today!

The Blue & Gold

Modern Art is Valid, Real Art

Last week, I was taking my daily scroll through my Twitter timeline when I came across a very anti-modern art thread. Intrigued, I clicked on the tweet to start reading the replies and was surprised to find myself in the middle of an extremely intense debate centered around the legitimacy of modern art.

I probably shouldn’t have been as surprised as I was, given that the general public is very well known for rejecting new and unconventional concepts. This is more than relevant to the art community, which is teeming with harsh and unforgiving critics, specifically ones fond of targeting modern art.

Although the boundaries of art are always being challenged, these changes are seldom welcomed with open arms. Even the occasional trip to the local art museum yields its fair share of disapproval. Modern art, which commonly refers to the contemporary art movement of the 20th century, is associated with the discarding of traditional aesthetics to opt for a more abstract style. It is revered by some but regarded with scorn by the majority.

So is this judgment of modern art well founded? Yes… and no. I’m a firm believer of this judgment when expressed through criticism. When it doesn’t reach excessive levels, criticism remains important and necessary. Seeing the response of those who consume art is so valuable, especially for the artist, who can use this criticism to improve.

What isn’t as valuable is the denouncement of modern art, which is what I observed first-hand through my Twitter timeline. In this thread, many users were regarding modern art as “degenerate” and not a real form of art because it supposedly lacks effort, meaning, and any sort of talent at all.

After reading through the thread, I have to disagree. Modern art’s roots in abstraction and experimentation may not be particularly groundbreaking, but it still deserves to be treated as real and valid.  

Ironically, this debate that society is having over modern art is what primarily validates it. The more modern art is rejected from society, the more it accomplishes. Modern art is polarizing. It’s dangerous. Albeit “low effort”, it promotes expression and receives response. Modern art offers a debate and starts a discussion about its own legitimacy.

Additionally, the originality of modern art is often eclipsed by its accessibility. Because modern art doesn’t require the artist to be a master of their craft, critics regard it as subordinate, mainly because “anyone can make it”.

This argument strikes me as misguided. Art doesn’t have to and shouldn’t really be exclusive to an elite minority. What sets it apart is its inclusivity and lack of criteria. No one makes rules for what is and what isn’t considered art, which gives it a fluidity and ability to adapt over time.

In fact, we’ve observed reactions throughout history that parallel this rejection of modern art. Many major art movements, such as expressionism and impressionism, were received scornfully because of their unconvention.

The Jazz Age of the 1920s was also met by disapproval from the public. Yet over time, society has accepted these movements because society isn’t static. As time passes, we change, and so does our perception of art.

It’s a cycle that society hasn’t managed to break yet. We’re always rejecting the new and looking back fondly at the past, which is something that holds true regarding the modern art debate. Modern art’s acceptance as valid and real will come in the near future, accompanied by the rejection of whatever current art movement dominates the era.

View Comments (1)
More to Discover
About the Contributor
Iris Tsouris, Editor-in-chief
Iris Tsouris is a senior and editor-in-chief of the Blue & Gold. Outside of the paper, you can find her giving out haircuts, designing T-shirts, and sampling fruit at the Buford Highway Farmers Market. In five years, she hopes to be caring for a herd of cattle while making art in an obscure Swiss village. This is her third year on the staff.

Comments (1)

All The Blue & Gold Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

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

  • D

    Daniel ClackFeb 16, 2020 at 10:45 pm

    Many people are opposed to abstract art because they do not understand it. To them it is nothing more than scribbles on a white canvas, but to the artist it could mean something to them that the rest of the world can’t really see. Or maybe it’s just a lucrative and easy art form; I saw recently a white canvas where the left side was completely black, and the other side was completely white. Blots of black from the left side were smudged onto the white side almost as if the black was taking over the white. That description is the entirety of the painting, a painting that is over $950.00 on 1stdibs.com Art is subjective, its meaning and value is only determined by the beholder. Because of its subjectivity its easy for one to take advantage of that system. I could at anytime just take a canvas or a piece of paper, create absolute chaos on my surface of choice, and call it art, all because I gave it meaning. And because I gave my art meaning, people might praise me as a genius, and history might may regard as a forward-thinking individual, when in reality, I’m just a guy who wanted to make a quick buck. Also I don’t think there is an elite minority when it comes to art; just look at Instagram or Snapchat. There are thousands of artists around the globe showcasing their art. It’s just very few artists actually become rich and famous through their art, because once again, the value of art is subjective. People are only willing to pay as much as they think its worth.

    Reply