modern art = shit

24567…19

Comments

  • eMMI
    eMMI Posts: 6,262
    civ_eng_girl wrote:
    LOL! i saw this one when it was at the Art Institute of Chicago:

    http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3ADE%3AI%3A5%7CG%3AHO%3AE%3A1&page_number=79&template_id=1&sort_order=1

    read the description dunky... it should piss you right off! :)

    :mad:


    ok, that pissed ME off. lol. what a piece of crappola. "But longer viewing reveals more than one shade of black and an underlying geometric structure."
    wtf? does it just not work on computer or did I not stare at it long enough. :rolleyes:



    I don't like/understand art that I could easily make myself. like painting a canvas with just one colour or something. it makes me furious, that just cause someone did that and came up with a clever story explaining why what he just did is clever and important, people will pay insane amounts of money for it.

    argh!
    "Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
  • civ_eng_girl
    civ_eng_girl Posts: 2,001
    we really shouldn't forget that some of people's favorite "real" artists fall under the 'modern art' category:

    Picasso
    Seurat
    Matisse
    Modigiliani
    Van Gogh
    Klimt
    Dali


    what about Jackson Pollock? can you splatter paint better than him?

    what about Warhol? are soup cans art?

    so many questions.... :p
    ~~*~~ ...i surfaced and all of my being was enlightend... ~~*~~
  • civ_eng_girl
    civ_eng_girl Posts: 2,001
    eMMI wrote:
    ok, that pissed ME off. lol. what a piece of crappola. "But longer viewing reveals more than one shade of black and an underlying geometric structure."
    wtf? does it just not work on computer or did I not stare at it long enough. :rolleyes:

    lol... yes, in person, you can see the nine black squares.... black on black... i can't see it on my monitor either....


    i'm don't disagree with you guys! it's rediculous... but i love the reactions! :)
    ~~*~~ ...i surfaced and all of my being was enlightend... ~~*~~
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    civ_eng_girl wrote:
    we really shouldn't forget that some of people's favorite "real" artists fall under the 'modern art' category:

    Picasso
    Seurat
    Matisse
    Modigiliani
    Van Gogh
    Klimt
    Dali


    what about Jackson Pollock? can you splatter paint better than him?

    what about Warhol? are soup cans art?

    so many questions.... :p

    Rothko
    Kandinsky
    Miro
    Pollock

    Abstract Expressionists. All awesome, and all of them modern art. :)
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • thunderDAN
    thunderDAN Posts: 2,094
    how about this one..
    http://www.blackratpress.co.uk/images_loaded/product-for-salesold-20070207070210.jpg
  • Sian-of-the-dead
    Sian-of-the-dead Posts: 8,963
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    That link = Rothko = Modern art.

    Modern art = well, Modernist (early 1900s to around 1960s) and Conceptual art = Post-modernist (1960s onwards).. Most of the shit you'll see which is totally contemporary - Toilets encased in perspex boxes, bears standing in the middle of the room - is shit conceptual art where the *idea* is the art, not the execution of the idea itself. :)

    art –noun
    1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
    2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
    3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

    Nothing there saying that toilets encased in perspex boxes, unmade beds or cows in formaldahyde isn't art.

    Infact, as I see it, expression, realm and aesthetic principles can quite easily be conceptual.

    I get tired of the attitude (not saying that you have it, Mark) that art is only art if it takes skill and talent. There are no rules. Things are only as 'shit' or 'brilliant' as people see them as individuals. One person's Monet is another's Hirst... it's all subjective.

    Like alot of people, I used to hate the work of Damien Hirst. That was until I actually went and saw it, was in it's presence... my opinion swiftly changed. Seeing an artist's work on the internet or in a book certainly doesn't do it justice. People don't visit art galleries enough anymore... go and see some art in the flesh with an open mind...you'll be surprised at what affects you ;)
    Been to this many PJ shows: Reading 2006 London 2007 Manchester & London 2009 Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen & Berlin 2010 Manchester 1 & Manchester 2 2012...

    ... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    That link = Rothko = Modern art. And I fucking love Mark Rothko. :)

    Modern art = well, Modernist (early 1900s to around 1960s) and Conceptual art = Post-modernist (1960s onwards).. Most of the shit you'll see which is totally contemporary - Toilets encased in perspex boxes, bears standing in the middle of the room - is shit conceptual art where the *idea* is the art, not the execution of the idea itself. :)


    i agree with all of this.
    i LOVE rothko...gorgeous, beautiful paintings.
    i do enjoy some conceptual art as well. some i think is shite...some i think is brilliant, but i agree whole-heartedly, it is the *idea* more than anything. i think marcel duchamp and the DaDaists were the first, if not amongst the firsts, to question what *IS* art....and present ideas/work that challenged the very idea of WHAT it is. so yes, art CAN be VERY cerebral/intellectual, very emotive, any/all combinations of such. think duchamps urinal simply signed 'R.Mutt'.......:p

    it is not simply a question of CAN you do it, but would you do so, would you think to do so, etc.


    as ever...quite subjective. agree, disagree...c'est la vie. i won't *argue* about it....i'll simply have my own opinions, and if you happen to think art i enjoy is shite...well so be it..it in no way will interfere with my enjoyment of it.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • civ_eng_girl
    civ_eng_girl Posts: 2,001
    Sian-of-the-dead wrote:
    People don't visit art galleries enough anymore... go and see some art in the flesh with an open mind...you'll be surprised at what affects you ;)

    ament to that, sister! :D
    ~~*~~ ...i surfaced and all of my being was enlightend... ~~*~~
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    Sian-of-the-dead wrote:
    art –noun
    1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
    2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
    3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

    Nothing there saying that toilets encased in perspex boxes, unmade beds or cows in formaldahyde isn't[/] art.

