[Closed] Modern Art - SPOILER ALERT

Is simple so bad?

No-one seems able to define what art is. And maybe that's my point. If anything can be art as long as someone deems it to be then it's a bit stupid really. Where will art end? Eventually something truly ridiculous will be deemed art and devalue what has gone before.

But I don't entirely agree with your point.

Making a lump of stone look feminine, making it look like a woman is skillful.

Making a lump of whatever the blob is made of look like a blob is less skilled. It's a blob. How do you know the artist wasn't trying to sculpt the hanging gardens of Babylon but was a bit rubbish?

Elfin's not that big so it shouldn't be too much.
He says he has a prize winning bottom so I'm not sure if cutting him length ways left to right is fair...

Could art be anything that someone hasn't left in a completely natural state?

DrRS**** has confused art with interior decoration

If anything can be art as long as someone deems it to be then it's a bit stupid really.

[url= http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=26850 ]Marcel Duchamps fountain[/url]

Where will art end?

'Art is dead' has a common refrain since the original blank canvas was hung

Er, it's a toilet?

DrRS**** has confused art with interior decoration

Oh bugger, not again.......

Could art be anything that someone hasn't left in a completely natural state?

That may be the case but some enterprising artist will no doubt give a weird name to a tree somewhere and then you will be wrong. Art is what you say it is. They act of defining it as art both makes you into an artist and the subject into art.

I used to have ongoing discussions with a friend about the nature of art. She stated that art cannot have a use. I countered that with the assertion that a vase can be considered to be a piece of art but she insisted it was design. You can never win this and you can never nail down a precise definition of art. The second you do, it will change.

Was the guy who managed to create convincing copies of ancient artworks an artist or a craftsman (or even just a plagiarist)? He was clearly technically very competent and created beautiful things but they were not original, they were forgeries. Were they art?

The definition of art is one of the great philosophical questions of our time and the usefulness of a definition even moreso.

No-one seems able to define what art is. And maybe that's my point.

Making a lump of whatever the blob is made of look like a blob is less skilled. It's a blob. How do you know the artist wasn't trying to sculpt the hanging gardens of Babylon but was a bit rubbish?

[img] [/img]

That one is an improvement MF. At least I can tell roughly what it is.

She stated that art cannot have a use

So if I hang a picture on my wall to cover a crack in the plaster then it's no longer art?

I'm really confused now.

So the unmade bed isn't art, cos a bed has a use - and had been used?

Torminalis - thanks, I am therefore an artist. I'm going to sell this thread. It's title is Inception.

Torminalis - thanks, I am therefore an artist. I'm going to sell this thread. It's title is Inception.

Does that mean I am modern art?

Not anymore.... 8)

At least I can tell roughly what it is.

No, but it has to look like something (other than a blob).

I am playing devils advocate here but...

So if I hang a picture on my wall to cover a crack in the plaster then it's no longer art?

If the painting was designed to cover the crack then it is just design. If not it is just artwork in a poor environment.

Does that mean I am modern art?

No one said all art is good. 😉

No, but it has to look like something (other than a blob).

Why?

Rothko is considered to be one of the great abstract artists but all he did was create massive walls of colour. Blobs if you will. Quite impressive ones if you see them in the flesh.

Good Dr. Have you ever actually studied art on any kind of academic level?

TO get a fuller understanding of 'modern art' (I bloody hate that expression), simply look at a retrospective of Picasso over his career.

He is generally credited with the development of cubism, an artistic movement that generally invokes cries of "What?!!! A bloody six year old couldd have done that!!!! She's got three bloody eyes!!!!!"

But Picasso was trying to convey something more than human form. TO express emotion and feeling. He did this because he'd developed the depiction of human form, as is traditionally referred to by artists, as far as it could go. The man was a genius! He could have produced 'traditional' art that would have been 'better' (ie: technically more proficient) than anything before. But whats the point of that?

So he challenged himself. And with it, other peoples pre-conceptions of what 'art' should represent

It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child

Good Dr. Have you ever actually studied art on any kind of academic level?

I thought the answer to that was obvious?

No, but it has to look like something (other than a blob).

Is this art?
[img] [/img]

Is this art
[img] [/img]

Sitting in the Rothko room at the Tate Britain (ruined now its in the Tate Modern and the crowds) is a very very emotional experience.

I have no idea why. I don't think i really want to know. It just is! And maybe that's the whole point

Abstract Expressionism is all quite fascinating when placed in its context of American Macarthyism etc. It means a lot more when you understand the rationale behind it. Same as most Art. Its usually a reaction to something momentous

MF - no, no and no....

Scribbles.

Nasty 1980s jumper design.

Wrapping paper from the £1 shop.

Do you ever wonder where Nasty 1980s jumper design and Wrapping paper from the £1 shop came from? Where the influence's are? The subliminal effects art has on every aspect of a society?

Again - I don't know why I'm asking that question? I suspect I know the answer

MF - no, no and no....

This?
[img] [/img]

This?
[img] [/img]

Shoes and cars are both examples of design rather than art. those happen to be representations of the things but it seems to be in a more functional way with little regard for expression or meaning so I would say that they are not art IMO.

Shhh - I am not asking you 😉

ooh, sorry. 😳

Shoes and cars are both examples of design rather than art. those happen to be representations of the things but it seems to be in a more functional way with little regard for expression or meaning so I would say that they are not art IMO.

Torminalis, is this art then?
[img] [/img]

Ahh - Magritte?

Shhh - I am not asking you 😉
(but you are right)

I refer to my earlier statement

I am playing devils advocate here but...

BUT, my devils advocate is probably about as 'right' as my personal opinion so I shall say yes. The design of the pipe is a functional thing but we are not looking at that. We are looking at a representation of the pipe juxtaposed to a statement that alludes to more meaning than merely the functional.

It is not to my taste and is a bit obvious but I think it is art. It certainly has no function (unless you have a crack in your wall to cover up 😉 ).

The design of the pipe is a functional thing but we are not looking at that. We are looking at a representation of the pipe juxtaposed to a statement that alludes to more meaning than merely the functional.

[img] [/img]
an oak tree

Well as Magritte would have said, try driving the picture. That said, it is at best an hommage to a design, could be argued either way but I wouldn't put it on my wall!

Make way, make way...

Right then. I know you've all bin eagerly awaiting my input, and I thank you all for your patience.

What is 'Art'? Hmm. Really quite subjective, innit? I mean, there are myriad forms of art, and as many opinions as there are people who view them. Who's right?

To me, Art is something which is created using craft and skill, which serves as a statement by it's creator. It is something which provokes an emotional response in the audience, something that relies on it's audience's ability to interpret it's intended message, as well as adding their own meaning to it.

I believe a work of art should speak for itself as much as possible, without requiring elaborate explanation. It's here where I feel a lot of so-called 'art' falls down; yer Emin, Hirst, Whiteread etc's work seems to need lots of hi-faluting explanation by so-called 'art experts'; if you don't get it, the implication seems to be that you're a philistine, or a bit thick. A very patronising and arrogant attitude which disguises the fact that the work is very often a pile of toss. The shysters mentioned are almost completely reliant on the sycophantic network of art critic friends and gallery owners, friends in the meeja (darling), and the [b]Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome[/b].

A mate's GF studied 'Fine Art' at a top art college in That London. By Leo Sayer, was she crap. Couldn't draw, paint, sculpt owt or indeed use any medium effectively to actually produce owt of any note whatsoever. Surprise surprise, she now writes about art. 🙄

Sadlty this story is repeated throughout the contemporary art world. Mind you, the odd gem sparkles amongst the shite. There are some decent artists out there, but sadly their work is often overlooked for 'controversial', 'edgy' or 'shocking' 'conceptual art' (spits) which has about as much merit as the aftermath of a bad case of Dehli Belly.

No it's true. I'm right, and anyone with any sense and the ability to think for themselves can see this.

Seems that art commentators are more concerned with championing the latest pile of pretentious toss that their poncy friends in Hoxton or Caymden have told them about, than actually seeking out genuine artistic talent. And, as with everything else in this throwaway materialistic society, It's more about the latest trends, and looking cool in front of your peers, than expressing and real appreciation for real talent, skill and craft. I went to an art show last week; the best thing about it was the free beer, and the tight pants worn by a very charming young lady whose email I managed to get....

This criticism isn't just confined to contemporary art; there's plenty of dross throughout the entire history of Human Expression. I just think it's easier to create something now, and call it 'art'. People are too frightened to actually stand up and say '[b]oh look, the Emperor has no clothes on[/b]'.

He says he has a prize winning bottom

This is actually true. However, it is a wonderful and beautiful work of Nature, rather than a work of art. Mind you, if I were to take a cast of it, then use that to mould life-sized replicas, then obviously such a creation could grace (and indeed [i]enhance)[/i] any gallery on Earth. 🙂

So, apart from Elfins bottom, nothing is art?

