As a new design for the Modern Art wing at The Met is unveiled, the age old debate is brought to our attention again. Is modern art really art? If it isn’t art, then what does it lack? To answer these questions, we must first define modern art. 

 As surprising as it may be to those unfamiliar with art history and movements in the art world, some of the forefathers of modern art are considered to be Vincent Van Gogh, Paul Cezanne, Claude Monet, Pablo Picasso, Edouard Manet, and Salvador Dali. Modern art includes works produced from around the 1860s and extends to the art created in the 1970s. The purpose of modern art is characterized by a rejection of traditional rules and a willingness to experiment with new ideas, materials, and processes.  Abstract art is a very different entity – it is art that does not attempt to represent an accurate depiction of a visual reality but instead uses shapes, colors, and forms to achieve its effect.  Even in abstract art, however, there is room for surprise. I think that, sometimes, when people complain about ‘modern art’ they are just mislabelling it because they don’t properly understand the term. In fact, the reason the Starry Night is housed in The MoMa and not The Met is because, it is, in fact, modern art. 

     As we have defined the term, it is time to address the argument. As most discourse surrounds abstract art, let’s examine some of the key figures in that movement. In Europe, Wassily Kandinsky. In America, Jackson Pollock. There are many more figures than just these two, but, as they are probably some of the most famous of the abstract artists, these will be my examples. Kandinsky was not initially an abstract artist (his early landscape paintings resembled Expressionism) and his earlier works are technically skilled and more defined, unlike his most popular and later paintings. Kandinsky’s abstract work was inspired by the works of Hilma af Klint, who is considered to be the first abstract artist in Western history. Jackson Pollock is considered an Abstract Impressionist, and while you can debate whether he really is one, for the sake of definition, he is. Jackson Pollock is specifically known for his ‘drip technique’, which is widely used today. Both of these artists were key figures of the abstract art movement. 

     So, the paintings that people regularly complain about in museums because it’s not real art, what’s that? Well, I’ve seen a lot of people complaining about one painting in particular and citing it frequently : the blue square. This painting is actually called International Klein Blue named after the artist, Yves Klein. It was made in 1961, and the reason that it is special is because this shade of blue simply didn’t exist before he put it on canvas. It’s the same reason that Black Square by Kazimir Malevich is so significant — the meaning behind the painting. Art is more than what you see, it’s also what you feel and what you perceive. The artists felt a certain way about what they were creating, and for Yves Klein, his blue color was meant to be associated with infinity and the immaterial. Malevich sought to show the art world something new and free, similarly heavily influenced by religion. Abstract art is more about feeling and symbolism and less so about brush strokes and technique. That being said, art is art. Anything can be art, it just depends on your argument and perspective. Abstract art isn’t less art compared than realism or the renaissance, it is simply a different genre. Art has always been about expression and feeling, and people who try to undermine it now may simply not understand the artist’s perspective. Maybe a blue square doesn’t mean much to you. So? What does that matter if it meant something to the person who created it?