Modern art

**helen**

The views expressed in our latest rant arise time and time again. What do you guys think?

Linky

Former Member

same old fucking rant. I dont know the person, but i fucking hate people who think that only THEY know whats art and what isnt. Its usually the same people whos art consists of cat pictures from athena, or the same dali print as in a million other homes.

Not everything will be everyones cup of tea. So many artists have had the same claims of "its not art" levelled at them from the start, and because of that dont make it big till theyre actually dead! THEN people start respecting them. Fat lot of good that does.

Some people need to open their minds

Former Member

I kinda agree with Suzie.

Art should have the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind by transmitting emotions and ideas. That 'stimulation' may not be apparent or relevant to some people but dismissing it out-of-hand as trash, displays a lack of understanding of what art is trying to achieve. There are lots of various genres of music, for instance, that I don't like, but as its down to my personal taste, I cannot dismiss those genres as being 'trash'.

Having said that, I hate it when, for example, these home decorating shows knock up a few bits and pieces and say that they are creating 'art' for the home. To me, its just 'decoration'. Just as the artist would hope that WE would take the time to absorb or ponder the message that is being relayed, I would expect that a true 'artist' is far more contemplative of the processes that go into creating a piece of art than just knocking a few bits of wood together.

**helen**

SuzyCreamcheese wrote: »

Some people need to open their minds

As Jim pointed out - the last line of the rant is kind of ironic.

Former Member

The great irony to me is that she mentions Jackson Pollock. I don't know whether she's actually seen any of his work or she's just dropping a famous name, but me thinks that if she'd have written this rant in the 40's, she would've been writing it with his stuff in mind.

Of course most modern art is pretty forgettable. Most of anything modern will be the same, because we're comparing this months charts to only the very best music from throughout history, or this month's film releases to only Orson Welles and Sergei Eisenstein, or this months display at the local art gallery to only Van Gogh. Doesn't mean it's not art, it just means it's not great.

Former Member

In some ways I agree with her, but as other people have said, not all pieces are going to be somebody's cup of tea. I went to the Edinburgh College of Art degree show a couple of weeks ago, and what I found astounding was the amount of work some people must have had to put into their stuff compared to others. Someone had made some crudely manufactured miniature houses out of cardboard and masking tape, and had some spiel about how it represented modern family life, and the masking tape was what held the family together etc etc. Absolute pants. I could have made the same thing in one night. Whereas other people's work obviously took considerably more time. I didn't know any of the grades but I would have been interested.

Former Member

The biggest problem with the debate about 'modern art' is that people assume they know what it is like and that "a five year old could do this". They pick the most extreme examples and then assume all art after 1900 is exactly the same.

For those who are cynics I suggest a visit to the Royal Society summer show, its chock full of modern art which is both beautiful and accessible.

I find radiohead depressing dreary and monotone - but I still class it as music.

Former Member

Addict wrote: »

Someone had made some crudely manufactured miniature houses out of cardboard and masking tape, and had some spiel about how it represented modern family life, and the masking tape was what held the family together etc etc. Absolute pants. I could have made the same thing in one night. Whereas other people's work obviously took considerably more time. I didn't know any of the grades but I would have been interested.

As with any art form, you are going to get a load of crap, as well as inspirational art. Think of all the bands out there that never make it past their jamming stage in the garage.

If this 'artist' had taken some lazy way out of doing their project, they certainly will never 'make it' as an artist in the real world. They won't fool anyone with an above-average knowledge of art so they will reveal themselves as charlatans at some point ...

However, the nature of how the art was constructed should not be dismissed just because it may not be as elaborate or well put together as another piece on show. Simple, crude constructions could be very effective in portraying what the artist has to say.

Former Member

Depends what you mean by modern art. if you use it in the sense of any artistic endeavour that is has been created in the last few years - well it'll be a mixed bag.

If you mean modern in sense of a room with an untidy bed and clothes strewn around, that's not art - its a barrack room inspection first thing in the morning. Same as sawing a cow in half isn't art, its pretencious drivel

Former Member

Oh I don't know - you ever see hirst's animals? - it was an overwhelming experience to walk between the two halves of the animal and almost be looking at it from inside. The preserved shark was also quite terifying and physically awesome in a way that preserved skeletons or stuffed animals aren't. Who knows how you'd judge art but if it should create an emotional reaction that work by hirst certainly did for me.

Former Member

Well I find the Blue Whale in the Natural History Museum impressive, but I wouldn't call it art.

To me art has some creativity. Taxidermy may be a skill but there's nothing creative about it.

Though I suppose art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Former Member

That's the thing, I love the whale and I'd certainly call it impressive, but Hirst's animals - entirely different experience - well worth seeing at least once. Sadly the shark got sold to the yanks so who knows when it'll be back over here to see.



(figured it wouldn't hurt to actually have some pictures in this thread - it is about art after all )