There is a fine line between good modern art and bad modern art. In my experience, the bad modern art greatly outnumbers the good- and the bad is usually abstract.
To me, anyone can do an abstraction. It does not take a lot of skill. I feel as though if you are going to be doing abstract art, you've first got to kind of prove yourself by doing harder representational things- and the abstraction should add to the concept of the art. What makes an abstract chair a better chair than a photorealistic one?
Speaking of conceptual art, I generally find all of this to be utter rubbish. There are exceptions- like
this guy who made a giant human digestive system into a factory machine (a
functional human digestive system). However, if I have to read a plaque to get the "joke" or the "point" then it doesn't feel like visual art to me, and shouldn't be in a visual art museum. I go to a museum to see aesthetically pleasing things that engage my attention.
See being the key word there. This sort of art seems to be kind of a one-off thing, with no real skill involved and no visual interest. I could spend days looking at Van Gogh, but not days contemplating Yoko Ono's work.
I mean, I could very easily do something like put a white piece of paper in a room, write a plaque about how it represents the human struggle for meaning, and then make a million dollars. That's what much of modern art is, now, and I don't like it at all.
Shirt: Forever 21
Skirt: Philosophie
Belt: H&M
Socks: n/a
Shoes: n/a
