[Closed] Modern art??

Ok then, fair enough, but I don't have to recognise something as art if I don't want to.

After all, 'Art' is an ambiguous, subjective concept, not something written in stone.

[img] [/img]

As for your favourite book at 3 years old being Gombrich

*s****s*

i'll remember that one next time there's a desperate claim to working class credibility 😉

Clearly you dont like conceptual art.

Where did I say that? Hmm? Where? Can you tell me? Can you?

As for your favourite book at 3 years old being Gombrich, that cheered me up no end yesterday , was that after you'd finished Huxleys 'the doors of perception'.

My mum would sit with me and show me the colour plates in the book, get me to look at stuff, think about things. She took me to galleries from a very early age too.

Doors of Perception I read at about 20-ish.

Don't know what your point is (if indeed there is one...) though. 😕

i'll remember that one next time there's a desperate claim to working class credibility

Ah, here we go; another attempt at an ad hominem, attack. Give it a rest, you'll just end up looking silly.

We can't argue with Elfin cos he is actually right, so we'll attack his character instead.

Or maybe just edit your post to avoid looking a numpty... 😉

After all, 'Art' is an ambiguous, subjective concept, not something written in stone.

That's what we've been saying for the lats 7 pages 🙂

You are quite entitled to dismiss it as not art, but as long as you explain why. I would like a proper discourse on the matter 🙂

Lol @ trailmonkey btw 🙂

Picasso did a lot more than Guernica and cubism. If you ever get to the Reina Sofia, you'll see some superb Picasso work. People that look like people and everything. I think the secret is a question of the experts making it look both simple and easy, and once you've proved yourself you can start pushing boundaries.
One of my favourite pieces of modern art is the surrealism of that Hieronymus Bosch.
[img] [/img]
[url= ]Garden of Earthly Delights [/url]

Btw Meg loves paintings too - but we're not educated enough to choose so we just bought a bumper book of art history instead 🙂

Ah, here we go; another attempt at an ad hominem, attack. Give it a rest, you'll just end up looking silly.

or maybe i'm just taking the piss but you take yourself too seriously to recognise the joke.

Bosch!

[img] [/img]

You could buy little Hieronymous Bosch creatures in the National Gallery shop. Not sure if you still can. I'm going soon so I'll pop in and have a look for you Don.

[img] [/img]

DrJ - Member

"People make claims that its not that its vacuous rubbish but that I am missing the point - but then are unable to even give the slightest explanation as to what and where the point is".

Err ... no .. people make claims that various work is vacuous rubbish and are asked to back up their claims, at which point they flounce off to boil spaghetti, or start calling names.

Its really the other way round. You make a claim its art - you justify it.

You cannot prove a negative. Until someone can explain why its Art its remains in the category of non art.

However - why is it not art? it does not stir the emotions or ask questions beyond "how did they con someone to pay for that"

I have seen a few bits over the years - going to art galleries all over the world and gone to specific people exhibitions. I even have enjoyed some simple "installations" because they aroused some emotion and / or asked questions of me.

However some stuff - and for example I have seen a load of hirsts work just looks like nothing. It arouses no emotion, its asks no questions, it clearly has no artistic merit.

Stoatsbrother - Member

Artists these days define themselves as artists and what they do as art because they are artists, and themselves as artists because they make art. This is a self-perpetuating circle jerk.

tom84 - Member

guys! it's a social contruction! it's not about the intrinsic qualities of innanimate objects or individual acts of agency!

No-one defending modern art in all its glories has answered any off the points raised such as these - or teh fact that art critics get conned all the time.

AlexSimon - Member

Mr Woppit - That Tate installation was pretty cool actually. I did the same double-take on the way to the Rothko room.

All the objects were hand carved from polyurethane foam. Nothing was real. The ghetto blaster was particularly impressive!

That is outstanding, I had absolutely no idea.

I found the Rothko room to be deeply moving, by the way.

And so [b]Fred[/b] - have you had long enough to think about my various points in the thread and would you care to comment on them?

No can't remember them anyway.

Albrecht Dürer!

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Elfinsafety - Member

No can't remember them anyway.

Oh. Let's try the first one, then.

Allow me to construct a hypothesis.

Let's say there's a parallel universe that contains an alternative Marcel Duchamp. This Marcel has spent many years learning how to make glazewear and has been putting his hard-won talents to use by making figurines of little angels, horses and cute doggies. Then one day, he makes a urinal. It's a perfectly-proportioned, symmetrical and beautifully-formed work with a pretty collection of holes. He signs it "I MUTT" and displays it as an art piece.

Meanwhile, in our universe, our Marcel doesn't bother with all that, but just goes out and buys a urinal which is EXACTLY THE SAME IN ALL RESPECTS, signs it "I MUTT" and displays it as an art piece.

The amount of skill and technique that's gone into each one is also identical. Is one of them "art" and the other, not?

Why?

There you go...

Neither.

They are just urinals.

Next.

Your Durer is just a rabbit. So - not "art", then.

Wrong. Think again.

Two objects. One a rabbit. The other a urinal. One created on paper with care and attention, the other created out of a kiln with care and attention.

Please point out the flaw in this argument, for my enlightenment.

So no, then. Oh well. At least you're communicating. Sort of, and haven't accused me of being a ponce (sorry, PONCE) who needs a good, if "respectful" kicking...

Cheers.

One is created for a particular purpose, that of urination. The other to provide a sensory/emotional/intellectual experience.

Bunging a urinal in a gallery does not provide the second experience.

There you are! Hi.

Actually, the "alternative" urinal was produced for the purpose of being an objet d'art, as was the other. The only difference is that the "real" one was acquired, altered and [i]then[/i] displayed.

Although, a urinal could be considered to be a work of 'art' in it's own right if it was particularly nicely made to look good. But then the 'artist' would be the manufacturer, not Duchamp.

Yeah? And with Gormley's Field, Gormley is the artist cos he came up with the concept.

Emin's bed and Hirst's shark, well, they're just things, they don't provide a sensory/emotional/intellectual experience that the 'artist' has created.

Bunging a urinal in a gallery does not provide the second experience

I suspect that Marcel held a different opinion.

I think there's a clear point being made.

It has certainly seemed, since it's creation by the cheeky french joker, to have generated a considerable amount of your required sensory/emotional/intellectual experience. Pretty good going for a half-century old urinal!

Well I could have a poo in the Tat Modern, and call it art. Others might call it vandalism.

It would certainly get people talking.

Would that make it 'art'?

Although, a urinal could be considered to be a work of 'art' in it's own right if it was particularly nicely made to look good. But then the 'artist' would be the manufacturer,

Thanks Fred. It's art, then..

G'nite.

Don't artists do things they want to do rather than satisfying the needs of the punters?

Thanks Fred. It's art, then..

Not necessarily. It might just appear aesthetically appealing to the viewer, with no intention by the manufacturer to make it so.

A vase can be a work of art and functional. A bicycle can be a work of art and functional.

Is an old jar used as a vase 'art'? Is a mass-produced robot-welded bicycle 'art'?

Is an old jar used as a vase 'art'?

What about a painting of a tin of soup?

Is art simply self-expression then?

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

And Woppit, just for you:

[img] [/img]

Is art simply self-expression then?

In my point of view, yes.
Think about other areas. Musicians for example who spend years developing a skill and produce an epic first album, they get a contract that states they have to write 3 albums to the same high level in three years.
The comedian who is spontaneously funny, but when asked to say something funny.
The commission for Guernica was given to Picasso months before it was painted and he had nothing, then BAM!

[i]Err ... no .. people make claims that various work is vacuous rubbish and are asked to back up their claims, at which point they flounce off to boil spaghetti, or start calling names.[/i]

Its really the other way round. You make a claim its art - you justify it.

You cannot prove a negative. Until someone can explain why its Art its remains in the category of non art.

However - why is it not art? it does not stir the emotions or ask questions beyond "how did they con someone to pay for that"

It's really not. My definition of art is quite broad enough to include Rembrandt and Tracey Emin. If you read back on page 1 it's your cheeky barrow boy who"s pretending to have a clue about what's art and what isn't

cheeky barrow boy

Who would that be then? 😕

so you don't actually have any answer then - emperors new clothes it is.

Oh - and he is not mine. If he were he would be well trained and under control

so you don't actually have any answer then - emperors new clothes it is.

I can easily make a definition of art if you want - how about "an artefact intended to communicate a thought or an emotion". Over to you to tell me why you imagine that your definition is superior.

Who would that be then?

If the clog fits ...

"An artifact that does communicate a thought or an emotion"" - and I agree with you

I don't believe some of the worthless tat masquerading as art is actually intended to do anything but con mugs into paying for it.

Even using your definition emins unmade bad or some of Hirst work dis not art.

"An artifact that does communicate a thought or an emotion"" - and I agree with you

I don't believe some of the worthless tat masquerading as art is actually intended to do anything but con mugs into paying for it.

Even using your definition emins unmade bad or some of Hirst work dis not art.

Well, you're just being a bit silly now. You may not like what you have seen of Tracey Emin's work, but if you read, for example, her autobiography I dont think you'd seriously doubt that she is genuine about what she does.

[img][url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5219/5457600165_2d667de0da_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5219/5457600165_2d667de0da_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url] [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/23271810@N07/5457600165/ ]Caravaggio, Basket of Fruit with NX100[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/23271810@N07/ ]dica_imaging[/url], on Flickr[/img]

No, come on DrJ; you're quick with the sneering, arrogant put-downs, but not so quick to answer questions yourself, are you?

pretending to have a clue about what's art and what isn't

Care to explain why I jolly well have not a clue about art then?

Come on, this Jean Claude Van Damme film is crap. I could do with something to amuse me.

I have read a bit by and about Emin and think she is a disturbed individual with issues and a chancer.

The clue is here, Fred-

Tracey Emin is not an artist.

A charlatan, a fraud, a con-artist perhaps.

She's not an artist though. Mainly cos she don't actually produce any art.

Tracey Emin's work fits very well with my (rather unremarkable) definition of art, whereas you have declined to provide any counter argument beyond hiding behind your cheeky chappie net persona.

I have read a bit by and about Emin and think she is a disturbed individual with issues and a chancer.

Then there's nothing left to say. I told you my definition of art and you proposed a different one. I told you how I think Tracey Emin fits my definition, and without evidence you choose to discount my reasoning. Your choice. There's no real definition of art, so you can reserve it for what you want.

I had to log in , I just had to see where this thread was going, what stage it's at..

Just brilliant..

It's still running, I'll catch up tomorrow.

Artists these days define themselves as artists and what they do as art because they are artists, and themselves as artists because they make art. This is a self-perpetuating circle jerk.

I agree that this would be true if that is what artists did. But that argument itself is circular, you need to give an example. I think artists, be they visual or literary or musical, try to convey a message, sentiment or emotion of some depth,

guys! it's a social contruction! it's not about the intrinsic qualities of innanimate objects or individual acts of agency!

That's fine, which is why Duchamp's fountain was art. Because of the social (and artistic) context in which it was placed. The message and intention was relevant back then. For someone to put a urinal in a gallery now it would not have the same message and would not necessarily be art. The argument that it was Shanks not Duchamp who was the artist does not hold because it is not the urinal itself which is art, it is the idea of putting in in a gallery alongside other more conventional artistic pieces which makes it art, and not just by association.

whereas you have declined to provide any counter argument

Erm, try reading; you might learn something...

Or you could continue being arrogant and condescending and attempting to belittle and denigrate others just cos you don't agree with them.

You like Emin. I don't. I don't recognise what she does as 'art', and neither do others, as this thread shows.

Your attitude proves just how elitist and snobbish you are. Oh look at you so clever and knows loads of stuff about art.

Pfft.

This entire thread basically proves my argument. Go away, have a think about it. read through it again.

Then one day, if you're lucky, you might work it out.

My turn to be condescending: You think I'm ignorant? Shows how ignorant you are then, dun't it?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

An example charlie mungus - Hirst and the britart crew - they do a lot of that.

You also see this in literary circles - they all comment on and critique each others pieces - always favourably unless there is a hissy fit going on

See its grim up north london

I don't believe some of the worthless tat masquerading as art is actually intended to do anything but con mugs into paying for it.

But folks have said why they think what tracey emin does is art. Is it that you don't think that her work does that, or that the thing it does is not artistic?

An example charlie mungus - Hirst and the britart crew - they do a lot of that.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but that covers a lot of artists. Do you really mean all of them, or can you be more specific?

ach..
great debate now veering outside of my attention span..
here is some street art.. taking art to the masses and opening hearts and minds at grass roots level..

[img] [/img]

But folks have said why they think what tracey emin does is art.

Have they? Where?

great debate now veering outside of my attention span..

Innit though Yunki....

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

and the subversive act of taking art to the masses is artistic in itself.

But folks have said why they think what tracey emin does is art.
[b]
Have they? Where?[/b]

Well, on the last thread we had on this subject, numerous reviews but if you mean specifically here and now...

Then i think the bed is art because it ask you to reconsider firstly the importance of the bed in your life beyond a piece of furniture. By listing the people she has shared hers with, it makes you (some people) think about the folks they have shared a bed with, their friends, their lovers, their one night stands, their partners, their mums, your mum, their children. Then they start to realise that actually their bed tells the story of their lives and so regard their bed in a different way. I reckon

OIk fair enough that's what it sez to you. But you needed to explain that though, and it's only your interpretation. Nothing more.

it's just an unmade bed to me. Mine has significantly more meaning to me than Emin's. But then, my lectric kettle has significantly more 'meaning' for me than Emin's bed.

Does that make it art?

£200,000 to you guv.

do it then if it's that easy and meaningless.

make yourself a fortune if it's all smoke and mirrors.

yeah, see, that's why i think it's art, but you need to tell me what aspect of that you disagree with. like maybe you think it doesn't have that effect on people or you think that effect is not enough to make it art

Elfinsafety - Member

it's just an unmade bed to me

and therein lies the problem

Ok, anyone of youse an art dealer? Gallery owner? Well connected in the art world? Friends of Charles Saatchi?

As you were then....

OIk fair enough that's what it sez to you. But you needed to explain that though, and it's only your interpretation. Nothing more.

I needed to explain it to you, but i dare say it provoked a similar reaction in many people. which is why it was significant

and therein lies the problem

What 'problem' is that then?

I needed to explain it to you, but i dare say it provoked a similar reaction in many people. which is why it was significant

The Wonderbra adverts probbly provoked a greater reaction in a significantly larger number of people.

Were they 'art'?

Can you do this bit?

yeah, see, that's why i think it's art, but you need to tell me what aspect of that you disagree with. like maybe you think it doesn't have that effect on people or you think that effect is not enough to make it art

The Wonderbra adverts probbly provoked a greater reaction in a significantly larger number of people.

Waht do you mean by a 'greater' reaction?

Well, I'd say they probbly provoked more of an emotional reaction in more people. What d'you reckon?

[img] [/img]

(IT's ok mods it's in the context of a discussion of art and therefore fine)

No?

so far this thread has boiled down to two lines of argument.

side A) carefully considered, well articulated theory

side B) it's all shite and they're all ponces

it was fun at times though.

night all, i'm sure this one will still be kicking in the morning

Well, I'd say they probbly provoked more of an emotional reaction in more people. What d'you reckon?

I reckon 'more' means much the same as 'greater' and i'm still not sure what you mean by it. I also reckon you're not answering the question I asked earlier.

so far this thread has boiled down to two lines of argument.

side A) Lots of pretentious over-intellectualised waffle by supercilious arrogant snobs.

side B) Some plain truth from people who don't believe in bullshit.

FTFY.

Sleep tight....

you need to tell me what aspect of that you disagree with.

All that 'meaning' you have decided to attach to it which I jolly well have not. Oh, apparently, according to some on here that makes me fik and stupid....

Why have I not interpreted the work as you have?

I'm still non the wiser!!

All that 'meaning' you have decided to attach to it which I jolly well have not.

Oh, apparently, according to some on here that makes me fik and stupid....

Why have I not interpreted the work as you have?

I think the cause is more likely environmental or genetic

No point in continuing discussing owt with someone who is rude. See ya.

What again? always with the escape route, why not stay and finish the discussion. I wasn't being rude, merely offering a counter to other peoples opinions. Incidentally when they were rude but offered arguments you felt you were able to deal with, you were quite happy to stay and argue. So, clearly rudeness isn't the reason you choose to leave the debate.

Is this now the Tower Hamlets defence?

Anyway, do tell me which group you had put me into, earlier, was it the supercilious arrogant snobs ?
Just checking like, in case you were the one who was being rude

trailmonkey - Member

so far this thread has boiled down to two lines of argument.

side A) carefully considered, well articulated theory

side B) it's all shite and they're all ponces

it was fun at times though.

night all, i'm sure this one will still be kicking in the morning

Nope - its
A) if you don't think its art its becuse you are an ignorant philistine. Its art cos the critics say it is.

B) - Its the emperors new clothes.

Seriously the quality of argument for Emins bed as art is really poor. I thought a better case could be made.

carefully considered, well articulated theory

Is this now the Tower Hamlets defence?

You've got nothing better, have you?

why not stay and finish the discussion

Because you've upset me.

Is this now the Tower Hamlets defence?

[b]You've got nothing better, have you?[/b]

Yes, you've articulated it exactly.

So, where you gonna go from here, MungBean? Continue with the attempts to insult me, try to make yourself look clevererererer than me?

Do you really think that's gonna work?

I mean, after all, I'm an idiot, so does arguing with an idiot make you cleverer?

[img] [/img]

Just where did I insult you?

You do this often, Elfin, argue the toss for ages, then when you get called on a point which you are unable answer or justify, you take offence at an innocuous statement and excuse yourself from the debate rather than admit you might have been wrong.

Where do i go from here? I just wait to see if you have any answer to the questions that have been asked of you. Luckily this is the web, so I don't really have to 'wait'.

But to be honest, I'm not expecting much, so I'm unlikely to be disappointed. Anyway, thanks for playing, sorry if it got too rough for you but you started it.