[lmm]

I've had a similar 95/5 (I'd like to say more like 80/20) reaction to a lot of galleries, but most modern galleries I've been to (the Tate, or the one in the Centre Pompidou) include some late-19th at least early-20th century stuff. And until recently I'd have been a big defender of the value of these over older collections.

I was struck because the Pinakothek is the first I've been to that makes a three-way-split - the Alte Pinakothek for pre-19th century stuff, the Neue Pinakothek for, I don't know the terminology, but the time in the middle, and then the really contemporary works in the Pinakothek der Moderne. And I absolutely loved the Neue Pinakothek - loads of really beautiful paintings, with a variety of styles but almost all of them being the kind of representational/skilled work the article's talking about (or your link). Really recommend it if you're ever in Munich. And then I walked across the road to the Pinakothek der Moderne, looking forward to a real treat, and I was just really struck by how bad it all seemed, how much worse every painting was than any of the ones I'd just been looking at.

[groby_b]

Ah. Now I get you.

Pinakothek der Moderne is a lot of post-moderism, which is... mixed. There's a lot of conceptual art there which is brilliant, but in a cerebral sense, not visceral. It's not representational, though - that's the point of a lot of post-modernism, to rebel against established art ideas.[1]

They still do have stuff that might appeal to you, IIRC - August Macke, Franz Marc, Miro, Emil Nolde come to mind.

[1] That doesn't mean it's unskilled. But the skill is hidden in the breaking of all rules of skill, and it's occasionally hard to tell if it's incompetence or deliberate, unless you spent a lot of time on art history.

[lstamour]

I'll definitely have to see these. I'd perhaps point out that there was a lot of older, bad art. It just didn't survive. ;-) And that a lot of post-modern art really does require ... either reading the labels or finding other ways to understand the art conceptually as well as from a technical perspective. Consider the entertainment value of critically acclaimed Hollywood blockbuster versus a new, experimental film: The older works tend to work better because they fit into patterns. "They are what they seem." The new ones take some getting used to: what you see isn't always what you're supposed to get. Neither has anything to do with fine art markets. Frankly, most fine art valuation seems to be like any other resource -- priced for its scarcity. Sometimes, an artists' works, and I really should look it up to see if this is true, an artist's works will increase in value when it's clear there will be no new works forthcoming. Which makes no sense if you consider that famous artists had other artists working for them, and if Apple can continue to produce great works after Steve Jobs, why can't we have a Picasso Inc. doing the same? But that's a different point entirely.

Trying (and failing) to get back on topic, 95/5 was probably unfair of me. Part of why I skewed to 95 was that I've seen most of the permanent collection at the AGO enough to discount it for that overfamiliarity alone. I mean, I'm still struck by minimal, early Canadian works by the Group of Seven, yet since that part of the gallery never rotates, it becomes part of the 95% eventually.