What is the point in modern art

[SexyGreyFox]

The fact that I have an answer is a good start.

Two identical things. Same things, same skill required in making them (none). Same things, completely the same.

One is "art" and the other is not.

The sole difference between them is that one has been successfully marketed and the other has not.

My answer is that the difference between them is marketing. Your "answer" is that it's everyone else's fault for not being able to understand the answer that you haven't given and nobody has given.

The answer is Tracy Emin and that is the only answer.
When it came out it was all over the National News because she was a 'name' at the time and probably still is when she brings out her 'Poo On A Stick' piece.

 

[h4rm0ny]

To the people who are for modern art, would you like to counter the video that was posted on the first page?

LOL@ the Danial Radcliffe part.

I feel for the actual artists who get taken in by this stuff. By which I mean people who want to create artworks and take the critic's opinions seriously. I went into Whitewall Galleries a while back. Whilst the paintings were expensive (the cheapest were around £300 and then went up into the thousands) most of it was impressive. Not all of it was to my taste, but nearly all of it you could see the talent in it and that it would appeal to someone on its own merits. So it's nice that there still is a lucrative market for real art.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I feel for the actual artists who get taken in by this stuff. By which I mean people who want to create artworks and take the critic's opinions seriously.

If they are 'actual artists' and are creating 'conceptual art', does that mean they aren't 'actual artists' in your view?

I went into Whitewall Galleries a while back. Whilst the paintings were expensive (the cheapest were around £300 and then went up into the thousands) most of it was impressive. Not all of it was to my taste, but nearly all of it you could see the talent in it and that it would appeal to someone on its own merits. So it's nice that there still is a lucrative market for real art.

By 'real art', do you mean any artwork that isn't 'conceptual art'?

Is this 'real art' Olafur Eliasson's 'The Weather Project'?
What about this Ai Weiwei 'Sunflower Seeds'?
Or this Richard Long's 'Sahara Circle'?

 

[dowie]

If they are 'actual artists' and are creating 'conceptual art', does that mean they aren't 'actual artists' in your view?

Anyone can be an artist and anything can be art.

Some of what is deemed "art" today is garbage (quite literally in some cases) and almost the entire value (and interest in it) derived from things external to the piece itself.. like who made it, who bought other pieces by the artist, who stated they thought it was good art and where it was displayed.

Some of the artists who have made a name for themselves haven't really got any significant artistic talent or ability above and beyond pretty much any other wannabe artist.

The video already posted sums up why this is the case quite nicely.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Anyone can be an artist and anything can be art.

Some of what is deemed "art" today is garbage (quite literally in some cases) and almost the entire value (and interest in it) derived from things external to the piece itself. like who made it, who bought other pieces by the artist, who stated they thought it was good art and where it was displayed.

Some of the artists who have made a name for themselves haven't really got any significant artistic talent or ability above and beyond pretty much any other wannabe artist.

The video already posted sums up why this is the case quite nicely.

I have no doubt that you’re right in this regard but it’s nothing new, nor is it specific to the art world.

There are countless people around the world in undeserved positions of power/fame/success while others with more talent/ability/work ethic languish in obscurity.

You may as well cry that life isn’t fair…

Furthermore, these people may not have more artistic ability than some other comparable artist, but few (if any) of the successful ones will be complete charlatans. They will have gone to art school or have some form of artistic background, they will be able to draw or paint and understand concepts like composition and light. The video makes it out like the gallery owner/critic just picks random people off the street and smears condiments on a canvas.

 

[dowie]

I have no doubt that you’re right in this regard but it’s nothing new, nor is it specific to the art world.

There are countless people around the world in undeserved positions of power/fame/success while others with more talent/ability/work ethic languish in obscurity.

You may as well cry that life isn’t fair…

Furthermore, these people may not have more artistic ability than some other comparable artist, but few (if any) of the successful ones will be complete charlatans. They will have gone to art school or have some form of artistic background, they will be able to draw or paint and understand concepts like composition and light. The video makes it out like the gallery owner/critic just picks random people off the street and smears condiments on a canvas.

Well yeah people rely on luck to some extent in other fields too, but that isn't particularly relevant to the thread, it isn't necessarily similar to the same extent either. Once you've completely abstracted things to the point where literally anything is art and anyone is an artist then the emperors new clothes argument becomes very applicable.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Furthermore, these people may not have more artistic ability than some other comparable artist, but few (if any) of the successful ones will be complete charlatans. They will have gone to art school or have some form of artistic background, they will be able to draw or paint and understand concepts like composition and light. The video makes it out like the gallery owner/critic just picks random people off the street and smears condiments on a canvas.

There have been several occasions in which they didn't even require people - chimpanzees smearing things on a canvas worked just fine. So it would be perfectly possible for them to just pick random people off the street and smear condiments on a canvas. That is a realistic scenario. It would make the marketing more difficult, but not impossible. There is absolutely no requirement for any artistic ability because it's entirely an exercise in marketing.

 

[Irish_Tom]

There have been several occasions in which they didn't even require people - chimpanzees smearing things on a canvas worked just fine. So it would be perfectly possible for them to just pick random people off the street and smear condiments on a canvas. That is a realistic scenario. It would make the marketing more difficult, but not impossible. There is absolutely no requirement for any artistic ability because it's entirely an exercise in marketing.

Why bother making it more difficult for themselves when there are plenty of geniune artists out there? It may be possible, but it’s unlikely.

With the chimpanzees; the Pierre Brassau case was a hoax, and one painting sold for $90. The Congo case was a bit more interesting, in that three paintings sold for ~£15k, but that was more down to one collector getting carried away, it was 20 times the expected sale price. These are outliers, and not particularly successful ones at that, they are hardly proof that the entire art world is being subverted, but more of a novelty.

I could go and buy a fake Rolex or Gucci handbag but it doesn’t devalue the original(s).

 

[FoxEye]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52900476

Glad the BBC has enough money to pay this guy to eulogise about this.