No two eyes are the same, therefore no two people will agree what is beautiful and what is not, hence the phrase: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Consequently, this creates a problem of who or which group will determine what is put in art establishments. Each person will also have different ways of determining art. One might base it on the way it makes him/her feel, by how aesthetically pleasing or beautiful it is, by who the artist is, how shocking or new it is, how thought provoking it is, or how it is interpreted in one’s own culture. A viewer will determine whether they like a piece of art based on various thought processes.  

The Peanuts comic, where Charlie questions Lucy’s jump-roping if it is art leaving her confused, brings up the important question that has sparked a lot of debate within the art world: But is it art? The confusion about what art is surrounds modern and contemporary art and many people seek to define and criticize it.

One must know the definition of modern art in order to argue for or against it. Many who criticize modern art are actually criticizing contemporary art. The two types of art movements are usually clumped together in the same movement, however, modern art is defined as an art movement from the 1900’s until the 1950’s, while contemporary art is from the fifties until current time. Robert Florczak, an art professor, criticizes modern art was also criticizing contemporary art in a video on youtube. (Florczak, Why Modern Art is so Bad). He is not the only one to make this mistake, many others are at fault for this grouping as well. 

Florczak bashes on “modern art” and has a demeaning tone when talking about contemporary artists. “Artists of the past also made statements at times, but never at the expense of the visual excellence of their work” (Florczak, Why is Modern Art so Bad). The art seen today is many times not aesthetically pleasing to the human eye but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is not art or that it is good or bad. The concepts behind contemporary and modern artworks are commonly what make it art. Florczak argues that a lot of art today should not be considered art even though there may be a concept behind it. He declares the artists of today are producing works of visual atrocity, which past artists did not. 

Others who deal with art on a more day-to-day basis, whether they are curators, art history professors, or artists, they all have opinions on how art should be defined or undefined. Amei Wallach brings in many different opinion in his article “ART; Is It Art? Is It Good? And Who Says So?” to bring a wide range of views to the discussion of art. Rosenblum, a professor of art history and curator of art, said “defining art is so remote I don’t think anyone would dare to do it” (Wallach, ART; Is It Art…). Rosenblum doesn’t want to define art because he doesn’t think it should be done whilst McEvilley, a professor of art history and contributing editor to Artforum magazine, proclaimed: “It is art if it is called art, written about in an art magazine, exhibited in a museum or bought by a private collector” (Wallach, ART; Is It Art…) McEvilley seems to define art simply by saying it is art if it is art. Hughes, critic and author of American Visions, expresses a similar idea to McEvilley that a work of art is art if it is declared and intentioned to be art and if it is placed to be seen. However, he still argues “that still does not determine whether it is (art) esthetically rich or stupidly banal” (Wallach, ART; Is It Art…). Rubin, director emeritus of painting and sculpture in the MoMA, believes that “there is no single definition of art that’s universally tenable,” and he also knows art when he sees it (Wallach, ART; Is It Art…). Rubin agrees that you cannot really define art similar to Rosenblum, however he as an individual has a standard for art. Katz, an executive director who produces films on art, feels that art is a conversation where it’s not a work of art “if it’s not visual and it’s not visceral and it’s not communicative” (Wallach, ART; Is It Art…). Similarly, Weintraub, a freelance curator and author of Art on the Edge and Over,  proclaims “if art doesn’t sensitize us to something in the world, clarify our perceptions, make us aware of the decisions we have made; it’s entertainment” (Wallach, ART; Is It Art…). Kruger, an artist, doesn’t believe in narrowing definitions of art but says that “art is the ability to show and tell what it means to be alive” (Wallach, ART; Is It Art…). As more people in the art industry state their opinion on what defines art it becomes very clear that to explain art cannot be done- universally or even at all.

