[This classic Not A Blog™ article was originally published on September 2, 2004.]

As promised yesterday, today I present a list of commonly used modern art terms and their real definitions. If you’ve ever tried actually reading about the subject, you’ll find you’re quickly assaulted with uncommon language. Repeatedly. This collection attempts to explain those esoteric terms in the vernacular of the everyday layman.

Also note that I’m borrowing a particular term from the certified genius (and writer), Dave Barry. One of his terms is “art snot” for the type of people, artists or not, who hang around galleries and expound on the virtues of elephant crap as avant garde media. I have continued the use here, in the fine tradition of being too lazy to come up with my own word and so steal borrow from someone else. Besides, it’s just hilarious.

Another thing to note: it would really be a lot of work to find pictoral examples of all the pieces I mention here. (Hey, I know what they look like.) So if you’re curious as to what they actually are, might I suggest the Google Image Search? This saves me the trouble of tracking down and posting images which I don’t own the rights to anyway, and furthermore, doesn’t clutter up the site with a lot of useless garbage. Not that art is garbage. I meant, you know, stuff that… er, I don’t need… on the server… uh…

Anyway! With out too much more ado, I present the Modern Art Dictionary. I hope you learn something, even if that thing is that art intellectuals are generally full of it.

avant garde (adj) - The technical definition is: anything ahead of its time. Art snots, however, use it to mean anything that the layman does not immediately understand. It is the opposite of kitsch, and, arguably, there is no middle ground. Something is (or was) either avant garde, or kitsch.

complex (adj) - an all-purpose modifier. Almost by definition, modern art is complex. Modern artists and art critics despise anything that is not complex, calling it kitsch or sophomoric. Hence, high-brow art is always complex. It can refer to anything from the underlying idea of a work (e.g. Barnett Newman’s minimalist paintings: arguably simple composition, complex idea) to the look of the piece (e.g. Jackson Pollack: complex composition, arguably simple idea).

The best thing about this word is that it can be used to describe any work whatsoever. You can walk up to literally any piece in the gallery and say something vague, such as: “Now this piece is especially interesting because of the multiple levels of complexity.” It does not matter which piece it is. Art snots will inevitably nod in agreement.

controversial (adj) - Any time the public does not like a modern art piece, it is controversial. Since there is very little modern art that the public understands, much less likes, much of it is controversial. Usage of this word, however, can be tricky. There is plenty of modern art that is not controversial. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to tell simply by looking at a piece weather or not it was controversial.

Most people who look at Andre Serrano’s Piss Christ do not, initially, find anything offensive about it. It is only after being told the process (a photo of a crucifix submerged in a vat of the artist’s urine) that they become offended. Furthermore, Serrano had a grant from the National Endowment of the Arts. You can see how some people might take offense. On the other hand, Eric Fischel’s Bad Boy is immediately offensive to most viewers, but never really provoked much public outcry because no aspects of it were funded publicly. Other works, such as many done by Marcel Duchamp, only appear funny or perplexing to modern viewers but, in their time, were extremely controversial. The best thing to do with this word is to avoid using it, unless you are familiar with the work and know for a fact that it stirred up controversy.

This word also has a secondary application. It is used to elevate bad art to a position of authority. Art snots will not, as a rule, come right out and say a piece is bad. All art has merit, after all. They will tend to disguise their criticisms; one of the words they will use is controversial. Once again, it is often difficult for the layman to distinguish between the two usages (since it is often difficult to distinguish between a good and a bad piece of modern art) and so, as previously mentioned, the word should only be wielded by professionals.

dramatic (adj) - emotional. Since all art is supposed to evoke some sort of emotion, all art is dramatic. I have gone over many examples in my head, and I can’t think of any where this would not work. I believe it is a fail-safe word. Synonyms of dramatic can be substituted in almost any situation. They include: effective, evocative, powerful, profuse, striking, visceral, and viscerous. Use liberally, in pairs if possible. Example: “I love Rothko’s color field paintings. They are so dramatic and evocative.”

energy (noun) - vitality and intensity of expression. This is an emotional term that applies to the feeling a piece evokes. For you literal minded people out there, it has nothing to do with the potential energy a piece could exert by, say, falling off the wall. It is a completely emotional word. Very few pieces have no energy whatsoever, so it would initially seem to be an easy word to use. But if you’re not one of the so-called right-brained or artist-type people, you’ll probably just make an idiot of yourself by using it in a blatantly wrong situation. For example: Ellsworth Kelly’s minimalist piece Red Green Blue might appear static to the untutored eye, but it actually has a great amount of energy and tension between the colors and shapes.

eschew (verb) - to avoid or cast off. It would be much easier to simply say ‘avoid’ or ’shun’, but art snots like to use intellectual words wherever possible. When discussing modern art, you can use this term with just about any piece whatsoever. Simply follow this formula: if you have a little background on a particular piece, you will know what the artist was trying to accomplish. Take that knowledge and reword it, saying the artist was “eschewing” the opposite. Got it? Clear as mud. For example: “Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s piece Running Fence eschews the notion that sculpture must be limited in size or confined to a gallery or courtyard.”

juxtapose (v) - beside. Anything that is next to something else can be described in art speak as juxtaposed. In normal usage, it means things placed side by side for comparing and contrasting. While this usage is perfectly acceptable and often meant in art speak, it is not limited to this. You could walk into a room with both 2-D and 3-D artworks and say: “This room is well designed because of the juxtaposition of sculpture and painting,” and nobody could disagree with you. This word is, in fact, one of the few modern art terms that is difficult to use incorrectly. It is also a favorite of art snots. Use liberally.

kitsch (adj) - simple, easily reproduced. Basically, anything that art snots don’t like is kitsch. It is a demeaning term. Photorealistic works are more often attacked as being kitsch, although the subject matter plays heavily into this. Chuck Close’s self portraits are not kitsch because they shows the artist as he really is, burned stub of a cigarette or stubble, etc. Norman Rockwell’s self portrait is kitsch because it’s funny and immediately identifiable. Another way of thinking about it is: any piece of art that can be understood in a matter of seconds is kitsch. Also: Anything that is mass produced is kitsch (Rockwell’s Saturday Evening Post covers, for example; or garden gnomes). Synonym: sophomoric. Antonym: avant garde.

raw (adj) - emotionally charged or shocking. Usually used to sterilize descriptions of intensely emotional images. That way art snots can claim they are truly appreciating the art while not admitting to whether the art actually has merit, or is just offensive. Very often if you read about a piece–but are not provided with an image–and it is described as raw, then it is probably a visually shocking image. For example:
“Egon Shiele’s recumbent female nudes offer a raw view into the subject of human sexuality and eroticism.”

static (adj) - still; not moving. Use of this word can be tricky. If you’re analytically inclined, you’re probably the type to take things quite literally and at face value. You also probably despise modern art due to it’s many layers and seemingly infinite variations of meaning. If you are, indeed, this type of person, you might want to avoid this word altogether. One would be inclined to say that all paintings are static. After all, they just sit there on the wall. It’s obvious they don’t move; just look at them. However, this would be making a grave mistake. Many paintings attempt to convey the essence of movement. They try to depict speed or direction using various techniques including composition, painting style, medium, color, and form, among many others. If a physically static work is trying to visually depict movement, it is dynamic. Generally speaking, this word can only be used in paintings that have no hint of movement, tension, energy, or potential of any sort. As a matter of fact, there are few that fit this description which is why, as I originally mentioned, it can be a tough word to handle in a gallery situation. I believe Ad Reinhardt’s Black Paintings could be safely described as static, although there are no doubt some people who would disagree.

transcend (v) - goes beyond. This is another word that applies to just about any piece in a given modern art collection. Since modern art in general is characterized by a rebelling against traditions, all modern art can be said to transcend something. It is not an all-purpose, all-applicable modifier like “juxtapose” but if you know what an artist was trying to accomplish, it can be used. For example: “Frank Stella’s Empress of India transcends established memes of traditional canvas shape.”

Note that this word is similar in meaning to eschew. The previous example could also, quite correctly, be written as “Frank Stella’s Empress of India eschews established memes of traditional canvas shape.” The difference is rather nebulous, but even when using it incorrectly, nobody will call you on it. Technically speaking, eschew is used when you want to portray the artist as a rebel casting off limiting canon. On the other hand, transcend is when you want to portray the artist or original concept in a positive light: this one thing is good, no denying it, but this other thing over here goes far past it in a way never before seen.

transient (v), transience (adj) - Changing or movement over time, usually slowly. This includes pretty much anything that moves. It does not include paintings that attempt to show movement or energy via technique; those paintings do not change over time and hence are not transient. It really only applies to pieces that actually move. However, note that it also includes works that do not move, but have reflective surfaces. If art reflects its environment, it is necessarily transient because the look of it changes depending where it’s placed and the position of people around it. But if that’s too much to remember, just stick the first definition. Example: Alexander Culder’s sculpture, despite being constructed of industrial grade materials, has a delicate transience.” synonyms: ephemeral Antonyms: static

So there you go. I hope it was an educational experiance for you all. The best part of all this is actually going to a gallery and trying it out. It is one of those things that can be ridiculously hilarious and completely serious all at the same time.

-Ted