"Modern" was named the "Modern Era" roughly around the time art deco and was at the time contemporary. "Contemporary" is not a set-in-stone time period. It's always whatever NOW is. (Look at me! I'm an artsy fartsy! ^^)
I'm not absolutely certain, but I want to say "modern" art was an abstract movement inspired by the likes of Picasso and that "contemporary" art is today's digital photography, illustration, etc. basically whatever people are doing today, which may or may not include things that fall into the "modern art" category.
well modernism was over almost 50 years ago so you're right it included a lot of different movements, not just abstract expressionism and contemporary is right now but it could also include the past 20 years of art as well (there hasn't been much naming of art movements since the 80's because we're still in it )
I just know that when I've heard people talk about "modern art" in movies and TV shows, they're generally talking about abstract expressionism. It usually goes like this: Q) What do you think of this ... I guess it's a sculpture? (points at an unrecognizable blob of red plastic) A) I don't like modern art.
The one in the movie Max was way worse... Hitler meets Max for the first time and Max says he's an art gallery curator. Adolph asks what kind of art and Max says anything, but that modern art is really popular lately.
Adolph: How modern? The next time I have diarrhea should I just take a shit on a canvas?
Max: You could do worse... I wouldn't reject it out of hand.
hitler banned modern art in germany because he said it was "jewish" XD (guy flunked out of art school himself ) jackson pollock was an abstract expressionist (although he'd probably never say that he was) and of course there was mark rothko and cy twombly that came just after abstract expressionism if you've never seen a mark rothko in person you should add it to your bucket list, his work is great
I guess you'd have to see a Rothko in person to understand the point... the images on Wikipedia look like TV station test patterns. Same problem I have with Ellsworth Kelley. But this in general really is why I don't have much respect for the art community establishment because they fawn over stuff like Pollock when most of his creations might as well have been made by a 5-year old, driving their value up into the millions or billions despite the fact that there wasn't any real skill involved in their creation, all the while that they shit on people who spend countless hours honing their craft to create beautiful works like Spindrift, just because those images go in "comic books".
well the reason pollock's work is highly respected isn't so much for the technical skill, it's because of the barriers in the art world he broke down. hundreds of years of the tradition of painting was challenged by him and others during that period i have seen a couple rothko's in person, it's more than just color fields (which is why you have to see them in person to experience it ) also, although it mike seem like a lot of non representational art doesn't take as long to master, that's the complete opposite of the truth. the reason the art world thumbs it's nose at comics as a low brow form of art is because they're very imbedded in society and usually don't challenge people's thinking (some people even call it kitsch) part of the power of art is that it wakes you up, that it's counter to what culture is. that's elitist thinking, but it still exists. i'm not part of that kind of snobbery, i very much enjoy comics (reading and making them )
you may not have heard of roy lichtenstein (same era as pollock) but he made fun of the idea of comics being considered low brow by actually painting comic panels (benday dots and all) whaam! is my favorite of his