[bowsamic]

I'm not sure about this. I don't know anything about modern art or the critique of it, but every time I've been to a modern art exhibition I've been far more engaged than any national gallery. Looking at a crushed up car upturned on its side in the MAMAC at Nice was far more interesting and engaging than seeing 100 Baroque oil paintings. If you gave me the choice between seeing some weird modern art exhibition and some gallery of classical art it would take a lot to convince me to choose the latter.

That said, when seen on a screen on a computer, I think it can be the opposite way around. I guess a lot of modern art only feels right in person, since many of them have 3D elements or are very contextual.

[JackFr]

> Looking at a crushed up car upturned on its side in the MAMAC at Nice was far more interesting and engaging than seeing 100 Baroque oil paintings.

I couldn’t disagree more, but as it’s said, there is no accounting for taste. My problem - and I get that it’s my problem - is that I don’t see the crushed up car as art. It’s a gimmick, a sideshow, a lark.

Within the visual arts I want to see something which both demonstrates the mastery of a technique and captures the artist’s understanding of the world, the human condition, etc. With the crushed up car, if I squint my eyes I get the second part, but as to the first part, the only mastery I see displayed is hucksterism.

[bowsamic]

I’ve never found my enjoyment of art to be related to the mastery put into it. In fact I generally enjoy art more if I know it was made quickly and easily. I think it’s boring to become a masterful artist, compared to having less skill and “accidentally” making something engaging. I have no interest in technique or mastery, it is a turnoff for me, and it’s boring