What Is Modern Art?

From TikTok to Fox News to Fascists, many people have incredibly passionate opinions on Modern Art. While all art is relatively subjective, it is important to have a basic understanding of the piece’s broader context to appreciate its relevance (or, put simply, why it’s in a museum in the first place).

In digestible terms, Modern Art is art made from the 1860s to the 1970s. This includes prominent paintings by artists like Vincent van Gogh, Frida Kahlo, and Gustav Klimt. Because the era spans such a large period of time, it also includes more controversial figures like Piet Mondrian, Jackson Pollock, and Paul Cezanne. Now, it is true that these artists all have distinctly different styles: Pollock is abstract, Kahlo focused on surrealist portraiture, while post-impressionism was Van Gogh’s jam. That is the beautiful thing about ‘Modern Art;’ it’s not so much a strict metric for style but rather a way to classify art that was made to challenge boundaries and express social issues. 

The real issue is that people confuse their personal tastes with what is good or what is art. As many know and bring up, some of the best artists were completely unrecognized in their time. Van Gogh, who only sold one painting while he was alive, was one of the pioneers of the Modern Art movement. Impressionism, which is art that focuses on movement and feeling rather than realism, was once considered radical and was regarded similarly in its time as Modern Art is today. Ultimately, the likeability of something is not what makes it worthy of being called art, it is the creation.

Why is it so Controversial? 

If you search “Modern Art” on TikTok, you will no doubt find a plethora of videos captioned “Modern Art is not real art” or people standing next to Modern Art pieces they think they could make. These videos often feature incredibly famous paintings and sculptures, pieces that are historically relevant and often not classified as Modern Art. 

Matthew Harward, a Huntington Beach High School (HBHS) art teacher, was asked his thoughts on such videos. “Why haven’t they? Why didn’t they? And could they? They could probably copy it, but it’s already been done, and they didn’t do it,” said Harward. 

The idea that Modern Art only means recent art is understandable, but when people stand next to Jeff Koons’s or Robert Therrien’s works, they are standing next to contemporary art pieces. These often are the works that inspire the most vitriol, but many forget that they still have their own purpose and complexities. 

Trinity Orman, an Art and World History teacher at HBHS, said, “Art has a history of being very elitist, so modern art usually challenges our perceptions of what art actually is, who decides what is art and invites all walks of life into the conversation.” 

The PragerU YouTube page has pretty consistently been at the forefront of Modern Art’s societal dressing-down. They have made a plethora of videos with titles like “Why Is Modern Art so Bad?,” “Why Is Modern Art so Bad? With Will Witt,” and, groundbreakingly, “Why Is Classical Art So Good?” Clearly, there is a preference for classical art, which is fine. Still, at its core, PragerU is a conservative media outlet. This begs the question, why is degrading Modern Art an aspect of the conservative agenda? 

What Do Politics Have to Do With It?

Surprisingly, governments have historically been incredibly involved in the creation and commissioning of art. In the past and present, political leaders have hired artists or kept them on retainer and had them paint portraits of themselves and their families. Francisco Goya, whose most well-known work is probably Saturn Devouring His Son, originally started as a court painter for the Spanish Royal family before progressing to the darker works he is famous for today.

The United States government has established the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to help fund art programs and artists, encouraging them to continue producing and enriching American culture artistically. 

The government can play an important role in creating art, but its support comes with standard opposition. Nowadays, there is controversy over whether or not the government should provide money for the arts at all.

Politicians have attacked the NEA and other art in the past. In his video “Who’s Afraid of Modern Art?” Jacob Geller highlights the role Jesse Helms, a former U.S. Senator and conservative politician, played in the attack on the NEA. Geller dissects how Helms did not want the art to cease; rather, he wanted it to continue being created to fuel his political viewpoint and agenda. 

Helms is a more contemporary example of artistic censorship in the sphere of right-wing politics. Hitler had similar views during his regime. Like Helms, the Nazi party used art to prove a point about their political stance. The party was passionate enough to steal the art they disagreed with and display it publicly. They did this to paint modern artists, those breaking from traditions, as deviants degrading German culture. 

Harward said “I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘art’ I just think it’s design. Everything is designed. When you have a space in front of you, you design that space. So, does Modern Art take away the integrity of art? No.”

While Modern Art has persevered throughout these campaigns of disagreement, the movement against Modern Art has been relatively successful. Jesse Helms, specifically, got exactly what he wanted. 

Wendy Steiner, professor and novelist at the University of Pennsylvania, seems to put it best in an article by the Huffington Post. She said, “Right-wing politicians do not have as much offensive publicly-funded art to complain about these days because publicly-funded institutions will not show it.”

This is Helm’s legacy: the censorship of American expression and artistic endeavor. This is what happens when Modern Art is devalued by those who do not care to understand it. 

So, Did It Kill the Artist?

No. Modern Art has space for genuine critiques: no one can afford it, it’s too abstract or composed solely of big blocks of color. Ultimately, this does not diminish the process of its creation and the skill these artists honed. Sure, maybe you could paint it, but you didn’t, and the beauty of art lies in its conception. Someone had an idea, and they brought it to life. Now, people are pondering it, getting mad, or crying over it. Coincidentally, this is what Modern Art strives for. It should make you feel something— even if that is confusion over why it is art at all.

For those worried about the disappearance of Renaissance-like art, fear not! Realism isn’t going anywhere. Hundreds of artists are still producing realistic portraiture, such as Kehinde Wiley, who painted President Obama’s portrait during his time in office. 

Orman said, “A lot of early modern art is a rejection of the emphasis on classical styles. Society, for a very long time, determined this to be the highest form of art, but modern artists disagree, the message is more important than the technique in most cases. But to those who are frustrated, I would say it’s art, and it is meant for human consumption. How you interpret it is up to you, and it might not make sense right away. Sometimes, that is the purpose.”

Modern Art is not a roadblock to classical techniques; in fact, it is usually based on them. All forms of art are wonderful, and the bottom line is that expression is the core of creation. Modern Art opened doors for artists who would have never seen their style or themselves represented, and its abstraction should not be discounted.