Because I sure as hell cannot.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/quiz-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-modern-art-and-art?bffb
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/quiz-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-modern-art-and-art?bffb
Can you tell the difference between modern art and paintings by toddlers?
- Thread starter Awesome
- Start date
Real question is how do you define modern art? There is almost insulting suggestion in the question that toddlers cannot create meaningful intentional artistic art which happens to reflect modernity. I mean, who decides what is art? Who makes the decision about who gets to be called an artist?
Shaqie
The Grandmaster in Disguise
I got 10 out of 11 right so yeah, generally, I think I can. 
That is assuming that you cannot consider the toddlers to be young modern artists.
That is assuming that you cannot consider the toddlers to be young modern artists.
agree. only got a few right myself but I saw artistic quality and talent in all of them.
10/11 right. I think the only difference is the precision of brushstrokes. I got the marbly one wrong. I have a toddler and she is clearly genius, as im sure all parents think their toddlers are. We have several of her pieces displayed
View attachment 18917View attachment 18918View attachment 18919View attachment 18920
View attachment 18917View attachment 18918View attachment 18919View attachment 18920
i guessed at pretty much all of them except for one, which appeared to me to be trees reflected in water.
Furthermore, if modern art is defined as art from the modern era, then there is no new modern art and one only has to look up the works.
This disregards the modern art philosophy and turns it into trivia which is not based on how the art is made, but who made it and when.
This disregards the modern art philosophy and turns it into trivia which is not based on how the art is made, but who made it and when.
The pretentious would not call this modern art unless it's known to be made before the 1970's.
That's the big reason why this test is entirely flawed - it leads you to believe that you can derive something from the style or technique, but that wouldn't be how the museum defines modern art. While the artists themselves would probably be turning in their graves.
ugh, I hate modern abstract. It is such a pretentious form imo. Keep in mind I'm not talking about abstract as in distorted reality (something like piccaso) but things like smudges on a canvas. Maybe I just don't get it, but it all seems like a bunch of BS to me tbh.
It deals with fundamental elements such as color, texture, and composition. These have an effect on the senses in a real manner, just like food has a taste to you.
You take in all things through your senses, vision is no exception. So it's like salad vs. steak and potatoes vs. soup. Maybe you don't prefer soup but that doesn't mean there's nothing going on with that soup.
I sorta agree though. To me abstract art like this looks nice, but at the same time I wouldn't pay the huge sums of money some of these artists get for it while in the meantime there are still kids starving in Africa. There's only so much you can feel from random splatters.
Yeah. There's a lot of pretentiousness involved where people ride the coat tails of what was a legitimate movement, where people basically said "I can make splatters if I want to!" and such a thing was novel at the time. It gained supporters on a social level, and in some cases this was done to make social or political statements.
But now it's a form of hipsterism, fine art people like to show what they know and show their 'taste' by knowing the details of some era gone by. This kills art in my opinion.
Making splatters now is entirely different from making splatters back when things were more conformist and highly conservative.
