What is the point in modern art

[h4rm0ny]

Connections - I know people will bring that up, I have a reply to that. It's simple, how come you don't go and get your way into those circles, make those connections. It might take years, 10 years even, 15, 20 years, why don't you try?

I can only speak personally but I imagine it will be true for most:

Spending 10, 15, 20 years competing for something that only a select few can reach isn't worth my time when I can do something that brings predictable and positive rewards throughout that time. Spending 10, 15, 20 years trying to attain what some are able to start with or attain far more easily, isn't worth my time. Spending 10, 15, 20 years sucking up to people I do not like to curry their favour leaves an unpleasant and oily taste in my mouth. Spending 10, 15, 20 years producing stuff I myself don't think has any worth, means I wouldn't like myself.

Your logic is weird. Modern Art is evidently about connections as demonstrated and widely known. You challenge the idea on the basis that if not everyone spends decades trying to acquire similar connections it can't be true? Utter failure of reasoning!

The truth is that it's all excuses, you neither have the talent, the idea or even the hard work to make it work yet people claim its so easy and simple.

Leaving a bicycle in an empty room is something you consider not "easy and simple". LOL!

 

[Raymond Lin]

I can only speak personally but I imagine it will be true for most:

Spending 10, 15, 20 years competing for something that only a select few can reach isn't worth my time when I can do something that brings predictable and positive rewards throughout that time. Spending 10, 15, 20 years trying to attain what some are able to start with or attain far more easily, isn't worth my time. Spending 10, 15, 20 years sucking up to people I do not like to curry their favour leaves an unpleasant and oily taste in my mouth. Spending 10, 15, 20 years producing stuff I myself don't think has any worth, means I wouldn't like myself.

Your logic is weird. Modern Art is evidently about connections as demonstrated and widely known. You challenge the idea on the basis that if not everyone spends decades trying to acquire similar connections it can't be true? Utter failure of reasoning!



Leaving a bicycle in an empty room is something you consider not "easy and simple". LOL!

So easy you hasn’t done it and made your millions?

Who’s laughing all the way to the bank? I’ll give you a clue, it isn’t you.

My reasoning makes perfect sense but the takeaway with this thread isn’t modern art is hard to understand, it’s just your failure to understand it or open minded enough to even accept it. Just agree to disagree because it is clear you will never get it.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

To create discussions.

Thread started, job done and validated its existence.

It's this 100 times over. That's why art exists, as well as to express oneself, but you don't need both for it to be considered art.

Just because you don't like modern art, doesn't make it not art.

 

[AHarvey]

The same as catwalk fashion, to be a self-fulfilling industry that most people really don't care about

I don't get it, never will, don't care that I won't either. I'm a pro photographer as well and I was told with my current portfolio I could walk through a degree in no time, but I'll be ****** if I will sit and wrote papers about what a photographer was thinking or trying to portray in his photos, same goes for art. It's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Nitefly]

When the ‘unmade bed’ came out everybody scoffed at it, including me. I actually quite like it now. I like to think it asks the question: “what does this say about modern life?” and “what does an unmade bed mean?”, both of which can perhaps be meaningful questions (if you can withhold judgement for long enough to let them).

 

[dowie]

The funniest thing about all these posts about art they thought is worthless yet they made enough of an impression for them to remember it.

Getting someone to remember it can be achieved quite easily given the right platform - if the Tate were to allow me to erect a 30ft plinth and I were to climb up there and masturbate on the top of it in front of the passing visitors I suspect it would be something they'd remember for a very long time...

I don't think anyone is saying that the expensive nonsense is "worthless", they're well aware that it can sell for millions and retain value - they're pointing out that the art world is a bit of a scam - see the video posted earlier by @Diddums

Once someone has got a big name then that's it, people will find meaning in anything they produce. The likes of Hurst don't even have to create the piece themselves, they have entire teams... he can just come up with whatever nonsense he wants and direct his minions to say cut a cow in half or whatever....

The guy could curl out a turd on the floor, title the piece Brexit and muppets would be falling over themselves to assign some meaning to it "oh the flies swarming it are the capitalists seeking to profit from Brexit", "the decaying state of it represents how talks have failed over time", "the bits of sweetcorn represent the few glimmers of hope left" etc..etc..

The truth is if modern art is such a con and these buyers are such a fool to part with their millions then we would all be millionaires, we can just make up something and sell it to them, it would be like taking candy from a baby. It would be the most honest con in history, hell, it won’t even be a con, it would be perfectly legit and legal. Yet none of us here are doing it.

Because it isn't that simple, see the video from earlier. There is a big difference between say a well known artist curling out a turd on the floor and a random unknown person curling out a turd on the floor and it's got little to do with the artwork itself.

It is like arguing that the Kardashians are obviously super talented entertainers rather than benefiting from a mixture of luck, circumstance and personal connections etc.. and then putting forward the argument that anyone who doesn't think the Kardashians aren't super talented should ask why they don't have their own reality show that makes them multiple mullions.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Getting someone to remember it can be achieved quite easily given the right platform - if the Tate were to allow me to erect a 30ft plinth and I were to climb up there and masturbate on the top of it in front of the passing visitors I suspect it would be something they'd remember for a very long time...

I don't think anyone is saying that the expensive nonsense is "worthless", they're well aware that it can sell for millions and retain value - they're pointing out that the art world is a bit of a scam - see the video posted earlier by @Diddums

Once someone has got a big name then that's it, people will find meaning in anything they produce. The likes of Hurst don't even have to create the piece themselves, they have entire teams... he can just come up with whatever nonsense he wants and direct his minions to say cut a cow in half or whatever....

The guy could curl out a turd on the floor, title the piece Brexit and muppets would be falling over themselves to assign some meaning to it "oh the flies swarming it are the capitalists seeking to profit from Brexit", "the decaying state of it represents how talks have failed over time", "the bits of sweetcorn represent the few glimmers of hope left" etc..etc..



Because it isn't that simple, see the video from earlier. There is a big difference between say a well known artist curling out a turd on the floor and a random unknown person curling out a turd on the floor and it's got little to do with the artwork itself.

It is like arguing that the Kardashians are obviously super talented entertainers rather than benefiting from a mixture of luck, circumstance and personal connections etc.. and then putting forward the argument that anyone who doesn't think the Kardashians aren't super talented should ask why they don't have their own reality show that makes them multiple mullions.

Many people do make their own “reality show” and make millions.

Just ask Felix.

Or even a little lower down, Casey Neistat. His vlog is pretty much his own reality TV show.

 

[dowie]

Many people do make their own “reality show” and make millions.

Just ask Felix.

Or even a little lower down, Casey Neistat. His vlog is pretty much his own reality TV show.

Yes you tubers exist too, though arguably that is an open marketplace and rather more competitive. There is a rather big advantage for a family who is given their shot at it via a big TV network.

Do we assume that the kids of say Ozzy Osbourne were super talented people back in the day who are obviously better entertainers than the relatively less successful wannabes out there or do we perhaps consider that they might have gotten a bit lucky as a result of who their father was and the fact a TV network wanted to make a series about them?

 

[Raymond Lin]

Yes you tubers exist too, though arguably that is an open marketplace and rather more competitive. There is a rather big advantage for a family who is given their shot at it via a big TV network.

The point is, “who you know” helps but it’s not something that can stop you if you work hard at it.

 

[dowie]

The point is, “who you know” helps but it’s not something that can stop you if you work hard at it.

I didn't claim it was. I was highlighting that this argument: "if modern art is such a con and these buyers are such a fool to part with their millions then we would all be millionaires"

is rather flawed/missing the point

 

[SexyGreyFox]

When the ‘unmade bed’ came out everybody scoffed at it, including me. I actually quite like it now. I like to think it asks the question: “what does this say about modern life?” and “what does an unmade bed mean?”, both of which can perhaps be meaningful questions (if you can withhold judgement for long enough to let them).

That went far beyond an 'unmade' bed, that asked the question "What does a bed look like that an alcoholic/drug misuser sleeps in?"
If that really was her bed she should be ashamed however it's probably made her a lot of money.

 

[itchy]

Modern art is BS, I remember in the 1980s going to a art gallery with the school and arguing with the school teacher saying, "I could that that's not art" Well lets just say I got detention for it as he went nuts on me.

I suppose art is a perspective point of view, to me modern art is stupid, classical art on the other hand has some sort of meaning.

 

[FoxEye]

So easy you hasn’t done it and made your millions?

Who’s laughing all the way to the bank? I’ll give you a clue, it isn’t you.

My reasoning makes perfect sense but the takeaway with this thread isn’t modern art is hard to understand, it’s just your failure to understand it or open minded enough to even accept it. Just agree to disagree because it is clear you will never get it.

So will you say that all "art", even a turd in a box, is worth the price it sells for, and worth viewing in a gallery (by someone, not necessary me/you).

So if some celebrated "artist" puts a turd in a box and gets it into some gallery, the fact that they have done this makes it worth viewing? Worth money? Of use to society?

Or can "artists" do things that are literally worthless? Are all their works brilliant? Regardless of form, skill, etc? It's all brilliant and worth millions because of the time it took to forge their career? And once they've made a name for themselves, everything they do from that point on is of artistic merit, just because?

Are we not allowed to look at an individual work on its own merits and say, "That there is a turd in a box. It's literally *****."

 

[Raymond Lin]

So will you say that all "art", even a turd in a box, is worth the price it sells for, and worth viewing in a gallery (by someone, not necessary me/you).

So if some celebrated "artist" puts a turd in a box and gets it into some gallery, the fact that they have done this makes it worth viewing? Worth money? Of use to society?

Or can "artists" do things that are literally worthless? Are all their works brilliant? Regardless of form, skill, etc? It's all brilliant and worth millions because of the time it took to forge their career? And once they've made a name for themselves, everything they do from that point on is of artistic merit, just because?

Are we not allowed to look at an individual work on its own merits and say, "That there is a turd in a box. It's literally *****."

You are allow to think what you want.

And someone else are allow to think what they want.

Art.

 

[FoxEye]

You are allow to think what you want.

And someone else are allow to think what they want.

Art.

That's a bit of a cop out, because you've spent ages building up the fact that these people earn millions through their hard work, then dodged the question about the output of their work.

The point is, the "work" doesn't stand up on its merits as a thing, separated from the knowledge of the artist and their shenanigans.

I could take a photo of an unmade bed and it's worth nothing. I could throw paint at a wall and it's worth nothing. I could re-create a hundred of these "art" installations and it's worth nothing.

The fact is, most of us can leave our bed unmade. It's not skillful work Most of us can roll our faces in paint and then flap our nonses against a canvas. It's not skillful or hard.

But it is worth nada if we do it.

So it's not "art", it's buying into the reputation of the "artist". The fact is that whatever they "do" is then considered "art", because they are a well-known "artist" and whatever they produce is by definition "art".

It's just a weird definition. An "artist" eating breakfast is "art". An "artist" farting in the afternoon sun is "art". But if you or I do it, we're ejected from the restaurant instead

 

[Raymond Lin]

That's a bit of a cop out, because you've spent ages building up the fact that these people earn millions through their hard work, then dodged the question about the output of their work.

It’s not a cop out, it’s the truth but you don’t want the truth.

The other truth is that none of this modern art is forced upon anyone who doesn’t want to see it, so I can’t see why anyone would have any objections to it. It’s sits there, silently...you have to go see it yourself.

As for the the output of their work, what about it? If it’s so easy, the question is simple:- how come you don’t go do it?

 

[FoxEye]

It’s not a cop out, it’s the truth but you don’t want the truth.

The other truth is that none of this modern art is forced upon anyone who doesn’t want to see it, so I can’t see why anyone would have any objections to it. It’s sits there, silently...you have to go see it yourself.

As for the the output of their work, what about it? If it’s so easy, the question is simple:- how come you don’t go do it?

I've edited my post. As I say, many of these works could be made by any of us here. They require no training nor skill in any medium.

But they are worth nothing because we are not established "artists". Ergo when we do it they are not "art". It's a weird circular logic.

e: Take the unmade bed. Would you like to go to a crack house in London and view an unmade bed there? There are (probably) hundreds of similar beds covered in filth.

I'm going to guess the answer is you wouldn't consider them art. So why is an unmade bed art in an art gallery?

Because of a) Where it is and b) Who put it there.

The piece/installation itself is almost irrelevant. Could be anything.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I've edited my post. As I say, many of these works could be made by any of us here. They require no training nor skill in any medium.

But they are worth nothing because we are not established "artists". Ergo when we do it they are not "art". It's a weird circular logic.

The difference is that a lot of these artist are not doing it for the money or fame. Jackson Pollock died poor and a drunk, Van Gogh died poor and shot himself in the chest. People thought Pollock like you do with all these modern art but they are now considered Master pieces.

If you are looking at these with one eye on the dollar sign then you will never get it.

If you think "if I do this and that, it will never get the same attention." Of course, you think any artist made their first piece and go straight to the Tate Modern? Most of them have been working for years. Sure there are exceptions but a lot of artist have been slaving away for absolutely ages and for 1 piece that gets on the news, there are hundreds thousands trying and not get seen.

Yet you focus on that 1%, and have a problem with that 1%.

p.s. there are training and skill and thought in them, you just don't get it. Your posts are evidence that you struggle with it.

 

[FoxEye]

There's training and skill and thought to cover a bed in crud and put it in an art gallery?

Damn, I'm more artistic than I thought. I leave my bed unmade (and occasionally covered in crud) several times a week.

Or do you mean there's skill and thought in, "Has this been done before in an art gallery? No? Brilliant, let's smash a load of bottles on the floor, put a giant inflatable elephant in the corner, and call it "Know Yourself". Should be done in an hour and back in time for tea!"

 

[Raymond Lin]

There's training and skill and thought to cover a bed in crud and put it in an art gallery?

Damn, I'm more artistic than I thought. I leave my bed unmade (and occasionally covered in crud) several times a week.

Or do you mean there's skill and thought in, "Has this been done before in an art gallery? No? Brilliant, let's smash a load of bottles on the floor, put a giant inflatable elephant in the corner, and call it "Know Yourself". Should be done in an hour and back in time for tea!"

If you think it's that easy, go and do it.

Why not? are you scared?

Are you scared people will laugh at you? Are you scared you will make your millions?

You don't get it, and it seems you never will.