I have written a few articles about my dislike of modern art; however, I have come to realise that what I really loathe is the arrogance, evangelism, ignorance and intolerance of devotes of modernism.
Now it would be very wrong of me to assume that all fans of modern art are the same, and I make no such claim.
What I can say without scope for challenge or contradiction is; all fans of modern art I have personally interacted with have an identical rhetoric in support of their beliefs.
Step 1 - You don't like it because you don't understand it
The measure of modern art appears not to be the aesthetic quality of what you see, but what the painting means to you, and how it makes you feel.
I guess this is what makes modern art an attractive genre for many. You don't need to be cerebral to talk about what a painting says to you. Your opinion is personal rather than factual, and so cannot be challenged. Modernism is very inclusive in this respect. Everyone can claim to see or feel something. No matter how bonkers your reasoning is - you will never look foolish.
What annoys me about modernist is that not liking something, and feeling nothing is not a tolerated option. Time and time again, I am told that I don't like something because I don't understand it!
Let's consider an analogy with reference to another sense. If I don't like the taste of Garlic, it isn't because I don't understand it. Knowing that Garlic is a member of the onion family (etc) does not make me like it.
By contrast, an Old Master communicates eloquently with those who have appropriate knowledge. Understanding normally requires familiarity with the social, political and economic climate surrounding the period and subject matter of the painting, for the symbolism and messages in these works to be understood. A good example of is the language of flowers as a common allegorical device (e.g. White Lilly for purity, black Rose for death, etc).
Modernists never appear to consider their inability to understand or appreciate a more traditional painting as an exposure of their educational inadequacy.
But let's not forget or reject another option: the idea that one should be able to appreciate artwork merely for its spectacular beauty. I am personally delighted and satisfied by splendour and craftsmanship in a painting; I don't necessarily need to understand some paintings for them to evoke a response.
The work of the Impressionist is a good example of pretty, meaningless art. They attempted to say absolutely nothing through their art, other than; here is my favourite bar, I like the ballet, I like boating, etc.
Modernist seem to believe technical ability is not a worthy measure of art, and the giving pleasure is too a simplistic goal.
2. Attack is the best form of defence
When I voice my disapproval of modern art, the usual response of modernists is not to offer a counter argument. Instead they launch an attack on my own portraits. They normally say, "All you do is copy".
Copying from life has been practised from the dawn of art. Why is copying so derided?
Vincent van Gogh didn't imagine Sunflowers: he copied from life.
Damien Hirst doesn't even go to the effort of copying: he just takes life itself, cuts it in half and pickles it (well to be accurate he probably instructs someone else to do).
The offensive frequently moves on to more technical details, and here the modernist often simply hand me the bullets to shoot down their viewpoint.
For example, I was recent told (having remarked that I felt Cezanne is somewhat over rated) - "You have no understanding of the use of light and shade - like Cezanne did". For those unfamiliar with Cezanne's work, he did not use light and shade. All his colours were flat. So my answer to the accusation is actually - yes, I prefer to employ light and shade in my pictures.
What saddens me about such attacks it they effectively say that all of my clients' loved ones; cherished pets and moments are worthless and pointless.
Finally
I would like to invite anyone who disagrees with my arguments to comment on this article – but without telling me that I don't understand modern art, or attacking my own efforts.
Portraits by John Burton
Now it would be very wrong of me to assume that all fans of modern art are the same, and I make no such claim.
What I can say without scope for challenge or contradiction is; all fans of modern art I have personally interacted with have an identical rhetoric in support of their beliefs.
Step 1 - You don't like it because you don't understand it
The measure of modern art appears not to be the aesthetic quality of what you see, but what the painting means to you, and how it makes you feel.
I guess this is what makes modern art an attractive genre for many. You don't need to be cerebral to talk about what a painting says to you. Your opinion is personal rather than factual, and so cannot be challenged. Modernism is very inclusive in this respect. Everyone can claim to see or feel something. No matter how bonkers your reasoning is - you will never look foolish.
What annoys me about modernist is that not liking something, and feeling nothing is not a tolerated option. Time and time again, I am told that I don't like something because I don't understand it!
Let's consider an analogy with reference to another sense. If I don't like the taste of Garlic, it isn't because I don't understand it. Knowing that Garlic is a member of the onion family (etc) does not make me like it.
By contrast, an Old Master communicates eloquently with those who have appropriate knowledge. Understanding normally requires familiarity with the social, political and economic climate surrounding the period and subject matter of the painting, for the symbolism and messages in these works to be understood. A good example of is the language of flowers as a common allegorical device (e.g. White Lilly for purity, black Rose for death, etc).
Modernists never appear to consider their inability to understand or appreciate a more traditional painting as an exposure of their educational inadequacy.
But let's not forget or reject another option: the idea that one should be able to appreciate artwork merely for its spectacular beauty. I am personally delighted and satisfied by splendour and craftsmanship in a painting; I don't necessarily need to understand some paintings for them to evoke a response.
The work of the Impressionist is a good example of pretty, meaningless art. They attempted to say absolutely nothing through their art, other than; here is my favourite bar, I like the ballet, I like boating, etc.
Modernist seem to believe technical ability is not a worthy measure of art, and the giving pleasure is too a simplistic goal.
2. Attack is the best form of defence
When I voice my disapproval of modern art, the usual response of modernists is not to offer a counter argument. Instead they launch an attack on my own portraits. They normally say, "All you do is copy".
Copying from life has been practised from the dawn of art. Why is copying so derided?
Vincent van Gogh didn't imagine Sunflowers: he copied from life.
Damien Hirst doesn't even go to the effort of copying: he just takes life itself, cuts it in half and pickles it (well to be accurate he probably instructs someone else to do).
The offensive frequently moves on to more technical details, and here the modernist often simply hand me the bullets to shoot down their viewpoint.
For example, I was recent told (having remarked that I felt Cezanne is somewhat over rated) - "You have no understanding of the use of light and shade - like Cezanne did". For those unfamiliar with Cezanne's work, he did not use light and shade. All his colours were flat. So my answer to the accusation is actually - yes, I prefer to employ light and shade in my pictures.
What saddens me about such attacks it they effectively say that all of my clients' loved ones; cherished pets and moments are worthless and pointless.
Finally
I would like to invite anyone who disagrees with my arguments to comment on this article – but without telling me that I don't understand modern art, or attacking my own efforts.
Portraits by John Burton