Oh and the car and shoe aren't art (are they). I wouldn't even use them to cover the cracks in my plaster.

My friends rib me about this all the time but I have no art in my house apart from a pencil drawing a mate did for me which makes me smile.

So, apart from Elfins bottom, nothing is art?

😀

Actually, speaking of cracks....

Oh and the car and shoe aren't art (are they). I wouldn't even use them to cover the cracks in my plaster.

PSA - Gilbert and George on 'the one show' half an hour ago

Now they are very odd.

They like poo don't they?

But you can tell what they are so they must be art?

I can tell what lots of things are that aren't art. Cornflakes for instance.

However, and amusingly (possibly), I did once draw a shoe in art class at school. My teacher said it was a very nice shoe.

Always thought Andy Warhol was a proper shyster.

[img] [/img]

Yeah, right, whatever, Andy...

I'll let the renowned social commentator, Mr Paul Calf, have the last word:

[img] [/img]

My teacher said it was a very nice shoe.

this has been an interesting thread
especially this:

It is something which provokes an emotional response in the audience, something that relies on it's audience's ability to interpret it's intended message, as well as adding their own meaning to it.

See what I'm getting at, is that a piece of art should communicate effectively. If it needs further explanation, then it fails in it's objective, imo.

Hence why a work like Edvard Munch's 'The Scream' is easily recognisable as 'art' (to most folk anyway, I'd imagine), whereas an unmade bed or half a cow in formaldehyde isn't. Doesn't mean the latter [i]aren't[/i] works of art, but perhaps are only so to a much narrower audience.

IMHO if i could do it it is not art. i have no artistic talent and the highest mark I ever got was 18% for art. Lots of modern art falls well below this threshold.

Really fun thread this. Thank you elfin for managing to articulate exactly my feelings about a lot of modern art. It seems all too often it's about art as an 'investment', like stocks and shares, but acbit more certain. William Gibson has written about similar things in some of his books. Doesn't mean I don't like abstract art or modern art, I just know what gives me an emotional response and what doesn't. I couldn't give a monkey's about deep underlying concepts or any of that malarkey. Funnily enough I was talking to a mate last weekend about several of the artists on here over a pint, as we usually try to get in a museum or gallery when up in London Village for a gig, and Rothko's one of my mate Nick's favourite artists. I could never get it until I actually went to see an exhibition of Rothko's work, and I understand it now. I don't get the response that Nick gets, but I genuinely feel there's more to the paintings than meets the eye, or mine, at least. Nicks sensitive to UV, and wears dark glasses most of the time, and there were detail photos of some works taken with UV light. Astonishing. There are multiple layers in each painting that flouresce in different colours, and Nick can see details that are hidden to me, that even make him feel dizzy at times. He can't look at Bridget Riley paintings, they make him queasy, but I like them. (The stripey one of the pics). Mondrian, the Dr was rude about, apparently has some feature to the layout of the lines and solid colours that ordinary people respond to and can often tell genuine from fake.
As it happens, I love David Mack's work, (tyre submarine, brick locomotive), he does amazing hollow sculptures using wire coathangers, which I love to bits. Anthony Gormley is another artist I never get tired of seeing as well. I usually try to get up to the RA Summer Exhibition, and there's always interesting stuff there every year.
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
Event Horizon, Anthony Gormley, South Bank
[img] [/img]
Sophie Ryder, Bath Festival

Speaking of Mondrian, I'm not a great fan, and see much of his stuff as 'design' rather than 'art'.

'Broadway Boogie Woogie', however, communicates an idea very effectively to me.

[img] [/img]

As does Thomas Heatherwick's 'The B of the Bang' (named after a quote by sprinter Linford Christie apparently):

[img] [/img]

See what I'm getting at, is that a piece of art should communicate effectively. If it needs further explanation, then it fails in it's objective, imo.

Personally I like the fact that a single piece of art can mean many different things to different people.

I think in most cases, particularly with abstract art, the original meaning of the artist (if they had one) is irrelevant and can even be detrimental to the experience of the viewer.

Isn't it more interesting to make your own mind up about how you feel about a piece of art?

You're very unlikely to share the same ideas, opinions, life experiences and frames of reference as the artist, given the massive variation in human experience and behaviour, so why should you feel the same about a piece of their art?

Knowing the artists original intentions can be interesting, but some people feel that they have 'failed' if they don't immediately understand the intentions of the artist.

I always like to look first, then read up about the artist later.
Amazing how a little knowledge about an artist can subjectively prejudice your opinion.

Two cases in point:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Personally, I find the artist to be an irrelevance - if I see something that generates an emotional response, then that response is relevant and genuine to me, because it's mine.
It's nothing to do with the artist or what they 'intended' to achieve or the emotional response they intended to generate.

[img] [/img]

Kev; sensible and nice input, please. 🙁

Personally I find art affects me greatly - the more I understand the more I appreciate

See what I'm getting at, is that a piece of art should communicate effectively. If it needs further explanation, then it fails in its objective, imo.

I find this inter interesting. I agree with you but only to a point, you can never really know but what you as a viewer bring is also very important. In the past you have been complementary about some of my pencil drawings like this. (and very nice of you too).
[img] [/img]

or
[img] [/img]

I presume it is because the technical skill needed to produce something which looks a bit like what it is supposed to using basic non-specialised tools, some pencils and paper. This is not the only style, type of work I make and come I from a very “modern art” background.

For me to produce any art work there has to been lots of reasons. It has to do something for me and possibly for one or two viewers too. The two or three main reasons for me producing the pencil drawings I have are not for technique, demonstrating skills (if there are any) or keeping tradition. I don't want to say what the reasons are, publicly here anyway, I personally don't think it is up to me to tell someone what to see. There are no secrets as far as I'm concerned though, no hidden ideas only the educated, wealthy or artistically trained to see. I try to be honest an open not telling and demanding. People see different things, take what they want.

I find the divides art sometimes feeds on can be revolting and unnecessary. Unfortunately the money people or insecure artists create them . That's up to them but I have always gone out of my way to avoid such things, to the point on anonymity, using different names or even someone else pretending to produce the work, when I have had exhibitions in the past.

Isn't it more interesting to make your own mind up about how you feel about a piece of art?

I think rustyspanners comment similar to my own but do think there has to be responsibility on the person to understand their own mind enough first.

There's a difference between art and craftsmanship.

There's a difference between art and craftsmanship.

Is there? Care to explain?

See what I'm getting at, is that a piece of art should communicate effectively. If it needs further explanation, then it fails in it's objective, imo.

Hence why a work like Edvard Munch's 'The Scream' is easily recognisable as 'art' (to most folk anyway, I'd imagine), whereas an unmade bed or half a cow in formaldehyde isn't. Doesn't mean the latter aren't works of art, but perhaps are only so to a much narrower audience.

So the 'artness' of an object is subjective, for some people it does need further explantion and others it doesn't. The unmade bed and Scream are part of the same continuum. Both are instantly recognisable and yes more people would call the Scream, art. but would they know why he is screaming? what is he screaming about? waht is the message and emotion being conveyed, and if folks don't know what it is, then it's just a crap drawing of a bloke holding his head, and it stops being art? So i wonder, if so few peopleknow understand what the unmade bed was 'saying', how many people actually know what 'the scream' is saying. Not many i reckon, and certainly not many without having been told or having it explained, even if only in the little placard next to the picture.

You cannot use yourself as the metre for others, just because you didn't get the unmade bed you say it isn't art, and because you get Scream, it is. That's ok, so long as you have the caveat, 'for me' and i dno't just mean 'IMHO' the artness of it is dependent on the viewer, if your criteria are to hold

The two artists from my previous post were Hitler and Churchill respectively, BTW.

Personally, I like the latter, but not that mad on the Hitler painting.
How much of this is down to the fact that I KNOW it's by Hitler I'm not sure.

Roper, wow! There really are some very talented individuals on here.

So i wonder, if so few peopleknow understand what the unmade bed was 'saying', how many people actually know what 'the scream' is saying. Not many i reckon, and certainly not many without having been told or having it explained, even if only in the little placard next to the picture.

Personally, I find the artist to be an irrelevance - if I see something that generates an emotional response, then that response is relevant and genuine to me, because it's mine

This is another interesting issue, about whether or not the artist can be separated from the art. Famous examples being Wagner (composer not x-factor bloke) and Mishima. Both crazy-A bonkers supremacists but created wonderful work. You might say 'so what' you like the output and that's all that matters, but Wagner would have despised you for listening to his music on a small electronic device instead of a big concert hall. So does it matter then if you enjoy the art, but not in the way it was intended or if you weren't the intended audience?

could do most of what Damien Hirst does -iirc he does not even do it other artists do his work for him - Lauren child - Charlie and Lola fame - used to colour in his big circles for example.

but that is Lauren child doing the technical bit. The creativity was predominantly Hirts's. I'm interested that you could do something like Hirst. What would you do?

I think the problem may lay in the fact that to someone with no knowledge of an artist's previous work can look at one piece in isolation and say 'that's rubbish, that's not art, I could do that'. But often the artist in question has already built up a reputation for creating work that inspires, interests and causes discussion and opinions to be formed. That means that when people like Tracy Emin makes a work that is 'just an unmade bed' people will look at it and try to understand what she is trying to say.

Saying that, not much of her work inspires me.

With many modern artists you can actually doubt they have artistic talent.

But often the artist in question has already built up a reputation for creating work that inspires, interests and causes discussion and opinions to be formed.

+1 and sometimes the work only means something because of all that has gone before it. The Rothko stuff means nothing in isolation, it is a response to the art that has gone before.

With many modern artists you can actually doubt they have artistic talent.

If you look at Tracey Emin's earlier works you would not doubt that she can draw and paint in a more representational manner, so you may like or not like what she does now, it may or may not be a load of crap, but she is definitely not doing it because she "can't paint properly".

[i]but this is recursive, because you have a conception of art and artistic talent which does not include the things they do.[/i]

Ah, so Jedward maybe really are the great artistic talent of our age then 🙂

Ah, so Jedward maybe really are the great artistic talent of our age then

you never know, look at all the stuff we call classic now. I mean some folks think Wham! were great. and what about ABBA?

I'm interested that you could do something like Hirst. What would you do?

Wagner - my son used to make me listen to this whilst having tea - he is not chilled out at the dinner table music

There's a difference between art and craftsmanship.

Well there certainly was in The B of the Bang was concerned. Fantastic looking sculpture, with the slight drawback that huge chunks of metal kept falling off it, threatening to land on someone's head and kill them

Mind you, it certainly wasn't the last expensive failure to rock up at Eastlands 🙂

I see your point though as I am sure you can see mine

If agree, if it can be done with no artistic talent then it is not art, but this must be more than just recreating it. It must be imbuing with significance too, amongst other things

"See what I'm getting at, is that a piece of art should communicate effectively. If it needs further explanation, then it fails in its objective, imo."

Some stuff needs contextualising to get it's meaning, or implied meaning, or point of view. Knowing it was made in a certain place/time, or by a certain means, or as a result of something, or in answer to something, gives the work it's meaning. Without that information, it's just a thing.

Junkyard - no need to paint your own spots. Damian Hirst doesn't. He has minions to do that for him. He simply has the 'idea' of spots. Then he waves his hands and people scamper off to make it so, put it up for sale, sell it to some gullible half-wit and deposit the cash in Mr Hursts account.

I really can't comprehend how that talentless charlatan has the audacity to refer to himself as an artist? To me he is the physical representation of the utter shallow vacuousness of the whole Blair era Cool Brittania bollocks

No! I refuse to and so I win! Hah!

Binners I know Lauren Child painted them - I mentioned it above - dYou mean you dont read my posts like I do yours 😥

Is there? Care to explain?

it's easier to look at a stock image of a woman walking down stairs and compare it to Duchamps 'nude descending a staircase'

one is merely a facsimile of something real (like drawings copied from photographs) one is a work of art*.

*not my cup of tea just the first example that popped into my head.

no need to paint your own spots. Damian Hirst doesn't. He has minions to do that for him. He simply has the 'idea' of spots. Then he waves his hands and people scamper off to make it so, put it up for sale, sell it to some gullible half-wit and deposit the cash in Mr Hursts account.

The same could have been said of Michaelangelo. 😕

Sorry aJunkyard. i'd read yours, I was referring to the fact, that to my knowledge, Mr Hirst has never actually 'made' anything. Be it sharks in formaldahyde or this tacky monstrosity:

[img] [/img]

If that's art, then so is most of the stuff in the back of the Daily Telegraph Sunday supplement or a Louis Vuitton handbag.

A snip at £50 million though. Perhaps a banker will buy it with his bonus this year. That would be very fitting

he did do the last bit of the sculpting though - they did the easy stuff
I agree entirely Binners - a charlatan snake oil salesman - and the arties love him

I thought Damien Hirsts Shark was bril, as was the sliced cow. brilliant things to look at, think about and get moved by. Just like Body Worlds. Or things preserved in jars in museums. You don't HAVE to attach the word "ART" to it if you don't want to just cos it's in a certain building.