Featured is this modern art??

Bought this very interesting sculpture and i wonder if it was made in a ceramics course or is it made by a known artist and therefore modern art??

 

this would not be considered modern art based on the date of 1996. It would be considered 'vintage' based on the date Usually we say modern for works up to the 1970's. It could considered a contemporary sculpture.

 

ok clear answer. hope someone can figure out the artist.

 

it turnes out to be a cubist abstract sculpture

 

It appears to read Linden-Siermann, a hyphenated surname and presumably the artist. Can't read the initial.

Debora

 

i can´t read the initial not also, but could it be a & mark. and could this tekst and date have been put on as a gift for that person? i wonder

 

Looks like something made in a college art course. I would say a signature in permanent marker looks like something a student would do, and not a professional, to me.

I think you might be confused by the terms Modern Art and Cubism. Art done in 1996 can't be either. These are names for Art Movements that happened at specific times. You could say something is "in the style of ____" if it is not from the Movement but is inspired by it.

Abstract Contemporary Sculpture would do.

 

Angela Suzanna Maria van der Linden-Siermann

 

oke clear answer, learned something again. but i think after watching youtube that it takes real skill to make a sculpture like this. And see post of marote

 

Respectfully disagree that it isn’t cubist. I’d call it a contemporary cubist abstract ceramic sculpture. Isms in art can continue beyond their original inception. Agree that the original movement was an early 20th c movement.

 

i think this will fit the bill for the descripition of my sculpture. https://jordaens.eu/lot/een-modern-bronzen-beeld-naar-voorbeeld-uit-het-kubisme/

 

I would not use modern. It’s a contemporary sculpture. IMO you could use Contemporary Modernist…(the art world is all such BS semantics…) For better or worse I am an art museum docent…

 

Well found @Marote

 

We are in complete disagreement, then. That is not how Art Movements are defined. It's not just the visual look that constitutes a movement. Time period is extremely important.

 

Yes, we are in complete disagreement.