Garrett and I visited the Menil collection on Saturday. We drank the depths of the modern/post-modern art displayed there, and left thirsty.Someone had seriously propped a mop against a white canvas and called it art. There was also a lightbulb, and an empty bottle of vodka which were called art. Actually they were called "untitled," which is a trend in post-modernism. I don't know if artists entitled their art "untitled" because they are trying to be deep, or because they used the same creativity in titling as they did in art-ing (what else do you call proping up a bottle against a wall?).
On the positive side, the Menil collection is free to visit. On the negative side, it should be.
Garrett said that most of this art wasn't interesting enough to hold his attention for long, but some of the few that were interesting tended to be profane, so he either wasn't intested in the artworks, or felt too embarrassed to stare at them.
This leads the question, why is modern art so bad? Someone suggested that modern art reflects the godlessness of our culture, but that assumes that when art was better, the artists were christians. I do not believe this is the case. I have seen many paintings that were decidedly profane/godless, but very well done.
The theory to which I abscribe for the condition of modern art is the invention of the camera. Cameras captured pictures in fractions of the time it took to paint a portrait or landscape, and so replaced them. Before this time, the darkened souls of artists imitated God's artwork (nature and humanity) for their own, and so their art turned out half-way decent. Cameras took this model away from them. In modern and postmodern times, the darkened souls of artists looked into their darkened souls for inspiration, and we see the result.
