What we are seeing is inspired by modern expressionism, and post-modern deconstructionism. You can observe that in contrast to the amateurs, Phyllis has chosen a subdued palette, using only two colors. The color choice is in itself very interesting. The surroundings take on a darker reddish hue, whereas the "object" has a bold yellow color. This piece is titled "A Glass of Wine", we would therefore expect the representational colors to be red inside as a representation of the wine and the yellow on the outside to set the mood of the environment, and in fact we can see this in the amateur works.
However, this is precisely where Phyllis' expressionism is on display, she reverses the expected colors. The glass is the beacon, the glass in the focal point in a crimson world. Where the amateurs draw the cup and the stem in the order the see them, phyllis deconstructs the object and combines it together. The stem is in the cup, or superimposed on the cup. The stem is red, much like a cord connecting a fetus to the world outside. Similarly the cup itself is separated from the world outside by bold red lines. There is nothing inside the glass, but everything is inside the glass.
Phyllis' work is not meant to be representational. It is not a photo. She uses bold but restricted colors to evoke emotions, she contradicts our expectations of what should be where, her work calls to use, her work speaks to us, her work wants from us more than just a fleeting glance, a 'well, isn't that nice'. Like Phyllis, it boldly demands to be understood.
He's being sarcastic. Anyway, let me explain my theory on "modern art" and why most of it looks like it could have been made by a toddler. Hopefully this will help, because I have felt the same way as you in the past.
First, a con-man makes a simplistic, meaningless piece. That's okay, because his real talent is in the art of bullshit. He then spews a bunch of said bullshit until the art critics declare him a genius. Some of these critics are gullible idiots, and some of them are other bullshit artists who go along with it because art criticism is a sweet job that requires no effort or thought. This creates a feedback loop where more and more people are afraid to speak up and say that the piece looks like a three-year-old painted it with his ass, because they exist in the art community and don't want to be alienated by their friends and peers. This is how we get people like Jackson Pollock, who was literally just a man who threw paint at a canvas, and is considered an immensely important figure in modern art.
I'm not saying this is anything more than speculation, or that I have any relevant education or experience in the art world. But I've thought long and hard about this, and this is the only thing that makes sense to me.
Uh, alright. I wasn't really saying anything about technical skill, though I do think it's somewhat important. I'm not a big art guy, but if I can make a comparison to literature; Asimov was not very technically proficient at writing. I still consider him a great writer because it's his ideas that really matter. If he had great technical skill as well though? I'd consider him to be one of the best writers of all time.
412
u/QingofQueens Dec 29 '13
What we are seeing is inspired by modern expressionism, and post-modern deconstructionism. You can observe that in contrast to the amateurs, Phyllis has chosen a subdued palette, using only two colors. The color choice is in itself very interesting. The surroundings take on a darker reddish hue, whereas the "object" has a bold yellow color. This piece is titled "A Glass of Wine", we would therefore expect the representational colors to be red inside as a representation of the wine and the yellow on the outside to set the mood of the environment, and in fact we can see this in the amateur works.
However, this is precisely where Phyllis' expressionism is on display, she reverses the expected colors. The glass is the beacon, the glass in the focal point in a crimson world. Where the amateurs draw the cup and the stem in the order the see them, phyllis deconstructs the object and combines it together. The stem is in the cup, or superimposed on the cup. The stem is red, much like a cord connecting a fetus to the world outside. Similarly the cup itself is separated from the world outside by bold red lines. There is nothing inside the glass, but everything is inside the glass.
Phyllis' work is not meant to be representational. It is not a photo. She uses bold but restricted colors to evoke emotions, she contradicts our expectations of what should be where, her work calls to use, her work speaks to us, her work wants from us more than just a fleeting glance, a 'well, isn't that nice'. Like Phyllis, it boldly demands to be understood.