Well the fact that it's 12 years old and people still drag it up as a example for "modern art is crap blablabla" makes me feel it is fairly succesful, no?! I don't like it either, but I understand why, and I appreciate that it's helped to push boundaries of what we feel is acceptable and as such, has led to all sorts of exciting things since then.
Do you appreciate modern art?
- Thread starter shifty_uk
- Start date
Well the fact that it's 12 years old and people still drag it up as a example for "modern art is crap blablabla" makes me feel it is fairly succesful, no?! I don't like it either, but I understand why, and I appreciate that it's helped to push boundaries of what we feel is acceptable and as such, has led to all sorts of exciting things since then.
Lots of people contract chlamydia, it gets talked about an awful lot, it doesn't mean people like it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
Forget the Turner Prize, you win Al Vallario's Most Useless and Inapplicable Analogy Prize
Forget the Turner Prize, you win Al Vallario's Most Useless and Inapplicable Analogy Prize
It is art, you just don't understand the conceptual meaning behind the fusion of modern day sexual health and neo self expression.
DID I GET THAT RIGHT?
If you like landscapes and more classic art there's less of a chance you're going to like modern art. They're chalk and cheese. It's like trying to convert a dubstep fan to thrash metal. You're unlikely to achieve success.
I will tell you about one of the more impressive installations I saw, which was Anthony Gormley's exhibition at the Hayward a few years ago. Gormley had the whole gallery to himself [a pretty amazing feat] and you worked your way round the installations from the ground floor to the top floor. Now, the top floor of the gallery has this concrete terrace you can walk out on and look out over central London. A lot of the time Gormley experiments with iron life-size figures of himself. As I looked out I saw one of these figures on the building opposite, facing the gallery. Fair enough, I thought. And as my eyes adjusted to the outside light I saw one on the top of another building further away. And then one on another building even further. I looked round 360 degrees, and all round London there were iron figures on the tops of high buildings, some were close by, some were mere specs in the distance, all facing the Hayward gallery. Amazing.
Being serious I wouldn't say I like one type of art. Some paintings I like others I don't and the same for sculptures.
The problem with some modern art for me is the simple fact that doesn't require any talent to produce.
A pile of bricks, a untidy bed, a pickled animal, we can all do that it really isn't difficult.
The problem with some modern art for me is the simple fact that doesn't require any talent to produce.
A pile of bricks, a untidy bed, a pickled animal, we can all do that it really isn't difficult.
You said it yourself. Some. Same with music, same with literature, same with anything. And there is some modern art which looks simple to you but which you don't understand.
Why can't a pile of bricks be modern art? You see a pile of bricks in a building site and you think nothing of it. But you put it in an art gallery and it becomes art. Why? Why should we consider it art? Are the lines and angles of the bricks interesting and if not, why not? Is art exclusive? Isn't art about having talent to produce something? Well yes, but physically and conceptually. Art has also always been about making statements, challenging preconceptions, getting you to think. Art which doesn't provoke any kind of emotion or reaction has failed and is useless. The age old argument is "I could have done that!" Yes, but you didn't. You didn't do it, you didn't even think of it, and you sure as hell couldn't be respected enough to win an installation placement for it.
So in your opinion art is only any good if it tries to be a photograph and include as much detail as possible?
And therein lies the problem, if I produced a piece of modern art now, it would be laughed at. If I got Damien Hurst to say it was his piece the chances are it would be pursued and talked about and in all likelihood worth a tidy some of money.
That's because it wouldn't be art to you. You would be jumping on the bandwagon, doing nothing original and it would be painfully obvious.
If you produced a load of other thought-provoking and interesting work, people would take you seriously. But on the strength of your one 'piece'? No. If Turner did the same thing you would spend more time looking at it and thinking what, why has he done this? You'd try to figure it out. See where he was coming from, what he was going through. He is a respected artist. As is Hurst. That's why people take their work seriously. If you don't like Hurst's work, fine, you don't have to like it. There's not much more to it than that.
I consider each piece on an individual basis and as has been mentioned in previous posts, I usually leave it up to "a feeling" which I experience as opposed to an indepth analysis.
Sometimes I'm not in the mood to qualify an object/installation etc, sometimes I am. When it comes to the large room installations I tend to have a very polar reaction - either I respond well to it or not at all.
I went to the Tate about five years ago and on one of the walls were painted musical staves from sheet music. I didn't think much of it but as you got closer, you could see that the staves were made up of words. Turns out the words were the police transcripts from interviews with murderers.
I thought that was a novel concept even though I didn't read in to it's implications or what it was expressing. I suppose others would have walked away thinking it was a pile of crud.
In another room were lots of stones on the floor - it was getting a lot of interest but for me, I was left indifferent.
Personal preference or taste is something which will never be unified - makes the world more interesting, I think.
Sometimes I'm not in the mood to qualify an object/installation etc, sometimes I am. When it comes to the large room installations I tend to have a very polar reaction - either I respond well to it or not at all.
I went to the Tate about five years ago and on one of the walls were painted musical staves from sheet music. I didn't think much of it but as you got closer, you could see that the staves were made up of words. Turns out the words were the police transcripts from interviews with murderers.
I thought that was a novel concept even though I didn't read in to it's implications or what it was expressing. I suppose others would have walked away thinking it was a pile of crud.
In another room were lots of stones on the floor - it was getting a lot of interest but for me, I was left indifferent.
Personal preference or taste is something which will never be unified - makes the world more interesting, I think.
OMG WTF
SHOCKED
THATS ART?????????????????
think she was STONED out of her head as it took 2 mins 4 secs to open the bloody tin
cant believe they LIKED IT i was shocked at it myself
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 9,979
- Location
- Poland
**** like this drives me insane, also idiot art critics that have no artistic skill and yet tell everyone what art IS and what it's underlying meaning is, hipster morons lap it up.
