[Closed] Modern Art - SPOILER ALERT

I actually think that the tacky monstrosity was more about the message than the aesthetics of the piece and I for one think it was quite clever.

The diamonds he used were exceedingly high quality and in acquiring them he actually changed the market for diamonds at the time. It made people think about wealth, diamond mining, ethics, the nature of art, humanity and death all at a time when we were poised on the brink of recession.

Whether or not you find it aesthetically pleasing, it has evoked a very strong reaction from all who knew about and to my mind that makes it a very good bit of art.

i loves a good bit of arts me 😀

Kevevs - Do you mean Body Works? I thought all that plastination malarky was brilliant, fascinating. Defintiely Art IMO.

I think I'm going to head down to that there London village with an iPod full of good music and stare at some art...

What tyres for hitting on arty types?

Yeti - You could go and sit in the Rothko room at the Tate modern for a bit, then go and get like, TOTALLY STOKED and gnarly n shit on the South Bank. Its a win/win

You may see Elfin/Fred hucking off the Millenium bridge. You could stop him and have a skinny decaffe mocha frapppachino! Imagine that? 😀

Yeah Body worlds/works. The Rothkos are great eh Binners. Couple of orangey brownish ones in my living room would be lovely!

Shh I'm busy! 🙂

I'm going to Swiss Cottage. 😯

popping in to the Saatchi? what's that still Oil thing? is that there? love that!

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.

The judgment is the same which is what I was trying to understand. I'm not sure of the reasoning of separation.

Also what is wrong with copying from photographs to make a picture and why isn't it art?

I find the Rothko's really quite moving Kev. Don't know why

I used to love it before they moved them from the Tate Britain. There was the Rothko room, a huge Turner exhibition and loads of Henry Moore sculptures. It doesn't get much better than that really 🙂

What is wrong with copying from photographs to make a picture and why isn't it art

i think art has to say something

i think art has to say something

Body Works
i took my 4 year old to that loved it - think he saw it more as science than art tbh. he was not at all squeamish about it and found it fascinating

I used to go to the Tate to chill with The Rothkos after pimping my illustration portfolio around town and before meeting my GF who worked in Vauxhall. Good times!

Also why don't you think a copied image says anything?

It does say something. It says 'I've just copied this'

Also why don't you think a copied image says anything?

ok, it has to say something new.

Also what is wrong with copying from photographs to make a picture and why isn't it art?

nothing wrong in drawing from photographs, it's draftsmanship and the work of an artisan not an artist.

ok, it has to say something new.

So unless it says something new it's not art?
wouldn't that exclude almost every art gallery, including both Tates, private collections and artists? Turner is not new, or Rothko, Hurst, Cézanne, Modigliani, Picasso........is none of their work art anymore?

it's draftsmanship and the work of an artisan not an artist.

as i said before, a direct facsimile that shows me the ability to copy light shade and form from a photograph using the medium of pencil on paper.
without trying to convey anything about the depicted object/scene other than a direct representation within the constraints of the medium.

that's my opinion, i'm happy for people to disagree with it.

But but but ... I would say that roper's drawings are not just copies of photos - certain things are selected and others omitted, the choice of light and shade are probably interpretive, and then the choice of the photo to copy in the first place may be considered to be an artistic decision ...

without trying to convey anything about the depicted object/scene other than a direct representation within the constraints of the medium

By that rationale can we conclude that photography cannot be an art?

Would it matter if the original photograph was colour, taken by the artist or adjusted?

What if a painting wasnt painted by the artist? Is the artist then an artisan and the real painter(s) are artists or are they artisans too?

(I hope it doesnt appear I'm picking on your MrSmith, I am just interested in your thoughts that's all.)

Ropers drawings would be categorized as Natural History Illustration. These are usually used to impart information about animals and plants, fossils n stuff. So any extraneous stuff i.e. backgrounds, is left out. markings, colour, etc is emphasized. Have you done drawings of your spiders Roper?

By that rationale can we conclude that photography cannot be an art?

i'm a photographer, it's my job as well as a hobby, i don't think of myself as an 'artist', Gregory Crewdson is an artist using the medium of photography, i think his work is fantastic.

who is this 'we' you speak of? you and the others can conclude whatever you like, it makes no difference to me.

Would it matter if the original photograph was colour, taken by the artist or adjusted?

i'm not interested in the means of production, if all i see is a drawing that looks like it's copied directly from a photograph then that's all i see.

Have you done drawings of your spiders

Is that a euphemism? 😉

Turner is not new, or Rothko, Hurst, Cézanne, Modigliani, Picasso........is none of their work art anymore?

yes, it is. because of the context, e.g. the world at the time it was painted. If someone else were to do a Rothkoesque or Hurstesque work now, then it would be meaningless. Because it's already been said, maybe a bit like a cover version of a song.

lol! no, I was just wondering if Ropers enthusiasm for his spiders extended to his drawings.

By that rationale can we conclude that photography cannot be an art?

Photography in itself is not art, though photography can be art. depending on how and why the image is composed.

Modern art makes me want to rock out.

What if a painting wasnt painted by the artist? Is the artist then an artisan and the real painter(s) are artists or are they artisans too?

The person who designs and envisions the image is the artist, the other fella is just painting by numbers

[img] [/img]

I'm not interested in the means of production...

Kevevs, one or two 🙂

What if a painting wasnt painted by the artist? Is the artist then an artisan and the real painter(s) are artists or are they artisans too?

The person who designs and envisions the image is the artist, the other fella is just painting by numbers

How do artist like Mark Kostabi fit into this thinking? He openly paid people to think of ideas and other people to paint them. They still sell as art, are in art galleries, is he still the artist? Are the others who think of the picture or the ones who paint it still just painting by numbers?

edit

Turner is not new, or Rothko, Hurst, Cézanne, Modigliani, Picasso........is none of their work art anymore?

yes, it is. because of the context, e.g. the world at the time it was painted. If someone else were to do a Rothkoesque or Hurstesque work now, then it would be meaningless. Because it's already been said, maybe a bit like a cover version of a song.

They are not new ideas now though. Would they be better suited in a museum. At least Tate Briton rather than Tate modern

yeah, Turner n Picasso were mindbendingly new and fresh when they were doing their thing, changing the visual language forever, and proper controversial. Now they are more like fuddy duddy art "brands". . New stuff now is in the digital realm, virtual reality and such. Probably technology things done in the military or medicine or something that'll trickle down till someone with daft creative ideas can get hold of it.

who was that experimental art/internet guy? put loads of people in little cubicles all connected in a mini internet house, going loopy?

One of the most memorable things I saw was an Art graduate show where these guys had programmed a whole world that you could fly about in with an xbox controller, but it had its own wierd visual rules and looked nothing like a computer game. bonkers. all the paintings and sculptures and photos looked piss-poor and old in comparison.

mindbendingly

So how do you know if it by an artisan or an artist? If the only thing your judge a piece of work by is how you see it at face value, what separates the two?

i don't know how do you know if it's by an artist or artisan?
what if it was painted by a 5 year old or a monkey?
how am i supposed to know if the originator of the work proclaims themselves as artist or artisan without asking them?

Blimey. It's all got a bit seriously highbrow since I went to bed.

Can we get back to the original question.

Modern Art - is it rubbish?

No. Some. Maybe. yes.

Modern Art - is it rubbish?

And the answer to THAT question, for you anyway, is yes. Yes art is rubbish in DrRS****'s opinion.

if you are visually unaware why does it bother you if modern art is rubbish or not?

i don't know how do you know if it's by an artist or artisan?
what if it was painted by a 5 year old or a monkey?
how am i supposed to know if the originator of the work proclaims themselves as artist or artisan without asking them?

I was curious because you said...

nothing wrong in drawing from photographs, it's draftsmanship and the work of an artisan not an artist.

Blimey. It's all got a bit seriously highbrow since I went to bed.

Can we get back to the original question.

How do artist like Mark Kostabi fit into this thinking? He openly paid people to think of ideas and other people to paint them. They still sell as art, are in art galleries, is he still the artist? Are the others who think of the picture or the ones who paint it still just painting by numbers?

depends really, If in doing that he challenges us to have exactly the kind of discussion we are having then he is being creative. if all he was doing was commissioning some one to do the creative part then, no.

So should they be in a museum then?

