Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That Modern Art Explained kindle Ì Paperback

Susie Hodge í Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That Modern Art Explained kindle

Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That Modern Art Explained kindle Ì Paperback ó Come on you know you've thought it while viewing a masterpiece of abstract art you mutter A kid could do that Here Susie Hodge author of How to Survive Modern Art explains why the best examples of modernEd thought and serious talent From Marcel Duchamp's notorious Fountain and the scribbles of Cy Twombly to Mark Rothko's multiforms and Carl Andre's uncarved blocks Hodge addresses critical outrage with a revealing insight into the technical skill I bought this book in the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow as an art lover who has always been sceptical about modern art And I'm glad that I did'Why your five year old could not have done that' includes 100 pieces of modern art with brief information about the artist and the artwork including the artist's influences and motivation While the book did not persuade me that a five year old could not have created most of the pieces of art I loved the title nonetheless and it did persuade me to give modern art a second look in future I even fell for several of the pieces featured in the book I also liked the fact that the book included some artworks and artists that I had heard of and knew about some that I had heard of but didn't know about and some that I hadn't heard ofI would definitely recommend this highly readable introductory book to other modern art sceptics

epub Ù Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That Modern Art Explained í Susie Hodge

Layering of ideas and sheer inspiration behind each work In cleverly organized chapters such as Objects Toys ProvocationsTantrums and PeopleMonsters Hodges thoughtfully and definitively lays bare the perception that modern art is mere child's pl A very good replacement for a museum visit during pandemic The reading experience is a bit like going through a gallery watching the exhibits and reading little clumps of text with commentary available in some museums I really missed it under the lock down I really enjoyed seeing the exhibitsI can imagine this is also a decent coffee table book Really a handy album in an almost pocket format The prints are of good uality and you can always read a single page without context and still enjoyThe book is well published looks nice and easily attracts attention in museum shops This is how I also got it Once you get home you discover that this is a part of a larger series of anything for dummies implying low uality and hasty writing This is also exactly what you get This is not a fascinating story about modern art for uninformed It is a dry collection of disconnected pieces Every page is an entry from a cheap encyclopiedia Hodge reports disconnected facts and names not making any attempt to actually explain or introduce readers to them Fixed format with several identical frames on each page does not help The differences between the purpose of each frame blurs uickly It is often clear that the author suffers the rigid format she has nothin intelligent to say for many frames It would be better to discuss every artist and every work in the best way for it instead of fitting it into a rigid harness Especially the frames addressing the titile uestion whether a five year old could have done that are irritating We read lots of speculation about intentions of the authors being what places the work above children doodles Personally I would prefer not to read an answer to this uestion on every page Convince me through an interesting story instead of postulating that they couldn'tThere is a thread in the book hugely underexploited about what is art This is a fascinating topic and a huge opportunity for a book like this Unfortunately Hodge does not take a philisophical stance here She basically absorbs the answers from presented artists taking them for granted We learn that art is not a skill not a techniue it is not in the subject not in esthetics not in the artist's individuality not even in the intentions or meaning In the end the reader is left in a vacuum Art seems to be nothing and everything which makes the whole discussion uninteresting Then you can actually conclude that indeed a 5 year old could have done it Fortunately the individual art pieces in the book often speak for themselves And they defend well

kindle Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That Modern Art Explained

Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That Modern Art ExplainedCome on you know you've thought it while viewing a masterpiece of abstract art you mutter A kid could do that Here Susie Hodge author of How to Survive Modern Art explains why the best examples of modern art are actually the result of sophisticat “The painting seems to be the type of random arrangement that a five year old might come up with However it emerged from the mind of an intellectual” p64; this is only the most annoying of innumerable nearly identical statements in this book that confuse what an artist produces and what an artist claims to be producing “So although this work might initially appear to be a childish scrawl it actually conveys the preoccupations of the time” p71 Hodge writes actually citing the artist’s statement as her source But of course this is not what the work “conveys” If the work “conveyed” meaning we would not need an artist to explain what it was about or Hodge to blindly accept and repeat it This entire book is a hymn to the intentional fallacy Time and again we are assured that an artist acted intentionally pp 138 216 etc consciously pp 59181 etc or especially deliberately pp 65 154 171 172 181 207 etc; we are asked to consider the artist's objective 149 objectives 165 or aim 47 140 169 what an artist was seeking to communicate 202 intended 84 124 aimed at 61 128 140 or planned deliberately 81 as a preconceived statement 119 for meaningful reasons 125 “No child would have created this work with the same intentions as Tinguely” p22 While for her part Rist’s “reasons went much deeper” than children’s reasons would p53How “meaningful” can these “reasons” get? Check out these examples of the kind of symbolism modern art offers•“The artist's inclusion of two skulls indicates the prospect of death” p162•“The cut up sleeves of a denim shirt represent the fisherman's clothes” p143Could a five year old have come up with those bits of metonymy?As with the skulls and the denim there is a bizarre literalness at work in this book Could a five year old have painted this Magritte? No because “no child could possibly reproduce Magritte’s meticulous and realistic painting style” p14 Could a child have created Emin’s “My Bed”? No because although “Children may often leave their beds unmade and their rooms a messa close look at this installation reveals that the bed and strewn items belong to an adult” p130 These explanations seem to miss the point — no one’s ever stated that a five year old could paint like Magritte and no one who’s ever dissed “My Bed” would feel refuted by the fact that children don’t wear pantyhose You might as well say that children couldn’t paint the upper half of Gorky's Year after Year because they’re too short A child could not slash a canvas because children are not allowed to play with knives is a parody of a statement from this book and not an actual statement from this bookMainly though Hodge just falls back on her beloved intentionalism “any five year old could have deposited his own excrement in a canManzoni however was making several points that few children could make” p116What this book does not offer is an explanation for why the artworks reproduced are not trash—I’m not saying they are trash just that the book does not explain or even attempt to explain why they are not As an apology for modern art it addresses only straw man arguments and makes modern art seem safe boring and redundant It also doesn't really explain why a five year old could not have made most of the works reproduced herein In fact it often stumbles backwards into admitting that a five year old could have• “A five year old could make a structure like this but they sic would not be scrutinizing so many elements at the same time” p29•“A child could make a pretend plate of food but would not be able to incorporate the subtle implications or the strands of humor creativity and reality that are inherent in this piece” p24•“Any child could do that but none would do so in order to make statements about blah blah blah” p67But once again don’t be confused “The ambiguities in the image are deliberate unlike a child’s arbitrary scribble” p62 I think we can all agree that the problem with children is that their scribbles do not contain countless intellectual mystical and spiritual implications that allude to various complex issues including intrinsic emotions and tensions p56I know I’m repeating myself but this book is very repetitive; I’m also being mean and I can’t really justify my bad behavior except by assuring you the book is filled with uotes like these•“Yet surreptitiously and incisively Gonzalez Torres invoked viewers to reconsider to contemplate the past present and future just as the work reaches the senses of sight touch and taste” p36•“By arranging mass produced objects on shelves Steinbach creates tensions between anonymity and desire” p44If you hate modern art this book will reassure and flatter you; if you like modern art you won’t after reading this book—unless I guess you have long hoped that someone would create tensions along the anonymity–desire axis