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.

As for your favourite book at 3 years old being Gombrich

*sniggers*

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.

Garden of Earthly Delights

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!

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.

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 Fred – 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!

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 then 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’?

Is an old tin of soup..?

What about a painting of a tin of soup?

Is art simply self-expression then?

And Woppit, just for you:

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!

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”

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.

[/url] Caravaggio, Basket of Fruit with NX100[/url] by 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.