If you like, they should just be anywhere where people have access to them.

I'm absolutely amazed we've made it to anywhere near this point without the phrase 'visual illiteracy'* coming up.

With all the attention paid to grammar and spelling on here, I think that's quite telling 😉

* mainly from me, as i tend to shout it at someone at least once during the course of a day

I'm absolutely amazed we've made it to anywhere near this point without the phrase 'visual illiteracy' coming up.

we have spoken of 'acquired tastes' and complexity of art, but no, we haven't used that phrase. Would you like to?

"Visual Illiteracy", isn't that an 80's New romance band?

Surely the original question was actully - 'Why are people trying to find meaning in the movie inception?'

Admittedly it was an abstract take on that question, and the answers provided have been so much more fulfilling than I possibly imagined.

This could overtake the 'watch thread' that I started as a little dig at smurf-mat. That thread in contrast left me feeling a little empty.

Not really Charlie. I was only joking. There's no right or wrong n this really. And that's no bad thang! 😀

I've found this whole thread really really interesting

the empty sadness of watch threads 😥

There's no right or wrong n this really.

the empty sadness of watch threads

I'm absolutely amazed we've made it to anywhere near this point without the phrase 'visual illiteracy'* coming up.

I mentioned 'Visual language' near the start.

Do I get a cookie?

erm... yes.

I should really quantify that in true TJ fashion and point out that means I can't be wrong either

Is that the last word? 😉

Do I get a cookie?

what colour is the cookie?

I had to enable java to get coffee sent over the other day but didn't know about the cookies.

IGMC.

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.

An unmade bed, wether in a grotty flat or an art gallery, is still just an unmade bed. Anything else is just superfluous art world waffle and flim-flam. If you want to believe it's 'art', then that's up to you. But be prepared for people to laugh at you for being sucked in to the 'X-Factor' style 'Cool Britania' guph.

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

Amen. For a northerner, Binners, you're really quite sophisticated... 😉

What really gets my goat, is that there are many genuinely talented artiosts out there, who get overlooked because shysters like Emin and Hirst 'create' stuff their meeja sycophants label as 'cool'. This then has the effect of discouraging younger artists from actually learning how to develop their own unique talents, and merely follow the latest 'trends'. I am aware that such trends and fashions have always existed in the world of Art, but at least in the past stuff was done what involved genuine skill and talent. An unmade bed is just taking the mick. Emin is a mediocre 'artist' at best. People like her know they'll never make money on the back of their true abilities, so instead just play the meeja game. And people like that Saatchi bloke are no better than Simon Cowell.

New stuff now is in the digital realm, virtual reality and such. Probably technology things done in the military or medicine or something that'll trickle down till someone with daft creative ideas can get hold of it.

who was that experimental art/internet guy? put loads of people in little cubicles all connected in a mini internet house, going loopy?

Remember that Rokeby bloke? What a tit. 😆

erm... yes.

I win!!!

what colour is the cookie?

Cheers Fred. Coming from your good self, that's high praise indeed 😉

I wonder what a surrealist biscuit would look like?

Well no Binners it's got to be said.

Give Hora a slap for me would you please? No particular reason, but then no reason not to either really.

bloody Rokeby. I'll agree with you on Emin, pile of pants, quite lidderallee. All the genuine talent goes into computer games or film design and stuff. Why would anyone want to make stuff for galleries anyway??

surrealist biscuit would be draped, dripping over a branch with ants for currants.

He's got a hurty knee at the moment Fred. I'll give him a kick in that instead 😀

Rokeby. Ooh, I wanted to punch that bloke. Mind you, so did everyone else. A more pretentious tosser you couldn't possibly meet. Remember when he came into our class? Ooh, how cringemaking was that? I had to bite my lip on several occasions, and try not to laugh.

Thought he was a cyborg or something din't he? Cheezuz... 🙄

I kept expecting (and hoping) to read in the papers 'cyborg ponce beaten up in street'.

Heh! Nice one Binners! 😈

(Cackles in cruel and nasty glee)

"cyborg ponce beaten up in art class by east end yob"

I was curious because you said...

[i]nothing wrong in drawing from photographs, it's draftsmanship and the work of an artisan not an artist. [/i]

that suggests i know that it is copied directly from a photograph.

