A piece of modern art that does not suck ass!

JodieG said:
Art is all subject to personal opinion, personally I just don't think much of it, that doesn't mean the artist didn't put a lot of effort in just that it's not to my personal taste. Why should I have to make something in order to give my opinion on it? :confused:
Click to expand...


Man, I hate it when people do this, if you say you dislike something they come back with "i'd like to see yew do better!" like some obnoxious child. It's on the same level as "I know you are but what am I!?!!?"
 
Moses99p said:
I like this,

2006_HeadOn_1.jpg
Click to expand...

Cool. Any idea what the artist is called or where it's displayed?
 
JodieG said:
Art is all subject to personal opinion, personally I just don't think much of it, that doesn't mean the artist didn't put a lot of effort in just that it's not to my personal taste. Why should I have to make something in order to give my opinion on it? :confused:
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

Man, I hate it when people do this, if you say you dislike something they come back with "i'd like to see yew do better!" like some obnoxious child. It's on the same level as "I know you are but what am I!?!!?"
Click to expand...

^^ this too.
 
Without a doubt it is technically impressive from an engineering perspective.

Whether something is impressive from an artistic perspective is very much in the eye of the beholder.
 
I'm with JodieG and Samione, I don't have to be an artist to give my opinion on a work of art.
I can't play a musical instrument, nor can I sing - does this mean I'm not qualified to criticise a piece of music? (I can't sing sober but sing like a nightingale when blootered -or so I think :p).

Art (in any form) is, as Jodie says, entirely subjective - everybody likes what they like for different reasons.

If the artist offered me that gorilla for a tenner with the proviso that I could never sell it, I would turn him down because I wouldn't want to look at it everyday - I don't like it enough.

I'd happily pay considerably more for a mere print of Picasso's "Weeping Woman" though (and may well do) as I'd quite happily stare at that for ages. It's all a matter of different tastes.

The fact that the artist put a lot of work into it is immaterial as far as my liking or not liking it is concerned.
 
Interesting.... it's not something I would say that I would like... but it's an interesting piece & a very impressive piece of work.
 
JodieG said:
Art is all subject to personal opinion, personally I just don't think much of it, that doesn't mean the artist didn't put a lot of effort in just that it's not to my personal taste. Why should I have to make something in order to give my opinion on it? :confused:
Click to expand...
I think we have the same views on this. It's not to my taste - which isn't to say that the artist hasn't out a lot of work, it just doesn't appeal to me.

I'd much prefer a picture by someone such as Vettriano and as Samione said, Banksy's work is more interesting to me.

Edit: Agree completely with BigStan.
 
Like pretty much all of Mach's work (all his stuff seems to be shaped built out of odd things) I'd say: very clever and well done, but poor as a piece of art. One definition of art says that you must add something to the real thing, and here he does not.


M
 
I dont know what it is, but i cant agree entirely with Jodie, Samione or Big Stan.. Jodie and Big Stan have noted they are not artists which may be the cause of this.

Some of the points made are valid. I wouldnt want it in my house, im a painter and paintings are what interest me. But it is quite clear the effort that has gone into such a piece and using an ordinary object to build it is intriguing for me. Which is why, "The fact that the artist put a lot of work into it is immaterial as far as my liking or not liking it is concerned.", is quite odd for me. One of my factors towards liking a piece has to be the effort, which is why things like "the toilet" disgust me.

I think the effort put into the gorilla should afford it a level of appreciation from most people. It may not make you think "wow, an everyday object transformed for another purpose" and to analyse the works message as a dig at society's throw away culture and recycling efforts. But surely there is an appreciation for the skill involved?
 
gord said:
I dont know what it is, but i cant agree entirely with Jodie, Samione or Big Stan.. Jodie and Big Stan have noted they are not artists which may be the cause of this.

Some of the points made are valid. I wouldnt want it in my house, im a painter and paintings are what interest me. But it is quite clear the effort that has gone into such a piece and using an ordinary object to build it is intriguing for me. Which is why, "The fact that the artist put a lot of work into it is immaterial as far as my liking or not liking it is concerned.", is quite odd for me. One of my factors towards liking a piece has to be the effort, which is why things like "the toilet" disgust me.

I think the effort put into the gorilla should afford it a level of appreciation from most people. It may not make you think "wow, an everyday object transformed for another purpose" and to analyse the works message as a dig at society's throw away culture and recycling efforts. But surely there is an appreciation for the skill involved?
Click to expand...

We've noted and appreciated the time and skill involved, but I think for a lot of people (myself included) ideas and something that's visually stimulating yet very simple, can be more interesting and can stay in your thoughts longer than something that just takes forever to produce. For instance with Banksy's work he uses a lot of strong imagery and symbolism which provokes thought, these can be from 30 second stencil+spray pant jobbies aswell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom