the overlapping squares (mondrian), the splatter paintings (pollack) even solid fields of color (rothko) or a bicycle wheel stuck in a stool (duchamp) were important to thier time. they were meant to break down the way in which art could be presented. when they emerged, they were railing against the academy thinking that had drained the life out of art for ages. in many cases, when you really look at them, they are quite beautiful, but often only in context. what is great about your story is that you found something and made it into art. duchamp would have been proud. probably prouder if you left it upside down.
: )
van gogh was one of those artists which i never really cared for until i held up my hand like a telescope and blocked out everything else in the room but his landscape. it exploded in front of my eyes.
i have been more cautious in my judgement of the masters since, but not overly so.
taken in context, modernism was, and continues to be as much about production and repetition as any manufactured object. warhol put the nail in that coffin.
nowadays, the traditional artist is going the way of the dodo as new technologies emerge.
one of these technologies is video.
the difference in thier work is the same as comparing bob ross (happy little trees) to michealangelo. both types exist in our day and age and both are making art.
some make beauty. some make porn. some just dont know the friggin difference.