Ooh Kev I came close to punching him. Even little Cat would've done so as well. Stella definitely weren't pleased with him.

BTW I'm trying to 'phone you. Your 'phone not working?

An unmade bed, wether in a grotty flat or an art gallery, is still just an unmade bed. Anything else is just superfluous art world waffle and flim-flam. If you want to believe it's 'art', then that's up to you. But be prepared for people to laugh at you for being sucked in to the 'X-Factor' style 'Cool Britania' gup

What we were expecting some deep insight from you! You've just made the same argument that was made pages earlier, only this time you've added something to belittle those who don't agree with you.

I was curious because you said...

nothing wrong in drawing from photographs, it's draftsmanship and the work of an artisan not an artist.

that suggests i know that it is copied directly from a photograph.

Yes I know.

But come on; if you want to believe an unmade bed is 'art' cos some meeja ponces tell you it is, and that you'll be a philistine or thicko if you don't agree, then you are deserving of ridicule. If you genuinely believe it's art, and can produce a coherent argument as to why you think it is, then fair enough. I've never ever heard a coherent argument which validates the unmade bed as 'art'.

I'm eating Heinz Ravioli. WhY? Because I like it. It's not haute cuisine, and know this, but it doesn't bother me, nor diminish my enjoyment of it. If some ponce wants to come along and label me an ignorant savage for liking it, rather than turning my nose up it and only eating hand-made Ravioli from Naples, then they can bang on all they like. I don't care. I'll continue to enjoy my Heinz Ravioli whatever they think, because I can think for myself.

[img] [/img]

There. I've posted a picture of said Heinz Ravioli on an internet forum. I've placed the meaning of something into a particular context. I've decided I'm going to call it art. Everyone happy?

[i]What's that Mr Saatchi? Five million? well actually I've got a buyer in New York willing to pay eight million, actually...[/i]

But come on; if you want to believe an unmade bed is 'art' cos some meeja ponces tell you it is, and that you'll be aphilistine or thicko if you don't agree, then you are deserving of ridicule. If you genuinely believe it's art, and can produce a coherent argument as to why you think it is, then fair enough. I've never ever heard a coherent argument which validates theunmade bed as 'art'.

but you are a ponce telling me that if i do think it is art i need to be ready to be ridiculed.

I don't believe it is art because meeja ponce tells me so! How patronising! C'mon this thread was really quite peaceful and productive before you started this crap

If you genuinely believe it's art, and can produce a coherent argument as to why you think it is, then fair enough. I've never ever heard a coherent argument which validates theunmade bed as 'art'.

I do and I can. I'm glad you think it is fair enough, though little of what you say seems to support that.

As for the ravioli argument? WTF? Media ponce is a straw man. Call it art if you like. Time will tell if it has any effect on other people.

And that makes it artisan rather than art how how?

as i said previously:

as i said before, a direct facsimile that shows me the ability to copy light shade and form from a photograph using the medium of pencil on paper.
without trying to convey anything about the depicted object/scene other than a direct representation within the constraints of the medium.

that's my opinion, i'm happy for people to disagree with it.

but you are a ponce

You've called me a ponce. Unforgivable. For that reason, I refuse to enter into any further discussion on this subject with you. There's no need for personal abuse. 😥

You've called me a ponce. Unforgivable. For that reason, I refuse to enter into any further discussion on this subject with you. There's no need for personal abus

I called you a ponce because you called the media folks ponces, both of you were belittling folks who say things in a different way to you. Or is it ok for you to call folks ponces but not the other way?

If you hit me, it shall be murder.

[img] [/img]

no, seriously.

You use it as a reason to disengage. so you kind of need to justify it.

Elfin... Mungus... my office, [b]Now![/b]

Shan't. He started it. 🙁

oh right, so you use his first name but I get called by my surname! I know how this is going to turn out already! I'll be the one dropping my trousers and bending over again.

MrSmith,Just to clarify then, whether a picture is art or artisan is down to how you perceive it was made?
If you think the artist has tried to convey something then it's art? If you think they haven't then it's not?
Have I got it now? 😕

If [s]you think[/s] the artist has tried to convey something then it's art?