What is the point in modern art

Art is subjective and varies hugely with time.

Most 'classic' artists were poor at the time and their work was not valued till 100s of years later.

That said, a bucket of glitter poured on the floor will not be auctioned for 10 million pounds at Christies in the future because it is ****
 
Raymond Lin said:
If this thread proves one thing is trying to explain art to people who doesn’t have the mind to be open to the idea of it in the first place is a waste of time. When you start with an agenda then just don’t bother as your mind is already made up.

The funniest thing is that it got you talking.
Click to expand...
You haven't explained anything, and won't answer some really simple questions, except to say how we all lack understanding and insights that you have.

That's not an argument that would grace any serious debate.
 
FoxEye said:
You haven't explained anything, and won't answer some really simple questions, except to say how we all lack understanding and insights that you have.

That's not an argument that would grace any serious debate.
Click to expand...

I’ve explained it like 5 times!

Every time you brought up the bed is a reason. You just don’t like the answer.
 
I never said the word insight btw. Or ever claim I understand it fully. I even said that I don’t.

Clearly you haven’t read what I said.
 
But you can at least tell me what the difference is between a bed in a gallery and a bed in an ordinary house?

I mean that should be fairly simple, yes? One is art, one is not. So there is a tangible difference you can point to...
 
Raymond Lin said:
If this thread proves one thing is trying to explain art to people who doesn’t have the mind to be open to the idea of it in the first place is a waste of time. When you start with an agenda then just don’t bother as your mind is already made up.

The funniest thing is that it got you talking.
Click to expand...

Only for as long as we're bored enough to respond to you saying nothing relevant, failing to explain even your own position and just saying that people who don't agree with you don't understand the arguments that you're not even trying to make. I've had more sensible feedback from creationists in threads about evolution.

If you're trolling as modern art, then you're doing a pretty good job. Unfortunately, it will only become modern art if you can get someone with enough power and marketing skill to sell it since that's the only thing that modern art is - marketing. That's why two identical things can differ vastly in the extent to which they are modern art - it's solely about how effectively it's marketed.
 
Angilion said:
If you're trolling as modern art, then you're doing a pretty good job. Unfortunately, it will only become modern art if you can get someone with enough power and marketing skill to sell it since that's the only thing that modern art is - marketing. That's why two identical things can differ vastly in the extent to which they are modern art - it's solely about how effectively it's marketed.
Click to expand...

‘Marketing’ does this all the time though, not just with modern art. ‘Value’ is added to objects and experiences through the power of marketing that goes well beyond the core utility and/or the worth of the raw materials that form said objects.

It seems your issue is with marketing rather than modern art.
 
Angilion said:
Only for as long as we're bored enough to respond to you saying nothing relevant, failing to explain even your own position and just saying that people who don't agree with you don't understand the arguments that you're not even trying to make. I've had more sensible feedback from creationists in threads about evolution.

If you're trolling as modern art, then you're doing a pretty good job. Unfortunately, it will only become modern art if you can get someone with enough power and marketing skill to sell it since that's the only thing that modern art is - marketing. That's why two identical things can differ vastly in the extent to which they are modern art - it's solely about how effectively it's marketed.
Click to expand...

Well said. I got bored replying to him when he plainly wasn't reading my counter-points as anything other than leaping off points to repeat the same assertions and busted logic as before. That's the other thing people hate about Modern Art - the elitist snobbery of saying people who don't appreciate it are not intelligent or cultured enough to do so. Unbelievable.
 
Irish_Tom said:
‘Marketing’ does this all the time though, not just with modern art. ‘Value’ is added to objects and experiences through the power of marketing that goes well beyond the core utility and/or the worth of the raw materials that form said objects.

It seems your issue is with marketing rather than modern art.
Click to expand...

Marketing is like salt - you need a little. But who wants a mouthful of it? Most marketing is applied to a product that is alright, to help it compete with other products that are also alright. Modern Art is ALL marketing. So yes, people dislike that. What's difficult in the concept that if something is nothing but marketing, it has no worth? Seems straight-forward to us.
 
By Raymond’s logic, if I post a picture that my child drew, and his response was ‘that’s $&@£’ then it would be modern art as it created a reaction.

A piece of artwork only becomes modern artwork when it is marketed as such, therefore modern art, as previously stated, is marketing.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It made you think didn’t it?

Job done.
Click to expand...

i would argue that thats not good enough for something to be considered 'art'.

literally anything and everything will make me think something, its how brains work.
If thats all thats required for 'art' then there really isn't a need for art at all, or art galleries, or artists.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Marketing is like salt - you need a little. But who wants a mouthful of it? Most marketing is applied to a product that is alright, to help it compete with other products that are also alright. Modern Art is ALL marketing. So yes, people dislike that. What's difficult in the concept that if something is nothing but marketing, it has no worth? Seems straight-forward to us.
Click to expand...


No artwork (modern or otherwise) has any intrinsic value beyond the materials used to create it. Whether you think it has worth or not is entirely subjective; it’s all marketing.


If I had all the money in the world, I wouldn’t buy a Tracey Emin or Damien Hirst. Neither, would I buy anything by the Renaissance masters. However, I would buy Rothko, Pollock, Kandinsky, Hepworth and Moore, because that’s what I like. It doesn’t mean the other stuff isn’t ‘art’ and it doesn’t make it worthless, it’s just not for me.
 
Brizzles said:
Most 'classic' artists were poor at the time and their work was not valued till 100s of years later.
Click to expand...

Name ten "classic" artists right now, off the top of your head. On that list will be nine people who made a very successful profession out of their art, and Vincent Van Gogh. Try it. I await your honest results. :)
 
aardvark said:
i would argue that thats not good enough for something to be considered 'art'.

literally anything and everything will make me think something, its how brains work.
If thats all thats required for 'art' then there really isn't a need for art at all, or art galleries, or artists.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The logical end goal of Raymond's views is to demolish art as a category. Which is, after all, what postmodernism is all about - saying everything is equal, nothing has value in itself. It's a philosophy that takes "we can have different opinions" and attempts to spin it into "nobody can be more right than anybody else" through an absolutist disregard for degree. It's a doctrine used to undermine societies and little else. Sort of an anti-culture or virus, if you will.
 
I think saying 'You don't get it' is fine....in the same way that some people don't 'get' why other like fast cars/high spec PC's/fancy TV's etc. It's just down to taste, but to suggest there's some higher level of understanding that people don't 'get' which gives pieces their value is annoying
 
builder22 said:
I think saying 'You don't get it' is fine....in the same way that some people don't 'get' why other like fast cars/high spec PC's/fancy TV's etc. It's just down to taste, but to suggest there's some higher level of understanding that people don't 'get' which gives pieces their value is annoying
Click to expand...
There’s definitely an elitist and pretentious attitude within the artworld that puts a lot of people off.

Equally, because a lot of it is conceptual and intangible, people of a more logical disposition will call ‘bull ****’ and then feel belittled or patronised when they are told ‘you just don’t get it’ by the pretentious and elitist art snobs. :p
 
builder22 said:
I think saying 'You don't get it' is fine....in the same way that some people don't 'get' why other like fast cars/high spec PC's/fancy TV's etc. It's just down to taste, but to suggest there's some higher level of understanding that people don't 'get' which gives pieces their value is annoying
Click to expand...

Yep. And the "don't get it" thing would make more sense if they were actual personal tastes. If some super-rich person saw a greasy and unmade bed, or a bicycle propped against a wall and thought to themselves "Wow - that's amazing / deeply moving / profoundly insightful / whatever" then that would be something. I mean, we might justifiably say they were nuts but at least your "you don't get it" argument could apply because personal taste is exactly that. But that it requires someone else to tell them that it's amazing / deeply moving / profoundly insightful / whatever, kind of blows that all away. I get outsourcing JOBS that you're not personally good at. But outsourcing decisions on what you LIKE, indicates something deeply, deeply wrong.

Cue incoming post that completely doesn't address the above starting "but you hire interior decorators...".
 
Modern art is essentially collectively agreeing prices for items of no utility or value. Despite claiming otherwise, no one is actually "appreciating" or "seeing" anything that others don't. The objective is simply to generate an income from selling or exhibiting items.

The reason some pieces attract very high prices is essentially down to human psychology. No one wants to feel or be perceived as "not getting it" so the illusion of value is perpetuated. It's basically an industry that relies on this human condition to generate wealth from nothing.
 
FoxEye said:
But there has to be a difference between "Unmade Bed" and my unmade bed in my house.

There has to be a distinguishing characteristic(s) between the two.

Logic demands it.
Click to expand...

because Tracy Emin, that is the answer.
She is famous you are not.
Banksy could draw a turd on a wall and lots of people will be pleasuring themselves over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom