I know a fair few who don't care either way. They're just happy to be producing their art and making enough out of it to be paying the bills.
*n
(Art) They do it deliberately....
- Thread starter AJUK
- Start date
I know a fair few who don't care either way. They're just happy to be producing their art and making enough out of it to be paying the bills.
*n
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 3,572
Provoking discussion should be the main aim of art imo. Most of this stuff isn't actually about annoying people for the hell of it. With my own video art I try to ask questions of myself and of the material I use and experimenting with that can bring interesting results. As far as I'm concerned if the there are people don't like it so what? I was doing it for my own curiosity at the time and the discussion it provokes within my peer group.
*edit* Whilst I say this I wont deny that for some the art is actually the patter or the BS which justifies a gimmick thought up and made in 5 mins. But you have to consider each piece before witting it off in this way imo.
*edit* Whilst I say this I wont deny that for some the art is actually the patter or the BS which justifies a gimmick thought up and made in 5 mins. But you have to consider each piece before witting it off in this way imo.
Last edited:
The same is true of me. I do a lot of writing and most of the time I do it to find out more about myself. Some people don't like it, some people do; I've even had hatemail a few times. I prefer it that way.
What I don't understand is, for example, that pile of logs in the article pictures.
When I make a pile of logs, it's a bonfire ready to be lit.
However when this person did it, it was a piece of art that nearly netted them £25,000.
Why? Why is that art? Why is that pile of logs different to any other? Because the person who made it said 'This is art' ?
When I make a pile of logs, it's a bonfire ready to be lit.
However when this person did it, it was a piece of art that nearly netted them £25,000.
Why? Why is that art? Why is that pile of logs different to any other? Because the person who made it said 'This is art' ?
Something that required effort, thought and emotion to be put into it, rather than a pile of logs, which I get out the front of my house every month or so when we get firewood delivered.
I might phone the Tate Modern next time, get them to come have a look. Could pay my tuition fees for the year.
I might phone the Tate Modern next time, get them to come have a look. Could pay my tuition fees for the year.
I could go out and punch several people in the face. It would provoke a reaction, but it still doesn't make it art. The Turner prize is no different.
For good modern art, look at some of Banksy's stuff - provokes a reaction and is pleasing to the eye.
Last edited:
As with all these threads, there's a simple answer, or rather, question: what is art? Once you can define art, then you can argue whether this is art or not. But no-one seems to have managed very well so far. Essentially the closest anyone has come is: "It's art if someone says it is." But I've not seen a better definition.
M
M
I agree with not liking music from hundreds of years ago as tastes develop. But modern music still has something in it that takes time, effort, and skill to make and is audiologically pleasing. Modern art... I remember a guy who filled up a container with like 200 gallons of water or something. What amazing concept is this? How is it visually pleasing? What skill was needed for it?. Maybe I just haven't seen any good modern art, despite having to spend several months in year 9 analysing and looking at modern art, and unfortunately have to spend some time in Media Studies doing postmodernism.
Perhaps someone could show me some good modern art, and I'll give my honest opinion of it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 9,970
- Location
- Poland
Art is more about the viewer than the artist, if it makes you happy/sad/angry/confused ect when you look at it they the artist has succeeded. Being an artist myself doesnt make me look at his work and go "ah yes, i understand" i think it's ******** but others will like it for their own reasons.
AJ didnt like it and made a thread therefore Wallinger = win, you're talking about it
AJ didnt like it and made a thread therefore Wallinger = win, you're talking about it
Art died with the advent of conceptualism.
And the definition of art is "To say X is an artwork in the classificatory sense if and only if, X is an artifact, upon which someone acting on behalf of the institute (art-world) confers the status of being a candidate for appreciation."
so basically this means that a piece of art is only an object that has gained respect from a simple few who claim a broad knowledge and understanding, inferring on it a proclaimed status for the masses to view. So it doesnt matter if you see it as art.
And the definition of art is "To say X is an artwork in the classificatory sense if and only if, X is an artifact, upon which someone acting on behalf of the institute (art-world) confers the status of being a candidate for appreciation."
so basically this means that a piece of art is only an object that has gained respect from a simple few who claim a broad knowledge and understanding, inferring on it a proclaimed status for the masses to view. So it doesnt matter if you see it as art.
Modern art is a complete joke, just a load of hippy weirdo's playing with twigs and paper until they fall in a pattern which another hippy weirdo calls art. Then they all go to tate and think they are awesome.
Line them up and shoot them all tbh, complete wastes of DNA.
Line them up and shoot them all tbh, complete wastes of DNA.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,449
- Location
- Londontown
If you think that's what modern art is then you're a moron. Modern art has its roots in the 19th Century but is broken down into all sorts of artsy fartsy stuff, some of which is fantastic, i'm might be wrong but Kandinsky etc. is classed as modern art, as is Paul Klee and they did some fantastic stuff imho.
Edit: May have just realised that what you said was sarcastic but not sure
If you think that's what modern art is then you're a moron. Modern art has its roots in the 19th Century but is broken down into all sorts of artsy fartsy stuff, some of which is fantastic, i'm might be wrong but Kandinsky etc. is classed as modern art, as is Paul Klee and they did some fantastic stuff imho.
Edit: May have just realised that what you said was sarcastic but not sure
no you misunderstand me, modern art in MY opinion is like the guy who paints on street pavements like spiderman, coke bottle etc which look amazing and are very original idea's. Some moron putting twigs in a room and calling it a masterpiece are completely worthless though.
The name of the artist I quoted escapes me atm but im sure there's a few people on here who are familiar with his work.
Hang on...You think someone drawing already-existing objects and concepts (such as a coke bottle or Spiderman) are original ideas (no apostrophe) whilst you think a genuinely original idea is "completely worthless"?
**** me, I thought this forum's average IQ couldn't get any lower...
*n