Do you appreciate modern art?

I went to the Banksy museum experience in Bristol a year or so ago.

Some of it was great, but I didn't like the preachy messages. I preferred the subtler things.

However, there were two moments that particuarly amused me.

Hipster 1 looking at painting of the houses of commons full of chimps: "Wow, this is amazing. It's like he's trying to say that MPs are stupid"

Hipster 2 looking at some yellow and red graffiti: "Amazing, he must have used two different stencils for this one. What a genius!"

Both times me and my then-girlfriend quite literally lol'ed in their face - couldn't help it :o :p
 
Stupot_ said:
That's just the kind of opinion someone who only views artwork from their computer monitor will have. Sure, you won't enjoy everything, neither do I. That's something we've already discussed, art is very subjective. However, there is something out there for you, and if you go out and experience it (you don't have to read all the gumpf from an art critic) you might find you can relate to it in some way.
Click to expand...

Oh great, so my countless trips to galleries of all shapes and sizes are completely irrelevant then because I also look and read about artists online?

I appreciate art and design of all varieties and across all spectrums, I hold appreciation for many things, some of which I take little interest in.

Modern art is tat without talent, in my opinion. It's the general opinion held by most, at least from what I've came across in life. Other than pretentious art critics who can't see past their own noses and bull****.

Very rarely does a modern art piece resonate with me, that goes across the board. If there's evident craftsmanship or thought process involved then I will bow my head in appreciation but there's largely not!
 
A single frame from a film like Avatar or Up displays 1000x the artistry of anything I've seen displayed in the tate modern.

7003L.jpg
 
In your opinion.

In my opinion, you have the cultural knowledge of a bowl of Rice Krispies. There have been some amazing installations in the Tate Modern. There are even as we speak. The fact that you'd prefer to watch "Avatar" shows that modern art is just not for you. You can say you prefer one over the other, to say one has more artistic ability than the other is just absurd. Just because you don't understand it or like it doesn't mean the creator is talentless.

I do wish sometimes these places would charge for entry. Then we could keep thankless riff raff like you out. You're provided with some amazing examples of modern art for free by this country. But rather than take the time to explore them, you walk round expecting to be entertained or see pretty pictures and dismiss the whole lot as crap. You KNOW what you're in for when you visit the Tate Modern. So why go? Stick to your mainstream blockbusters and keep everyone happy.
 
Last edited:
Lysander said:
In your opinion.

In my opinion, you have the cultural knowledge of a bowl of Rice Krispies. There have been some amazing installations in the Tate Modern. There are even as we speak. The fact that you'd prefer to watch "Avatar" shows that modern art is just not for you. You can say you prefer one over the other, to say one has more artistic ability than the other is just absurd. Just because you don't understand it or like it doesn't mean the creator is talentless.

I do wish sometimes these places would charge for entry. Then we could keep thankless riff raff like you out.
Click to expand...

Ahh... You clearly don't understand it. :p
 
shifty_uk said:
Modern art is tat without talent, in my opinion. It's the general opinion held by most, at least from what I've came across in life. Other than pretentious art critics who can't see past their own noses and bull****.
Click to expand...
1) Talent is not a necessary or sufficient condition for something to be considered art.

2) Argumentum ad populum. If many people believe contemporary art is 'tat without talent', that has no bearing on the validity of the argument. I would be inclined to question whether that is even the majority view in the first instance.

shifty_uk said:
Very rarely does a modern art piece resonate with me, that goes across the board. If there's evident craftsmanship or thought process involved then I will bow my head in appreciation but there's largely not!
Click to expand...
3) Just like talent, neither craftsmanship nor any specific thought process are necessary or sufficient conditions for something to be considered art.
 
I'm not, no. I find myself hopelessly attracted to the High Renaissance masters and own most of their canvasses. Note, canvasses, NOT paintings.

Modern Art, nah. Offence to my eyes.
 
Lysander said:
A lot of modern art is conceptual. It's not about what you can physically produce as such [though that does feature] but what concepts you are expressing in a physical medium. I am not going to explain if to you. Go and see it. Stare at it for a while, explore. Wonder why it's there, what details there are, what the artist is trying to share with YOU. Yes, you.

Sure, you can make a messy bed. And get an installation in one of the top art galleries in London [which are very, very, very competitive], get paid a shedload of money and respect from other artists. Sure, you could do that. Why haven't you?
Click to expand...

Ahh, hurray, a sane post. As someone has already stated it seems that a lot of people are confusing modern art with contemporary/post-modernist art, is that right?

I'm not a huge fan of contemporary art, some of it is pretty impressive. As has already been stated, it is entirely subjective, well, I suppose that is probably up for debate actually as I am sure there are some objective elements to art.

Personally I enjoy a bit of Kandinsky, Klee, Rodchenko and all sorts of modern art. I would much rather have a Kandinsky on my wall than a piece of renaissance or early modern art (perhaps that's a lie, I'd quite like Rembrandt's Nachtwacht on my wall :o).
 
Lysander said:
In your opinion.

In my opinion, you have the cultural knowledge of a bowl of Rice Krispies. There have been some amazing installations in the Tate Modern. There are even as we speak. The fact that you'd prefer to watch "Avatar" shows that modern art is just not for you. You can say you prefer one over the other, to say one has more artistic ability than the other is just absurd. Just because you don't understand it or like it doesn't mean the creator is talentless.

I do wish sometimes these places would charge for entry. Then we could keep thankless riff raff like you out. You're provided with some amazing examples of modern art for free by this country. But rather than take the time to explore them, you walk round expecting to be entertained or see pretty pictures and dismiss the whole lot as crap. You KNOW what you're in for when you visit the Tate Modern. So why go? Stick to your mainstream blockbusters and keep everyone happy.
Click to expand...
You can argue your cause until the cows come home but the fact is that this is a thread about opinion. However educated that opinion may be, it's an opinion. Art should speak for itself and has a different voice for everyone. Each to their own, as they say. You might like seeing a couple of twirly chutes at the Tate modern, some of us prefer something with a little more substance like renaissance art.
 
shifty_uk said:
You might like seeing a couple of twirly chutes at the Tate modern, some of us prefer something with a little more substance like renaissance art.
Click to expand...
Substance is not a necessary or sufficient condition for something to be considered art. You seem to have a very narrow-minded conception of what art is.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to denigrate those of others.
 
It's not necessarily my view of art but more my like and appreciation of evident craftsmanship and skill with mediums, sculpture, paintings, architecture etc etc.
 
Lysander said:
[..]
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.
Click to expand...

So it's a lot more about how the artist is regarded by the right people than about the art. In fact, whether it's thought of as art at all depends on how fashionable the artist is amongst the right people. If I drop a bag of flour and a bag of nails on the floor then it's just a mess but if someone who's been approved by the right people does exactly the same thing then it's art worthy of being displayed in a major gallery.

That does nothing for me.
 
I guess I'm just not 'hipster', 'indie', 'unique' or 'cool' enough to understand this rubbish.

The time of masterpieces... long gone it has.

brb putting a toilet on its side and calling it art
brb painting a square on the wall
brb putting a bath in a room and leaving the tap constantly running and wasting water in the name of 'art'

I have to go by this ugly red thing all the time:

26054665501b0f483a29.jpg


£800,000 to apparently represent 'academic ambition'... :rolleyes:

ellsworthkelly.jpg



contemporart.jpg


9829101l02.jpg


$1.7 million..












2d2al8l.jpg
 
Last edited:
therutz said:


What do you all think of that,,,, WHAT THE HELL IS IT SUPPOSE TO BE
Click to expand...

Whatever the right people tell you it is. If you don't know or don't agree with them, you're an uncultured oaf. Can't you see the brilliance of the emperor's new clothes?
 
Angilion said:
Whatever the right people tell you it is. If you don't know or don't agree with them, you're an uncultured oaf. Can't you see the brilliance of the emperor's new clothes?
Click to expand...

ow right down to insults because i dont know what it is
YOU POMPOUS OAF :p

Angillion said:
it's a lot more about how the artist is regarded by the right people than about the art
Click to expand...

so its about being a POMPOUS GIT then and then you can sell crap passed of as art JUST MY OPINION and i AM allowed one withought people being insulting
 
Last edited:
As said it depends what you mean.

If your talking about a lightbulb in an empty room, two bus stops opposite each other, a few splashes of pain on canvas. Then no, it's a complete joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom