(Art) They do it deliberately....

I think he means that the guy has skill, he's able to think about stuff from a different angle (literally) whereas anyone can produce the work these modern art people do easily. In my opinion, most modern art is rubbish althougha few bits I can appreciate but they're usually pieces that have had time, energy and skill applied rather than a piece of soggy loo roll thrown on the ceiling or something..... Heh, throwing soggy tissues used to be fun. :P
 
Last edited:
penski said:
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
Click to expand...

I dunno, I think the 3D street paintings that kinda sink into the floor are far more original and skillful than something like the pile of logs in the linked article.
 
Mint_Sauce said:
I think he means that the guy has skill, he's able to think about stuff from a different angle (literally) whereas anyone can produce the work these modern art people do easily. In my opinion, most modern art is rubbish althougha few bits I can appreciate but they're usually pieces that have had time, energy and skill applied rather than a piece of soggy loo roll thrown on the ceiling or something..... Heh, throwing soggy tissues used to be fun. :P
Click to expand...

I think that a lot of people have difficulty getting over a mental block they have where they think that unless a definitive artistic skill is shown (be it drawing, painting, sculpting or whatever) then it can't be 'art'...

*n
 
Ok, well if it's another branch to "art" then it's a bit of a lame one.

It's like making a cake and just throwing in a load of ingredients that taste all weird and is burnt as the person doesn't know how to make a proper cake.

Then because a few people get caught up with the fact it's different and new it suddenly becomes a great new cake. It tastes crap to most people, some decide they can see why the cake is good but they also make crap cakes themselves or just want to be seen as special as they can "appreciate" and "understand" the cake.

I dunno, it reminds me of "arty" student films and teenagers who are "breaking the mold" by dressing a bit different and thinking they know all the answers and are all spiritual etc, all a bit sad imo. :D

so there.
 
Someone define 'art' then we can have a discussion :)

To me 'true' (stick it in a gallery, ooh & ahh at it and sell it for lumps of cash) art is something beautiful whether it took skill, training and discipline to achieve or if it was just an accident.

It could also be something meaningful, where the beauty of the subject material is in itself not the intended art but the implication. A mere sentence can be art. What people usually refer to as 'modern art' lacks the subtlety which makes a meaningful piece of art beautiful. It has become crude and unwashed.
 
... and to top it off, the winner of this years prize didn't even make it himself. He paid 16 other people to make it over a six month period. What an "amazing" artist.
 
AJUK said:
just to provoke a reaction, I am convinced of it. Well I am not one to disappoint, what a load of ******* crap!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/0,,30100-1295321,00.html

I challenge any one of you to justify the term 'art' being applied to that lot, let alone giving the winner 25 grand. :rolleyes:

The world is screwed. :(
Click to expand...

I used to think that the Turner prize was naff, but now I think it is more about pushing the concept of what can and can't be art. I don't think any of these people will be starving, because starving people don't ever think you can make money by cutting a cow in half - they should get fame only but no cash.
 
After realising that a hole in the ground was "art", now a pile of stick is also "art"

Londoner Nelson conceived Amnesiacs to depict a non-existent biker gang composed of Gulf War veterans.
Click to expand...

IT'S A PILE OF STICKS FFS!


I think it was after some piece of tripe showed up last year they had the artist on the news.
Q. What makes this a piece of art then?
A. I'm an artist and i made it, so it's art.
 
Skyfall said:
Someone define 'art' then we can have a discussion :)

To me 'true' (stick it in a gallery, ooh & ahh at it and sell it for lumps of cash) art is something beautiful whether it took skill, training and discipline to achieve or if it was just an accident.

It could also be something meaningful, where the beauty of the subject material is in itself not the intended art but the implication. A mere sentence can be art. What people usually refer to as 'modern art' lacks the subtlety which makes a meaningful piece of art beautiful. It has become crude and unwashed.
Click to expand...

Pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Tis a subject purely based on opinion.

To me, if a piece of work provokes the emotion 'Wow, that's pretty awesome' then I'd class it as art.

Although I am a sucker for the good ol' pencil and paper realistic drawing, some stuff is incredible, for instance - http://tunaferit.deviantart.com/art/MILLA-JOVOVICH-20157235
 
I haven't read this thread through, or heard of the piece that's won. But yet again, I believe it to be a justified victory.

Time after time I heard people ranting about how much they dislike the winner of the turner prize. But what people don't seem to realise is that that's the reason the piece won. You're talking about it, you're arguing about it, you're putting it down. Whatever you're doing, the piece has made an impression on you and has made you remember it. If you walk away from a piece of 'art' and remember it, then it was successful.
 
Skyfall said:
art is something beautiful whether it took skill, training and discipline to achieve or if it was just an accident.
Click to expand...



Why does it have to be beautiful? Are you saying nothing ugly can ever be art? Have you seen Goya's "Black" paintings? "The Triumph of Death" by Breugel?


M
 
penski said:
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
Click to expand...

How is putting already existing tree parts in already existing rooms original?
 
Sadly I don't think it is an original idea. I think the majority of it is a **** take.

Art is nothing to do with IQ and everything to do with personal tastes. However I don't understand how a bear walking around can be considered art. I must admit I hate modern art, there was another story of a 2 year old child creating 'art' and that being sold on the internet for hundreds / thousdands of pounds and I think that sums it up completley.

For me art has to be something that I immediately think 'wow'. Thomas Kinkade does that for me with the nice scenes he portrays, something almost out of a fairy tale. I love looking at sunset scenes, skies, moons, planets and many other things but I have to relate to it. I don't get why building a mountain of beer cans is considered art. What normally constitutes art of that nature is finding an inspirational name for it. For example if you label your beer cans 'thankfulness' or some other meaningful word then it will sell.

Just my opinion.


M.
 
penski said:
Try again, you might grasp the right end of the stick this time...

*n
Click to expand...

I'd give up if I were you. Trying to get some people here to grasp the idea of modern art is about as pointless as trying to get a My Chemical Romance fan to appreciate Biomechanical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom