As many may accurately guess, I despite Modern Art. In order to remedy this, I propose that the various Ministers or Secretaries for Arts be given greater oversight over their respective Arts Funding Councils, that public funding be restricted to promoting Traditional Eurasian Art Forms, that any buildings that are to be constructed using public funds are to be based on the new classical design, that any Modern Architecture that may be on the various Heritage Lists be removed, that any modern art under public ownership be sold off, that any Modern Art Museums that are publicly owned be privatised and that Arts Degree Curriculums be reviewed to ensure they actually teach Artistic skills. In this essay, I will be rebutting several claims made by proponents of what is colloquially called Modern Art. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines Modern Art as “painting, sculpture, architecture, and graphic arts characteristic of the 20th and 21st centuries and of the later part of the 19th century.” This definition conflicts slightly with Google Arts and Culture which states that Modern art ended in the 1960s and was replaced with Contemporary Art. For the purpose of this Essay, I will be including Contemporary Art in the definition of Modern Art. Due to arguments of proponents I will briefly explore music of the late 19th century onwards.
Firstly, many proponents of Modern Art claim that there has always been bad art. To prove this they often cite Mozart’s scatological songs such as “lick me in the [rear]”. In presenting this argument the proponents have just conceded that there is such thing as good art and bad art. Make them accountable for this statement later on. Let’s pretend for a moment that this is indeed correct that there has always been bad art of the exact same form, quantity and respect we see to-day. One must ask the question of why having bad art in the past justifies the state funding and promoting the production of said bad art to-day. According to the IPA, the Melbourne City Council will be spending $2 Million on public art in Southbank this year (2018). If it is anything like other other public art the city has wasted taxpayer money on, it may end up like Matthew Harding’s Fruition. I can also recall when my own local council wasted $7000 on safety fencing on the grounds that it was art. Furthermore, the historical existence of bad art does not justify the practice of teaching bad art as something to aspire to. When the renowned Artist Virgil Elliot attended University, he was shocked to see the teachers promote bad form under the term abstract expressionism. Upon finding out that he could draw better than the teachers, the teachers insisted “there is so much for you to unlearn”. Beauty is necessary in society as it provides humans intrinsic meaning. To quote Sir Roger Scruton “Beauty matters. It is not just a subjective thing but a universal need of human beings. If we ignore this need we find ourselves in a spiritual desert.” The public funding of bad art however is an attack on this fundamental need of humans by casting into civil society art that severs the ties that bind us to our past to open the gates to nihilism instead.
Of course if you decide to zoom out and focus on trends instead of outliers, on genres and art movements instead of songs and works, you will find out that there indeed has been a decline in the quality of art over the last 140 years. Let’s briefly focus on music. Many modern songs are plagued by auto-tune which is used to mask poor singing and was created in 1998 by Andy Hildebrand. Prior to 1998, songs didn’t suffer from this issue. No ifs. No buts. Likewise, for the last 45 years, rap music has existed which has been derided by many sane people as awful. Though it was admittedly preceded by Jamaican folk music and reggae, one must concede that rap music didn’t exist prior to the nineteen-seventies, with its predecessor reggae being largely unknown prior to the late 1960’s. Rock Music likewise was unheard of prior to the 1950s. Though pop music has existed as the successor of timeless folk music since the industrial revolution, it originally consisted of operettas and waltz music. It wasn’t till 1950’s when pop music mixed with other genres to become its modern substandard incarnation. If we return to Modern Art, we will observe that the art movements of Dada, Cubism, Fauvism, Expressionism, Futurism and many more emerged in the dawn of the twentieth century as opposed to an earlier time. It’s predecessor Post-Impressionism likewise did not appear prior to the 1880s where the Superior Impressionists occurred instead. If we think for a second, if bad art has always existed then why is Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain deemed so influential? Surely it would be a mere footnote in history. It is deemed influential because it illustrates changes in trends in terms of what artists now aspire to produce, of what the art community promotes and in what consists the dominant art form.