    Infact, as I see it, expression, realm and aesthetic principles can quite easily be conceptual.

    I get tired of the attitude (not saying that you have it, Mark) that art is only art if it takes skill and talent. There are no rules. Things are only as 'shit' or 'brilliant' as people see them as individuals. One person's Monet is another's Hirst... it's all subjective.

    Like alot of people, I used to hate the work of Damien Hirst. That was until I actually went and saw it, was in it's presence... my opinion swiftly changed. Seeing an artist's work on the internet or in a book certainly doesn't do it justice. People don't visit art galleries enough anymore... go and see some art in the flesh with an open mind...you'll be surprised at what affects you ;)

    Totally agree with everything here, and hopefully I didn't sound as if I was saying *all* conceptual art is bad.
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • eMMI
    eMMI Posts: 6,262
    civ_eng_girl wrote:
    lol... yes, in person, you can see the nine black squares.... black on black... i can't see it on my monitor either....


    i'm don't disagree with you guys! it's rediculous... but i love the reactions! :)

    I kinda figured so. but still, it's a black square divided into smaller squares..


    lol. this thread makes me laugh too. :)
    "Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    Sian-of-the-dead wrote:
    art –noun
    1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
    2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
    3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

    Nothing there saying that toilets encased in perspex boxes, unmade beds or cows in formaldahyde isn't[/] art.

    Infact, as I see it, expression, realm and aesthetic principles can quite easily be conceptual.

    I get tired of the attitude (not saying that you have it, Mark) that art is only art if it takes skill and talent. There are no rules. Things are only as 'shit' or 'brilliant' as people see them as individuals. One person's Monet is another's Hirst... it's all subjective.

    Like alot of people, I used to hate the work of Damien Hirst. That was until I actually went and saw it, was in it's presence... my opinion swiftly changed. Seeing an artist's work on the internet or in a book certainly doesn't do it justice. People don't visit art galleries enough anymore... go and see some art in the flesh with an open mind...you'll be surprised at what affects you ;)



    fantastic post.


    one of *THE* most beautiful things i have ever seen, was a conceptual piece at P.S.1 in queens. i REALLY wish i took note of the artist, b/c i have mentioned it numerous times in conversation. it was simply perfect squares of vellum, perfectly spaced/arranged on the wall....and carefully pinned in place, in the upper left corner of each square, with one silver straight pin. it was *perfect*...it was unbelivably peaceful, and it covered almost an entire wall...in a perfect square. amazing.

    art Is meant to be seen...in person...to truly appreciate it's many facets. even something 2D such as a painting, NOT the same unless viewed in person. to look at the edge of a van gogh and see the layers of paint, the impasto quality.....brilliant. to look upon the canvas of a rotko painting and see it glow with luminousity.....beautiful......
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    Rothko's work is sublime. The Turner Prize entries are tired, derivative, faux-conceptual rigmarole. Here's what Orwell said about English "art":

    "Here one comes back to two English characteristics that I pointed out, seemingly at random, at the beginning of the last chapter. One is the lack of artistic ability. This is perhaps another way of saying that the English are outside the European culture. For there is one art in which they have shown plenty of talent, namely literature. But this is also the only art that cannot cross frontiers. Literature, especially poetry, and lyric poetry most of all, is a kind of family joke, with little or no value outside its own language-group. Except for Shakespeare, the best English poets are barely known in Europe, even as names. The only poets who are widely read are Byron, who is admired for the wrong reasons, and Oscar Wilde, who is pitied as a victim of English hypocrisy. And linked up with this, though not very obviously, is the lack of philosophical faculty, the absence in nearly all Englishmen of any need for an ordered system of thought or even for the use of logic."
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    Try these Dunk:

    Wassily Kandinsky:

    http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?aid=85097&apnum=324593&LinkTypeID=1&PosterTypeID=1&DestType=7&Referrer%20=http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/kandinsky_wassily.html


    Jackson Pollock:

    http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=1813739&CID=906573379D2946188198F6D47A6E08FA&PPID=1&search=pollock&f=c&FindID=27450&P=1&PP=4&sortby=PD&cname=Jackson+Pollock&SearchID=


    Juan Miro:

    http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=311250&CID=906573379D2946188198F6D47A6E08FA&PPID=1&search=Miro&f=c&FindID=31999&P=1&PP=25&sortby=PD&cname=Joan+Miro&SearchID=