Some choose to believe modern art is not art because they maintain that anyone can do it. Two boys tested this theory in a museum where they placed eyeglasses on the floor. Soon enough people began viewing and capturing pictures of the glasses as if it were an art piece. This might seem to prove the point that anything can be modern art, yet some use this to say that it means the glasses are art. “The rules of the game are such that unmasking is impossible.” (Bigaj, It’s Okay Not to Like…) Modern art is so widely interpreted that it becomes impossible to say something is not art. These rules aggravate the side that is against contemporary art because it becomes a catch-22. For example: Duchamp’s fountain, which was a ready-made urinal turned upside down with the signature R. Mutt, had an idea behind its “creation” like most contemporary or modern art pieces. One interpretation of Duchamp’s objective behind “Fountain” was to say “art was bankrupt” (Bigaj, It’s Okay Not to Like…), meaning that there is no such thing as art. It is the “artist” who takes from what is already there and does not create something new, he/she just puts some of it together. This concept was totally ignored and ready-mades began to become popular as art. The statement that art is no more through a ready-made urinal that was to not be real art became real art according to the art world and thus began the dilemma and catch-22 of a lot of what is considered modern and contemporary art.

Museums and galleries are often where art is found and where art is deemed art, but this brings back the question of who can define art? What standards do the museums and galleries have for art? And if there is or can be a universal standard for what is considered art? The museums and galleries have a large control and influence of art. Galleries and museums are important to showcase the creations of the past and of current time. This may be a problem because the people controlling the showcasing of art are a small minority of the population. Modern art museums will showcase art that is not widely liked or understood by the public. The outrage of the public will then ensue due to the dislike of the art or not art that is being chosen to be shown in museums and galleries. Others retort back to the negativity surrounding the galleries and museums by simply saying these establishments are there to put art into perspective. One can see art everywhere they go but these galleries and museums are places of sophistication and inspiration. They force one to appreciate works of art while in a setting that allows contemplation. 

The abstract expressionism movement was supposed to be a universal art because all cultures and everyone from different backgrounds could understand color and shape. The objective behind abstract expressionism was to create a universal art that can be understood by everyone. However, this movement got criticized for its simplicity and for it seemingly being able to be compared to a two-year-old’s drawing. Modern and contemporary art is often compared to children’s art. This begs the question how is this art held in high esteem if a child could or anyone draw it? This depends again on how art is defined in one’s culture, society, or even oneself. 

The question of whether a concept can make something art still comes down to an individual’s belief on what is art. If one sees art as something that evokes emotions and commentates on contemporary times then contemporary art is in fact art. If one views aesthetic beauty as the essential essence of art, many contemporary pieces would not be considered art according to one’s standards of beauty.

Overpriced art is common in the art world where the price goes up based on the popularity of the artist. This can be compared to a popularity contest. The more the artist is known and popular the more people want their art, hence the more the price goes up. Sometimes artists will not even paint or make their art; they just sign the piece painted by their apprentices. “Cattelan’s ‘Stephanie’ waxwork, for example, was actually made a master at Madame Tussauds” (Callahan, The Overpriced World…). This is another reason why people may not like modern or contemporary art. Real art is art no matter who made it but the signature of a famous artist can change the worth of the art piece.

Whether one’s ideology allows him/herself to accept modern and contemporary art as real art, the one principle that cannot be refuted is time. Vincent Van Gogh, arguably one of the most famous artists to date, tragically died impoverished and unrecognized as an innovator and creator. Yet Van Gogh’s works of art, notably “Starry Night”, are extremely well known and valuable in modern times. Some might say the art today may be unappreciated just like art of the past but as time goes on it may become recognized. It does not matter how popular the artist may be or how famous works of art currently are because the art that can withstand the test of time can prove its worth. Real art is timeless. 

Art can take on many forms and there are many discussions on the limits of what art can be. Modern art especially has sparked heated debates of whether or not modern art can be defined as art. Since modern art has such diversity, it has allowed more interpretations and varied appreciation. Some say a work of art can be mundane objects others say that those works of “art” are meaningless and worthless. The definition of art really should be interpreted by every individual.