[Closed] Modern art??

Then they deserve a good kicking for being a PONCE!

Might hurt a bit more than their "feelings", that...

A very very interesting thread.

The problems are that:

1) 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.
2) It is tempting to get really drawn in by the need for skill or craft in art - but that is missing the point. A musical analogy. Lots of great music is simple to play, lots of jazz improvisation is highly skilled but sterile and worthless. And that lovely looking experimental Hope freewheel - is that art?

I'd argue that there are somethings which might not satisfy some as art which I think are - because they really do blaze a new conceptual trail - and I'd include Duchamp, Dali, Mondrian, Pollock - I struggle with Rothko though. I did quite like those bricks when I saw them though...
There are other things which look like "art" which I believe are not. Any one of the millions of repetitive religious paintings found in most Italian museums, paintings of ugly aristocrats adorning National Trust houses which are little more than a predecessor of a big photo.

However for total vapid cynical sterility - it is difficult to beat the works of Hirst - and almost any Video Installation Art. 😈

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!

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.

molgrips - Member

To suggest we have closed minds because we think it is hollow vacous pap is just more of the same arrogance

You are allowed to think about it, consider it and rebuke the artist, but you are NOT allowed to dismiss it out of hand simply because it's just an everyday object. This includes just lining up negative adjectives for the fun of it.

WHY is it rubbish, Junkyard?

Next question - what do we think of the Mona Lisa?

+1

Junkyard's views re art are naive - dismissing something as not art because its conceptual and you dont understand it is ridiculous.

The Andre 'bricks' argument is also tired and obvious.

Dont understand why people like goldsworthy, kapoor, gormley arent being slated to the extent of the usuual suspects.

As for the Mona Lisa, its probably one of the best paintings ever made. I know people say its small but thats the sort of ignorant nonsense you would expect to hear. Look at Pre rennaissance paintings, people painted side on, their size dictated by status, subject matter dictated by the church, then look at the Mona Lisa. Given that its 500 years and consdering what went before, it genuinely was groundbreaking.

See, the Mona Lisa does nothing for me. Just a picture of a timid woman who's been told to smile but is pathalogically shy. I see no amazing enigma there.

However, I don't know its history or context, and I don't know what went before it. So my comments have limited value.

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

Sounds like the same chap who did the studio I mentioned above. It's as if he's pre-empting all the people who say 'where's the skill in that it's just a messy room' by displaying extra-ordinary skill in making a piece that looks like just another ready made.

So, what if the unmade bed had been carefully sculpted in this way?

What if Picasso had painted an unmade bed all broken up and weird looking?

What if Rubens had painted a beautiful florid unmade 17th century bed in oils?

Junkyard's views re art are naive

Then, right, just after that sneering arrogance:

As for the Mona Lisa, its probably one of the best paintings ever made

Why? Because you've bin told it is? The main reason it's popular is cos it's so priceless.

Thing about the Mona Lisa; it's sposed to be one of the greatest paintings ever and all that, but it probbly won't feature in most people's All Time Top Ten Favourite Paintings Of All Time Mate.

S'a good painting mind, but had it bin painted by a 'minor' painter rather than Leonardo Da Vinci, I seriously doubt it would ever have bin so 'popular'.

It's not even one of Da Vinci's best works...

And you called Junky 'naive', and tried to make out like your all sophisticated and knowledgeable and clever?

Ha ha!

What if Picasso had painted an unmade bed all broken up and weird looking?

What if Rubens had painted a beautiful florid unmade 17th century bed in oils?

Might have bin 'art', as they were artists and good at art stuff....

were they ponces though ?

Might have bin 'art', as they were artists and good at art stuff....

But it would've been exactly the same...

No it woon't Mol. It wooduv bin a unique work of art created by a unique talent.

Check pon dis:

[img] [/img]

Bit good in't it?

Now who's being a snob?

I think you are wrong there elf - its art if its art - no matter who made it. If picasso had produced an unmade bed it still would have been toss

Why? Because you've bin told it is? The main reason it's popular is cos it's so priceless.

Thing about the Mona Lisa; it's sposed to be one of the greatest paintings ever and all that, but it probbly won't feature in most people's All Time Top Ten Favourite Paintings Of All Time Mate.

S'a good painting mind, but had it bin painted by a 'minor' painter rather than Leonardo Da Vinci, I seriously doubt it would ever have bin so 'popular'.

It's not even one of Da Vinci's best works...

And you called Junky 'naive', and tried to make out like your all sophisticated and knowledgeable and clever?

Ha ha !

ha ha indeed. Think you'll find it probably is one of his best paintings (have you looked at his other work ?). The point is that it wouldnt have been painted by a minor painter, hence why its so good. Like saying Picasso's 'demoiselles' would have been crap if it had been painted by someone else.The point is that it wasnt and couldnt have been painted by someone else.

Its priceless because its good, not the other way round.FFS !

Clearly you dont like conceptual art.

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'.

signing off 🙂

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]