    Paul Klee

    http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=379863&CID=906573379D2946188198F6D47A6E08FA&PPID=1&search=25772&f=c&FindID=25772&P=2&PP=17&sortby=PD&cname=Paul+Klee&SearchID=
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    some modern art isn't a total scam, and some of it is great, but most of it is just a big con.

    i subscribe to the artrenewal.org theory on art.

    http://www.artrenewal.org/

    Bouguereau owns all other artists!
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    Rothko's work is sublime. The Turner Prize entries are tired, derivative, faux-conceptual rigmarole. Here's what Orwell said about English "art":

    "Here one comes back to two English characteristics that I pointed out, seemingly at random, at the beginning of the last chapter. One is the lack of artistic ability. This is perhaps another way of saying that the English are outside the European culture. For there is one art in which they have shown plenty of talent, namely literature. But this is also the only art that cannot cross frontiers. Literature, especially poetry, and lyric poetry most of all, is a kind of family joke, with little or no value outside its own language-group. Except for Shakespeare, the best English poets are barely known in Europe, even as names. The only poets who are widely read are Byron, who is admired for the wrong reasons, and Oscar Wilde, who is pitied as a victim of English hypocrisy. And linked up with this, though not very obviously, is the lack of philosophical faculty, the absence in nearly all Englishmen of any need for an ordered system of thought or even for the use of logic."

    When I went to art college we used to visit the Turner exhibitions regularly. My art teacher loved it.. For her it was akin to the best comedy show ever. :)
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • Sian-of-the-dead
    Sian-of-the-dead Posts: 8,963
    civ_eng_girl wrote:
    we really shouldn't forget that some of people's favorite "real" artists fall under the 'modern art' category:

    Picasso
    Seurat
    Matisse
    Modigiliani
    Van Gogh
    Klimt
    Dali


    what about Jackson Pollock? can you splatter paint better than him?

    what about Warhol? are soup cans art?

    so many questions.... :p

    Good point raised right there.

    Alot of people are selective in what they consider to be modern art. Matisse's 'L'escargot' is considered a piece of fine art and yet Ofili's 'The Holy Virgin Mary' is considered modern and bunched in with the likes of Emin... Have a look at the two pieces, although Ofili's work is controversial it took alot more talent to compose... and by all accounts, talent = art :rolleyes:

    :confused:

    ART IS SUBJECTIVE.
    Been to this many PJ shows: Reading 2006 London 2007 Manchester & London 2009 Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen & Berlin 2010 Manchester 1 & Manchester 2 2012...

    ... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    Try these Dunk:

    Wassily Kandinsky:

    http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?aid=85097&apnum=324593&LinkTypeID=1&PosterTypeID=1&DestType=7&Referrer%20=http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/kandinsky_wassily.html


    Jackson Pollock:

    http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=1813739&CID=906573379D2946188198F6D47A6E08FA&PPID=1&search=pollock&f=c&FindID=27450&P=1&PP=4&sortby=PD&cname=Jackson+Pollock&SearchID=


    Juan Miro:

    http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=311250&CID=906573379D2946188198F6D47A6E08FA&PPID=1&search=Miro&f=c&FindID=31999&P=1&PP=25&sortby=PD&cname=Joan+Miro&SearchID=


    Paul Klee

    http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=379863&CID=906573379D2946188198F6D47A6E08FA&PPID=1&search=25772&f=c&FindID=25772&P=2&PP=17&sortby=PD&cname=Paul+Klee&SearchID=




    excellent
    excellent
    excellent
    excellent


    throw in some marc chagall...perhaps some georgia o'keeffe.......bliss.



    and hey, don't forget scupture and photography.
    to dismiss "modern art" in one feel swoop, short-sighted at best.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Sian-of-the-dead
    Sian-of-the-dead Posts: 8,963
    decides2dream wrote:
    to dismiss "modern art" in one feel swoop, short-sighted at best.

    AMEN! :D
    Been to this many PJ shows: Reading 2006 London 2007 Manchester & London 2009 Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen & Berlin 2010 Manchester 1 & Manchester 2 2012...

    ... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    decides2dream wrote:
    excellent
    excellent
    excellent
    excellent


    throw in some marc chagall...perhaps some georgia o'keeffe.......bliss.

    Indeed! I wanted to put some Mark Rothko down but he's already dismissed that style. :o
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    When I went to art college we used to visit the Turner exhibitions regularly. My art teacher loved it.. For her it was akin to the best comedy show ever. :)


    I remember, when I did my art foundation, we went to look at some quite literally bloody awful exhibition, featuring a collage of used hospital tampons. The collage was accompanied by some huge manifesto on a placard, outlining what it was supposed to "mean". As a deconstructionist I'd be asking whether the manifesto was, intertextually, part of the exhibit itself and, if so, whether it "deferred", or plainly bollocksed up, the supposed emotional er, value of the "art" by trying to qualify it with a display of pseudo-intellectual shite.

Categories