If we return to Mozart’s scatological lyrics, it can be noticed that some of the claims made by apologists of bad art are somewhat exaggerated. Firstly, the scatological songs by Mozart weren’t actually his professional music to be used in concerts and theatres but rather songs intended to be shared with close friends and were all canons to be performed by inebriated friends. Such works were only published posthumously, and when they were, the lyrics were bowdlerised. Though proponents for Modern Art can claim that bawdier songs did exist in folk songs, it should be noted that any theatre or vaudeville that would have performed such works would be censored. In contrast songs such as S&M by Rihanna which explore graphic content such as Fetishes, bondage and Sadomasochism are capable of being played on live radio in twenty-first century Australia. I am happy to concede that there are differences in quality even within genres and that there were some complaints that existed about inferior librettos. How one should ask whether such ‘inferior librettos’ are representative of the genre, whether such complainants are representative of most concert attendees and whether such attendees may reconsider their views if they had the means of listening to to-day’s rap. Furthermore, the example of Mozart’s lewd songs as used by apologists has greater validity when discussing the decline in Modern Music not a decline in Modern Art. Why this was brought up when I was criticising Cy Twombly is beyond me.
Secondly, many proponents of Modern Art say that something along the lines of ‘though you may not like Modern Art, other people do”, implicitly appealing not just to the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but also to the notion of to libertarianism. I am no libertarian on social policy. I am open to the state promoting morality on certain issues. Why this argument is supposed to persuade me is beyond me. However, it should be noted that this argued is flawed on libertarian grounds grounds as well. I am not calling for the prohibition of Modern Art but rather the removal of public funding and the refocusing of the Art Curriculum towards skills. If filth wish to create or preserve Modern Art, then they should fund this endeavour themselves. The policies I have espoused on funding are still consistent with freedom of expression principles. I see no reason against ensuring trainee artists actually have the ability to paint and sculpt. If anything, that claim by proponents is actually anti-libertarian as it is used implicitly to tell people to shut up and stop complaining, which is a more direct restriction on free-expression. Furthermore, the claim that taste is relative is the refuge of those who have no taste. Let’s not beat around the bush; tin cans containing faeces is not art but rather filth. Yet filth is currently on display at the taxpayer’s expense at TATE. Proponents of Modern Art try to defend the indefensible and are beneath respect.
Thirdly, Proponents of Modern Art claim that the purpose of Modern Art is to challenge the definitions and standards of Art and Aesthetics, and that the purpose of Art is to generate Discussion. This is so nonsensical it is not funny. Though it is safe to say most people enjoy modern music, the same cannot be said for modern art. According to YouGov, most people do not consider works by Jackson Pollock or Marcel Duchamp to be real art. The ‘Discussion’ that succeeds the creation of new Modern Art isn’t actually a discussion but rather a wave of criticism at the installations, with the closest thing to discussion being confined to Academic echo-chambers. The confession that the purpose of modern art is to challenge the definition of Aesthetics just proves that these faux-artists are not testing themselves but rather are deliberately trying to piss people off (apologies to strong language).
Finally, proponents of Modern Art may state that my above mentioned proposals are a curtailing of creativity; far from it. According to clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, creativity is the ability to overcome obstacles. Peterson gives the example of Haiku’s as a form of poetry that there is no shortage of, despite the conditions imposed on the genre. Such policies should be viewed as providing the necessary obstacles for creativity to thrive rather than fizzle into worthlessness.
To conclude, Modern Art is rubbish and it is necessary to turn off the tap of public funding that it relies upon. Whilst bad art may always have existed, it has only been in the past 140 years that bad art has multiplied beyond belief and gained legitimacy as an Art form. To claim that modern Songs and Modern Art has always been foul is to ignore societal changes such as the decline in Christianity, the sexual revolution and the disillusionment against tradition instigated by the twentieth century. Given that modern Art apologists are often far-left wingnuts, I would like finish by paraphrasing Angela Davis. We should not accept the things we cannot change; we should change the things we cannot accept.