NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that Art generally and modern Art in particular is the preserve of a minority of middle class tossers. I am fed up with the rest of us having to accept most of the bilge we are expected to "appreciate" as relevant statements of art.

I enjoy visiting galleries and do encounter some amazing art work but when I go to the Tate Modern in London and see examples of Damien Hirsts crap exhibits. A live mock up of a pharmacy being one, when I was there I leant on a counter and was told by one of the staff, not to lean on the artwork because "Damien would not like it" What is that about? It was an actual pharmacy for God's sake!

As for the crap that Tracy Emin spews out, an unmade bed, full of the detritus of her manky life. That sort of crap really pisses me off.

What do you think? Is there any real merit in what I perceive as phony middle class eejits micturating on our faces.

Any thing is art as long as someone appreiciates it, no matter how much of a prentencious tosser they are.

Peronsally i consider the AKM to a be a work of art (actually i consider most tools of the armed forces works of art) and i'm sure if i really wanted to i could get a art school graduate to coem up witha reason as to why it is actually ART...

http://www.artdirectgallery.com/warhol%20soup%202.gif

there really hasnt been any decent Art since the end of the Art Deco period

Whilst I heartily agree that a cow cut in half and suspended in formaldahyde, and a room full of motor oil should not be considered 'art', but rather examples of people tossing random stuff together to cash in on the market of idiots buying wierd things, I'm afraid that in order to preserve the classics of the art world, we must endure these abominations.

The modern art movement was brilliant. Art techniques in general tend to revert back to more simplistic forms in times of chaos and war, which is why Medieval art is not as elaborate as say Hellenistic art during the Pax Romana. The Post Modern art movement the world is currently undergoing seems to best reflect the present situation of globalization- an amalgamation of simply brilliant work and simple crap. Inspiration is all over the place. There are no longer distinct schools of art. It's depressing. Fuck you, Globalization. Way to destroy culture.

I think you should've included another option in your poll, saying "some of it's crap, but not necessarily all of it" For example, the transvestite who won the Turner Prize one or two years back, his entry was a vase painted in Victorian style, except the scenes painted on the vases were of muggings and stabbings and various scenes of crime of the sort. That was considered Modern Art, but it puts into use Traditional artistic methods of painting and pottery and such. Also, some of Damien Hirst's more recent work involves paintings, and not his usual "shark in formaldehyde" routine...


Art is simply too hard to define, and I think art would be much less interesting if it had such a clear-cut definition imposed on it. Ultimately, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

90% of everything is crap? (or is it 80%?)

the biggest most stupid notion of western art is that it has to be a unique idea. so we get crap because no one has ever passsed off a pharmacy counter as art or put cow parts into formaldehyde and called it art.

at the same time there are some really cool things being done here and there that may or may not make it to the notice of the art world. i find that if i ignore the "been done to death" and the "cutting edge of stupid" stuff there is plenty to catch my eye and imagination

stop taking the art experts so seriously, they are the entertainment reporters of the art world.

It's all subjective. A matter of taste. Like Marmite. Or free jazz.
Dismiss modern art as the preserve of middle class tossers and you're consigning most of modern (popular) British culture to the same artistic wastebin.
Similarly just because some idiot hands over tens of millions for a painting don't assume that the painting itself is as riculously overblown and preposterous as its price tag.

Wait...are you talking about Modern Art in the sense of the style...or modern art as in everything since 'x' year?

90% of everything is crap? (or is it 80%?)

the biggest most stupid notion of western art is that it has to be a unique idea. so we get crap because no one has ever passsed off a pharmacy counter as art or put cow parts into formaldehyde and called it art.

at the same time there are some really cool things being done here and there that may or may not make it to the notice of the art world. i find that if i ignore the "been done to death" and the "cutting edge of stupid" stuff there is plenty to catch my eye and imagination

stop taking the art experts so seriously, they are the entertainment reporters of the art world.


I agree that art experts' opinions mean absolutely nothing as far as actual art is concerned. If you like, you like it, and that's all there is to it. Art is what you perceive art to be, it hardly matters what these stuck-up pretentious critics tell you to think.

Depends on what you define as modern art. Are video games "modern art"? Then sure, I like it.

Wait...are you talking about Modern Art in the sense of the style...or modern art as in everything since 'x' year?
I am speaking of contemporary modern art. I accept there are some unique and amazing concepts out there. However, I think today, that "Art" is really a bloated and conceited medium that the rest of us are expected to find relevant.

I enjoy art in every area of my life, as do all of us. But is it necessary to have overinflated egos raise our "dull" awareness and tell us that art can be found in the commonplace?

I want to encounter art that stimulates me on many levels but not on the level of frustration and contempt towards the "artist".

I know art when I see it.

These drunk commies artists!!

*faves fist into air*

I remember hearing about a pile of bricks in an exhibit once. That definitely sounds like art to me.

I think you need to further define what you are actually talking about, otherwise your statement is incorrect. It sounds like what you actually dislike is conceptual art, which I agree is pretty much worthless. Thankfully, however, conceptual art accounts for a tiny fraction of contemporary art (I am sure you meant contemporary art and not modern art or else you would be discounting people like Salvador Dali). There are many great contemporary artists. My favorite medium is the camera, so I favor artists like Sally Mann and Robert Adams, but there are still great painters, sculptors, etc.

Modern art is one of the few things which I agree with Hitler on.

"Malformed cretins and cripples, women who inspire only disgust. Children who, if they were alive, must be regarded as cursed by God." And that's before you get onto the things like a squashed bottle in a frame (totally serious).

What winds me up with all artists is how they feel they must justify their work with pretentious twaddle.

You will not hear an artist say, "I put my manky old bed in an art studio and was paid millions, *chortle*!"

They have to justify it: "The creased sheets represent the pain of labour, the used condoms represent the defeat of the Holy Roman Empire, and the pillows represent that I need a bit of a lie down."

You will not hear an artist say, "I put my manky old bed in an art studio and was paid millions, *chortle*!" I would. I'd gloat over the irony of getting pretentious idiots to buy my unmade bed.

Should try something like that one of these days. Need to make a name for meself first though.

there are good artists and there are bad, and quality or beautyfullness of work does not depend on is this modern art or not.
there are real artists and people who pretend to be artsists, and it is easier to pretend being an modern artist.

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2005/simonstarling.htm

this guy has to win!

modern art is just as awesome as traditional art, you lot are just pretentious.