modern art = shit

TrixieCat

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Look, I loved his show. It's a good, entertaining, relaxing half hour. I still watch it when it's on. I like Bob Ross, he's a cool guy.

But Jamie UK's argument was that Modern Art produced quickly is not real art, whereas Bob Ross's stuff IS... which is a silly statement. Bob Ross's stuff is just as easy to *learn* to produce as Modern Art of the type that Rothko does (and yes, there would be some learning to do to produce a Bob Ross painting - but about an afternoon would do it).

I'm no more pretentious than someone who says 'Modern art = shit'. We're all a bit pretentious, otherwise we wouldn't still be arguing about this.

I think if maybe some of Rothko's more interesting works had been shown, such as alot of his untitled work from the 40's, then it may have sparked a bit more interest.

harmless_little_f***

TrixieCat wrote:

I think if maybe some of Rothko's more interesting works had been shown, such as alot of his untitled work from the 40's, then it may have sparked a bit more interest.

I'd like to think you're right - I love Mark Rothko. And I'm hoping to visit the Tate Modern in a couple of weeks and spend a lot of time in the Rothko room.

Collin

decides2dream wrote:

who said 'unskilled'....there are varying degrees of skill, and also what one CHOOSES to employ. plenty of artists have the SKILL, and do not utilize them fully b/c the IDEAS are paramount to the technique in their minds.

If ideas are paramount to technique or talent or skills, then anything can be art, which is the case. A black square is art because of the process the artist went through, because of his ideas etc. Fine, call it art then, I call it shit.

techinical ability alone does not equate "art" but merely, technical ability. one can play, draw, paint, etc...but the ideas and concepts are what truly make an artist create art imho.

What qualifies today as art is shit. Anything can be art as long as there's an idea connected to it; a black square, a urinal, random drops of paint, a dinner table... anything can be art as long as the "creator" says it is art, as long as he or she has a meaningful explanation or idea.

Well, sorry but I just think it's pretentious crap. There are plently of artists who also have ideas and concept but use their skills and talent to express their ideas or emotions. I have a lot more respect for them.

You say technical ability alone does not equate art, I say ideas alone do not equate art either. In my mind, it requires skills as well.

jamie uk

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

I'm just amused he thinks Bob Ross' painting requires 'skill and dedication.'

Get me a fan brush Jamie UK and I'll show you how to paint a 'happy little tree' just like those ones.

Pffft! Get me some all bran and a flag and I'll show you your sort of crap art. Seems to me you'll say anything to prove yourself correct, or should I say superior?
My tongue was very gently in my cheek when I mentioned Bob, although I do have to say I have great admiration for his work. You really must be starting to think there's something in this 'art bullshit' theory most of us are subscribing to. Or is it probably, is actually, that we just don't understand how clever it is to put a sheep in a box, or do some 'splodges' of colour, and then talk about how flippin seductive and provocative it is? Huh?

harmless_little_f***

jamie uk wrote:

Pffft! Get me some all bran and a flag and I'll show you your sort of crap art. Seems to me you'll say anything to prove yourself correct, or should I say superior?
My tongue was very gently in my cheek when I mentioned Bob, although I do have to say I have great admiration for his work. You really must be starting to think there's something in this 'art bullshit' theory most of us are subscribing to. Or is it probably, is actually, that we just don't understand how clever it is to put a sheep in a box, or do some 'splodges' of colour, and then talk about how flippin seductive and provocative it is? Huh?

Tongue in cheek? OK. All I know is you compared a great artist with Bob Ross. I didn't know you were joking. Look man, this is all just friendly debate.. If it upsets anyone, I'll bow out, no problem.

jamie uk

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Tongue in cheek? OK. All I know is you compared a great artist with Bob Ross. I didn't know you were joking. Look man, this is all just friendly debate.. If it upsets anyone, I'll bow out, no problem.

I was using Bob as an example, I don't know the fellas you go on about, but frankly Mark to say they are great and Bob's work is just two a penny, is pretty much the most ridiculous, not to mention pompous and disrespectful, thing in the world. Who says this stuff? Just because it's taught that way in some elitest art circles, don't make it so. Sorry, voice of reason here, no offence.

btw, if I was really making a joke I would have said this was better than your guy..
http://www.thevelvetstore.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/dogs%20playing%20poker22.jpg

Actually, I bet it took longer to do than most of the stuff that 'provokes' your mind, how thought provoking is that?
In fact, I'm really looking deeper into this now, maybe the artist was saying something...:p;)

decides2dream

Collin wrote:

If ideas are paramount to technique or talent or skills, then anything can be art, which is the case. A black square is art because of the process the artist went through, because of his ideas etc. Fine, call it art then, I call it shit.



What qualifies today as art is shit. Anything can be art as long as there's an idea connected to it; a black square, a urinal, random drops of paint, a dinner table... anything can be art as long as the "creator" says it is art, as long as he or she has a meaningful explanation or idea.

Well, sorry but I just think it's pretentious crap. There are plently of artists who also have ideas and concept but use their skills and talent to express their ideas or emotions. I have a lot more respect for them.

You say technical ability alone does not equate art, I say ideas alone do not equate art either. In my mind, it requires skills as well.

well said.


and therein lies the REAL point: it is not for you or i to deicde if it IS art...but to debate if it is 'good' or 'bad' art, in the most simplistic of terms...now THERE's an interesting discussion.

i completely agree. a LOT of art today is shite.....but again, to dismiss ALL art/artists creating today on that basis, now that's pretnetious - by whomever decides to do so. there are PLENTY of artists working today, right now, who's talents and skills WOULD match up with many ideas of what is 'art'...as people are debating in this thread.

so again this:
modern art = shit

dunk may've backtracked and said it's merely 'opinion'....but presenting an *equation* like that IS wrong, in MY opinion....but really, forget opinions, "modern art = shit" just ain't so. even dunk admitted pollack, chagall, etc....lots of good art and yes, they ALL are under "modern art."

and it's not just about technical ability...or just ideas...it's a melding of both usually, sometimes not always......and just way too much to get into on a message board, at least for me. this is a loooooonnnnnng, interesting conversation to have in person, over coffee...or perhaps IN an art gallery, or museum, and really look at examples and discuss.


anyhoo...i am all for anyone sharing their opinions ABOUT the work, but sorry if *I* am not pretentious enough to say that my opinion, my thoughts on WHAT is ART.....alone...is correct. again, opinions, to me, are in the realm of is it good? is it bad? but is it art? hmmmmmmm....that i don't think there IS a definitive answer. i think you're right, a lot of it is if the creator says it is so, then it is. it is then up to the viewer to accept or reject that premise for themselves...but that still in no way diminishes the creator's *right* to call it art.

and.......back to work!

Kushikushun

civ_eng_girl wrote:

LMAO!! I'm an art lover, but i'm kinda on the fence about modern art.... some of it i like, some if it makes you go "hmmmm"....

shit, or not shit. in my mind, the whole idea behind art is to make you think, to cause you to feel something, to ask questions, to start discussions...

so if you're standing there, looking at a plain laquered red slab of wood in a museum, and wondering "why the fuck is this art? this is shit... i'm so angry!" and then you tell your friend about how shitty you think it is, and you have a good laugh over it... well then, it's done it's job!

here are a couple of personal 'favorites' of mine:

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/59646

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/157156

I SOOOOO agree with you!!

And I love On Kawara!! His art you can like on its own, but is also very interesting if you know the info behind it!
I wrote an essay on him while I was still at the Art Academy. I am an art-teacher actually.

I did not read the whole thread yet..just the first or so posts,but:
I agree with Dunk on most of his examples, though I feel most is personal opinion and some things just simply either click with you or they dont.
And then some works you have to see in reality, bc they just dont make any sense digitally. Like Rothko's work.
It is magnificent in real life...very meditation like...imo.

Kushikushun

TrixieCat wrote:

I find myself appreciating alot of modern art purely in a comical sense. Like the Sex and the City episode with the art installation where Carrie was caught laughing while all these nerds stood around being all philisophical.
Art is purely about evoking emotion. It isn't intellectual, never claimed to be.
I get the biggest kicks out of the installations like a room that was set on fire or a ransacked fridge.
Van Gogh has always been at the top of my list....the dude painted vases of flowers.
It is not cerebral, it is emotional.

And yes, that stuff stinks.
I am more into modern photography manipulation, sculpture and the works of our own chiquimonkey.

Agreed again!!

Jeremy1012

I have a question for Dunk, Jamie and the others who tend to dislike modern art. Do you prefer this:

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11622483/Thomas_Kinkade_Oil_Painting.jpg

to this?

http://www.personal.psu.edu/mas53/pisschrist.jpg


And what are you reasons for your preference?

decides2dream

Jeremy1012 wrote:

I have a question for Dunk, Jamie and the others who tend to dislike modern art. Do you prefer this:

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11622483/Thomas_Kinkade_Oil_Painting.jpg

to this?

http://www.personal.psu.edu/mas53/pisschrist.jpg



And what are you reasons for your preference?

kincade.....or serrano.
love it.



carry on.

Jeremy1012

decides2dream wrote:

kincade.....or serrano.
love it.



carry on.

This the real test Both rather obnoxious artists but who has redeeming features?

jamie uk

Jeremy1012 wrote:

I have a question for Dunk, Jamie and the others who tend to dislike modern art. Do you prefer this:

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11622483/Thomas_Kinkade_Oil_Painting.jpg

to this?

http://www.personal.psu.edu/mas53/pisschrist.jpg


And what are you reasons for your preference?

I woudnt like to say, I guess the latter is at first glance more appealing to me. I can though, look at each (and not having a clue who did them, or when or where) and appreciate that they both took a considerable amount of time, effort, talent and skill.
It's the dead sheep, the white blocks, the piles of bricks and the coloured block painting I'm not so keen on Whatever that says about me, it says it......honestly

LONGRD

the 60's Pop Art was the last great era. Been shitty ever since!

Collin

decides2dream wrote:

well said.


and therein lies the REAL point: it is not for you or i to deicde if it IS art...but to debate if it is 'good' or 'bad' art, in the most simplistic of terms...now THERE's an interesting discussion.

i completely agree. a LOT of art today is shite.....but again, to dismiss ALL art/artists creating today on that basis, now that's pretnetious - by whomever decides to do so. there are PLENTY of artists working today, right now, who's talents and skills WOULD match up with many ideas of what is 'art'...as people are debating in this thread.

so again this:
modern art = shit

dunk may've backtracked and said it's merely 'opinion'....but presenting an *equation* like that IS wrong, in MY opinion....but really, forget opinions, "modern art = shit" just ain't so. even dunk admitted pollack, chagall, etc....lots of good art and yes, they ALL are under "modern art."

and it's not just about technical ability...or just ideas...it's a melding of both usually, sometimes not always......and just way too much to get into on a message board, at least for me. this is a loooooonnnnnng, interesting conversation to have in person, over coffee...or perhaps IN an art gallery, or museum, and really look at examples and discuss.


anyhoo...i am all for anyone sharing their opinions ABOUT the work, but sorry if *I* am not pretentious enough to say that my opinion, my thoughts on WHAT is ART.....alone...is correct. again, opinions, to me, are in the realm of is it good? is it bad? but is it art? hmmmmmmm....that i don't think there IS a definitive answer. i think you're right, a lot of it is if the creator says it is so, then it is. it is then up to the viewer to accept or reject that premise for themselves...but that still in no way diminishes the creator's *right* to call it art.

and.......back to work!

I agree with a lot of what you said. I think the question is; is something art merely because someone says it is? I know the meaning and story behind the Fountain or even its importance, and I know the philosophy behind Malevich's Black Square etc. Yet those works do not fall under my personal definition of art. You're right there's not a definitive answer as to what art is, so why should I accept their definition of art? Why let someone else define art for me? An artist has every right to call his work art, I have no problem with that, but he/she should not expect me to agree, in fact, I think I have the right to say it's not art.

If there's no universal definition of art then I'd rather use my own definition instead of one dictated to me.

Now get your coffee!

harmless_little_f***

Collin wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you said. I think the question is; is something art merely because someone says it is? I know the meaning and story behind the Fountain or even its importance, and I know the philosophy behind Malevich's Black Square etc. Yet those works do not fall under my personal definition of art. You're right there's not a definitive answer as to what art is, so why should I accept their definition of art? Why let someone else define art for me? An artist has every right to call his work art, I have no problem with that, but he/she should not expect me to agree, in fact, I think I have the right to say it's not art.

If there's no universal definition of art then I'd rather use my own definition instead of one dictated to me.

Now get your coffee!

That might be the most conclusive post we've had yet. Bravo!

Collin

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

That might be the most conclusive post we've had yet. Bravo!

Call it a piece of art.

harmless_little_f***

Collin wrote:

Call it a piece of art.

But it ain't art.

J/K

decides2dream

Collin wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you said. I think the question is; is something art merely because someone says it is? I know the meaning and story behind the Fountain or even its importance, and I know the philosophy behind Malevich's Black Square etc. Yet those works do not fall under my personal definition of art. You're right there's not a definitive answer as to what art is, so why should I accept their definition of art? Why let someone else define art for me? An artist has every right to call his work art, I have no problem with that, but he/she should not expect me to agree, in fact, I think I have the right to say it's not art.

If there's no universal definition of art then I'd rather use my own definition instead of one dictated to me.

Now get your coffee!

agreed.



as i've said....

decides2dream wrote:

i think you're right, a lot of it is if the creator says it is so, then it is. it is then up to the viewer to accept or reject that premise for themselves...but that still in no way diminishes the creator's *right* to call it art.

so it goes both ways really...it may not be *art* for you....but it is for the creator, and perhaps...for others. absolutely, we ALL have the *right* to decide for ourselves. i simply dislike when some may say something like "modern art = shit." now, that MAY hold true for the person stating it.....but to say it holds true universally, it just....doesn't. and not to rehash that, again, i know dunk says he wasn't saying that, just offering his personal perspective and blah, blah, blah....but yes....we were ALL discussing our 'personal perspectives'...and i agree, we have the right to make up our own damn minds. personally, i think that is why i enjoy a lot of work....b/c it absolutely makes me question my personal definition at times...:p

TrixieCat

For the funny kids.

Ok....modern art? Or just plain scary?
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/FIP/CF-00027-C~Paint-by-Numbers-Coffee-Clown-Posters.jpg

Who is to say paint by numbers isn't art?