Scandal & Worship

January 31, 2025


At one point in history, what we now call "modern painting" was something so radically different from the accepted norms that it couldn't even be understood at first glance. And when people did open their eyes to it, it often caused an uproar. Picasso, Duchamp, Kandinsky—these artists didn't just bend the rules of artistic tradition, they shattered them. Their works were so far from what was traditionally considered "art" that they made audiences question the very essence of painting itself. Modern art, in its early days, wasn’t just unfamiliar; it was scandalous.

But something has changed over time. Today, when we see something that doesn’t resemble "traditional" painting—whether it’s a splash of color, a chaotic abstraction, or a disjointed form—we immediately slap the label "modern" on it. Even if it looks nothing like what you’d traditionally call painting, it's still seen as cutting-edge, avant-garde, revolutionary. We don’t question it; we accept it without batting an eye. In fact, as soon as a piece of "modern art" even begins to take shape, it's often hailed as a work of genius. The response is almost reflexive: it must be brilliant, because it’s new. The past—the era of classical art and conventional craftsmanship—feels like a distant memory, almost irrelevant.

But this acceptance of modern art begs an important question: Have we truly learned to "see" art differently, or have we simply become conditioned to praise anything labeled as modern? In other words, have we genuinely evolved as art appreciators, or have we been duped into thinking we’ve developed a more sophisticated vision, when in reality, we might be seeing the world the same way we always did—or worse, with a superficial understanding of it?

The Changing Landscape of Art

The history of modern art has often been one of rebellion. For example, when the Impressionists first began painting outdoors and using loose brush strokes that didn’t conform to the tidy rules of traditional realism, their works were considered blasphemous. It wasn’t just that they broke aesthetic boundaries—it was that they broke people's understanding of what art was supposed to be. Just like modern art today, the Impressionists caused a scandal. People rejected it outright because it didn’t fit within the accepted frameworks of artistic taste.

Fast forward to the present day, and what was once revolutionary has become the norm. The avant-garde movement of the 20th century has evolved into the mainstream, and we now live in a world where abstract expressionism, digital art, and conceptual pieces are not only accepted—they are celebrated. The idea of "art" has expanded to include anything and everything. From piles of bricks arranged in a gallery to videos of an artist creating a mess, almost anything can be framed as art in the modern context.

And yet, in the midst of this expansion, we have to ask ourselves: Have we become so accustomed to the idea of "modern" that we no longer question it? In the early days of modernism, people didn't just look at these works of art; they scrutinized them, often in confusion and outrage. Today, we no longer have that sense of skepticism. Instead, we accept the notion of modernity without really understanding what makes it "new" or "revolutionary."

The Illusion of Perception

The problem with this uncritical acceptance is that it can blind us to the deeper, more nuanced aspects of art. We may believe we’ve learned to "see" art in a more sophisticated way, but in truth, we might be seeing in the same shallow way we always did—only now, we assume we’re more perceptive. It’s easy to look at a work of modern art, declare it genius, and move on. But that’s not really seeing; it’s buying into a narrative.

Real perception involves a deeper engagement with art. It requires asking questions: Why was this piece made? What is the artist trying to convey? How does this work challenge our previous assumptions? In many ways, the real challenge of modern art is not just seeing it but engaging with it on a deeper intellectual and emotional level. It’s about questioning not only the piece itself but our assumptions about what art is and why it matters.

If modern art is to retain its power to challenge, it must not simply become a label for anything that’s "new." We must constantly remind ourselves that the initial reaction to modern art—whether it was confusion, outrage, or scandal—was a necessary part of the process. It forced people to open their eyes in a new way. But if we stop questioning what we see, if we stop pushing the boundaries of our own perceptions, we risk losing the essence of modern art altogether.

The Perils of Complacency

This is where we find ourselves today: in a culture that has embraced modernity without truly understanding it. We’ve become complacent in our admiration for anything labeled "new," and we’re in danger of reducing art to a buzzword, a commodity, or a status symbol. The danger is not just in seeing poorly; it's in believing that we see well.

In the early 20th century, the avant-garde artists who pushed the boundaries of painting were not trying to create art that everyone would immediately love or even understand. They were trying to make us think—to make us wrestle with difficult ideas, emotions, and perceptions. It wasn’t about making us feel comfortable; it was about challenging our worldview. But today, it seems that the emphasis has shifted. Rather than asking us to think, modern art today often asks us to simply accept.

The next time you stand before a piece of modern art, remember that it may not be about how quickly you can declare it a masterpiece or a failure. Instead, ask yourself: What am I really seeing here? Have I simply been trained to see in a certain way, or am I truly engaging with the work in front of me? The world of modern art is rich, complex, and deserving of more than just a surface-level glance. If we forget to question, to dig deeper, we may find ourselves missing the very essence of what makes modern art, and life itself, worth examining.