Pretentious "Art" Exhibitions

Craig1981

Craig1981

Craig1981

Soldato
Joined
2 Feb 2011
Posts
13,658
http://www.glasgowlife.org.uk/news/...firm-This-Exhibition-Has-Been-Cancelled-.aspx

Maybe its just me, but that has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. An artist gets allocated a space at an art museum to put on an exhibition and the "exhibition" they put on... is to cancel the exhibition. Meaning there's nothing but an empty room and some signs outside saying its cancelled.

And that is somehow supposed to be a work of art? I'm sorry, but HOW can you claim nothing is something? I'm not totally opposed to modern art, don't get me wrong, but I think so much of it is just pretentious garbage. I mean I could literally puke on the ground and call it a work of modern art. That's how off the rails, bat **** insane some of it is.

Am I wrong?
 
ahh yes, the "modern art" scene, where pretentious hipsters somehow convince gullible wannabe pretentious hipsters with money to pay them to do the minimum possible amount of work.

this guys good though, he hasn't even made a half-assed attempt.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...and-everyone-mistook-it-for-art-a7049551.html

i4a24yY.jpg
 
Mul’s conceptual gesture in this project is to act as an implicit critique of what is displayed within museums and galleries and the process that leads to it being placed there. By removing traditional content and opening the space for public use, Mul is augmenting the institution to question the relevance of an art exhibition in 2017
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with this forward thinking concept.
For years we have been trapped by the conventional portrayal of Art by actually showing it.
Bring on empty rooms for us to imagine what the artist was trying to convey.
Or i could be talking ********
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's got you OP, one might argue Art invokes discussions and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Click to expand...

Although you could equally argue that Craig, by putting up his own thread about said conceptual non-art has by definition created his own individual work here and by ironic coincidence, you, me and everyone in this thread has also fallen into said fishing stance ;)

* Back in the real world...no Craig you're not alone. This is a complete load of poop.
 
I didn't care about this at all, because naturally i don't go to art galleries, because naturally they suck. Not once been in one, and will never do so.
 
Saying "that isn't art" is like saying "that wasn't funny" or "that doesn't taste nice".

If people go to see the exhibition and take something from it, then by definition it is art. It's certainly not what I would pay any attention to, but at the same time it's not for me to label it.

Probably one of the most famous pieces of contemporary art is "My Bed" by Tracey Emin. I actually quite like that piece as I get the whole "snapshot of her life at that point" angle. It invokes a sense of depression and self destruction, lack of self worth. I've stood in front of Christ of Saint John of the Cross and it almost took my breath away, stunning. Both are art, but in completely different ways. This one in the OP is just another nudge at the boundaries.

If people didn't experiment with stuff like this, then we'd all be looking at paintings of women on the beach fully clothed with parasols and watercolours depicting nice colourful bowls of fruit.
 
I'm absolutely appalled that it's compulsory to go to galleries and pretend that you understand and enjoy what's inside them.
 
Modern art is such a scam, an industry developed for and by former public schoolboys who have zero valuable skills. I was in Florence, Italy recently looking at some of the amazing art work from the Renaissance era and my mind was blown. I guarantee you in another 400 years no-one will be exhibiting these abortions.
 
Safetytrousers said:
Letting people do things of their choice in a public space is stupid?
Click to expand...

It's just an empty room FFS.

I went to a modern art museum in Vienna and it bored me to tears, I tried to find some meaning but most of it was the personal affects of some mad bloke and finger paintings. Oh and a half empty/full glass of water - maybe someone just left that behind. It's so pretentious.
 
I recently went to a modern art exhibition and amongst the usual tat of a coat on a peg there was a plastic pipe you'd find under your sink attached to a metal stand, with a tulip put in it. Not far from that was a cat litter tray, complete with glazed cat poo. These exhibits may be designed to create controversy and get people talking about it, but I will never visit it again nor will I recommend it to anyone else.
 
I'm a reasonably creative person, and generally the more a work of art has to be explained to me, the lower value I place on it. Then again, art isn't universally understood or appreciated, and nor should it be.
 
I always got low marks in art at school. If I could have my time again I'd claim my "poor quality" creations are done on purpose for some nonsense reason, and then I'd complain if I didn't get an A.
 
I sort of like modern art because it has the skill of a well executed scam without the same degree of victimisation. So, for example, I can admire the skill of Victor Lustig but deplore the adverse effect his cons had on his victims. The sheer scale of skillful flimflam required to sell the Eiffel Tower is impressive, but there were victims in that con. Modern art requires the same skillful flimflam but the marks freely choose themselves and are complicit in it, so they're not really victims. It's more akin to Lustig's fake banknote scam, in which he sold fake money-printing equipment solely to people who wanted to use it to make fake notes.

"modern art" is bit of an odd term as it's not particularly modern (it dates back at least as far as 1837 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes ) and either it isn't art or the word "art" is meaningless. If art is anything anyone says is art, then the word is meaningless (and recursive).
 
I take this idea of a cancelled exhibition to just be a title and frame for letting people decide what is done in the space in the time the notionally cancelled exhibition would notionally have taken place.
Letting people contemplate what should be done in an art space and letting them enact that is not stupid or of no worth.
 
In terms of stupid **** done in the name of 'art' I still don't think anyone has managed to beat the KLF's efforts when they burned a million pounds... which was pretty much all the liquid cash they had at the time:


They deffo got a lot more rage for it than most modern 'artists' and their works and frankly it took a lot more balls/dedication for them to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom