I appreciate art of most schools. But I
LOVE modern art. Specifically early to mid 20th century stuff. You know the sort: cubism, expressionism, minimalism and op art (without the
P!). Some favourite artists in a loooong list would be,
Jackson Pollock (Summertime - 9A)
Piet Mondrian (Composition with yellow, blue and red)
Giacomo Balla (Abstract Speed and Sound)

Bridget Riley (Kiss)

Now, I know not everyone likes modern art. A very dear friend always said she just doesn't "get" it and she likes her painting to look like things.
"But, Lynz, what is it supposed to beeee?!?!"
*snort* It's supposed to be something pretty to look at, dearest! What makes a drift of tulips beautiful? The colour? The shapes? Same thing, innit? So why can't pretty shapes and colours on a canvas or wood be appreciated just for being pretty? Tulips don't mean anything! They just ARE.
I'll be the first to admit that I am an intelligent woman who doesn't enjoy particularly cerebral things. I like trashy books and escapist telly. I don't enjoy debating politics or religion (I have barely an opinion on one and an unshakeable and frankly quite bald opinion of the other) and likewise I'm not overly thoughtful over my art loves. But that's it right there. I love them. It's purely an emotional response, not an intellectual one. I mean, yeah, I see dancers in the Pollock above and the residual movement of whatever has whizzed through the Balla, a sexy curve in the Riley but I don't actively look for things in them. Sometimes things pop out but I'm equally quite happy to just appreciate them for being pretty - the Mondrian I have always loved (I think it's the straight lines - so unusual!). Does that make me a bit shallow? Or a bit of a flake?
Frankly? I don't care. Although I will admit to not "getting" most YBA installations. You know the ones. Unmade beds and the like. I mean, huh? Even the shark in formaldehide has more interest than that!!!!