Matta-Clark is one of my favorite artists of the 20th century. Splitting, Conical Intersect, and Office Baroque, among other pieces, are clever and thought-provoking, even if you think most modern art is/was trash. https://whitney.org/artists/3592
Loughla · 8h ago
I want to like modern art, but I never get it.
Like splitting; while the line is neat, it just looks like a falling apart house. Conical intersect is a big hole in a building.
What am I missing? I genuinely want to get it.
cam_l · 2h ago
One of the things I love about this period of art is that the art does contain a sense of logic and process that can be understood. It was philosophical and communicative - the artists were saying something meaningful and meant to be understood.
There was a story I read in a paper about Matta-Clarkes 'splitting' a while back [0] (The paper is a bit of a long read, but gives a good insight into his work. Unfortunately not open access..) where in one of Matta-Clarkes pieces..
>the artist used a BB gun to shoot out the windows of the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies..
He then mounted pictures of derelict buildings from the South Bronx in the windows.
>When shattered, the Institute’s “renovated” apertures opened jaggedly on to images of an alternative reality, one to which its members remained blind and sealed away. Or so, in literalizing the inability of architecture to see or reach the social reality from which it was so decisively divorced, Matta-Clark seemed to claim.
The 'anarchy' part of the anarchitecture was not just posturing.
I think it’s hard to “get” modern art with no context. I think you can start by asking yourself: “what am I looking at?”.. and just reply yourself .. out loud .. in your mind… however .. then .. explore what you feel .. what it reminds you of … etc. It’s also sometimes useful to see the progression of that specific artist.. if it’s a famous artists they tend to have a “style” .. you notice that in a way they are trying to do the same thing over and over .. perfecting something throughout the years so it sometimes helps to see their early work. I can recommend the book “what are you looking at?” By Will Gompertz.
Having said that… no need to feel bad about “not getting” some work of art .. sometimes it’s quite literally impossible to “get” an artwork if you don’t know certain things .. kind of like not understanding a word because it’s in a different language.
krunck · 7h ago
It's not for you to 'get'. It's for the artist to expunge ideas from their brain into the physical world to satisfy some internal urge.
Like splitting; while the line is neat, it just looks like a falling apart house. Conical intersect is a big hole in a building.
What am I missing? I genuinely want to get it.
There was a story I read in a paper about Matta-Clarkes 'splitting' a while back [0] (The paper is a bit of a long read, but gives a good insight into his work. Unfortunately not open access..) where in one of Matta-Clarkes pieces..
>the artist used a BB gun to shoot out the windows of the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies..
He then mounted pictures of derelict buildings from the South Bronx in the windows.
>When shattered, the Institute’s “renovated” apertures opened jaggedly on to images of an alternative reality, one to which its members remained blind and sealed away. Or so, in literalizing the inability of architecture to see or reach the social reality from which it was so decisively divorced, Matta-Clark seemed to claim.
The 'anarchy' part of the anarchitecture was not just posturing.
[0] https://direct.mit.edu/grey/article/doi/10.1162/152638104322...
Having said that… no need to feel bad about “not getting” some work of art .. sometimes it’s quite literally impossible to “get” an artwork if you don’t know certain things .. kind of like not understanding a word because it’s in a different language.