modern art = shit

dunkman

decides2dream wrote:

it is!
however, you HAVe in the past clearly stated (jokingly i am sure) that people SHOULD say, imo' with such statements. i'd go and look it up, but i can't be bothered. anyhoo....i DISagree with YOUR opinion...that is not the same as saying you are wrong for having it. THAT was my point all along.


plainly obvious, no?

if the thread is entitled "modern art = shit" then its pretty clear what its going to be about.

now i'm sure you have said to people in the past about opening threads that are about something they dont like... i'd also look it up but cant be bothered...


and in this thread no-one has posted a pic of a modern art piece that is actually good... for every one you show me i can show 100 more that are shit.

dunkman

decides2dream wrote:

i *heart*
*heart*
*heart*
marc chagall

i just looked up his stuff

and its good.. i quite like it


Rothko stuff...

painting of a slightly blurred sponge cake??... well. thats just shit

decides2dream

dunkman wrote:

if the thread is entitled "modern art = shit" then its pretty clear what its going to be about.

now i'm sure you have said to people in the past about opening threads that are about something they dont like... i'd also look it up but cant be bothered... the "why all the depressed threads" springs to mind...


and in this thread no-one has posted a pic of a modern art piece that is actually good... for every one you show me i can show 100 more that are shit.

actually, i LOVE a great deal of modern art...so this topic IS of great interest to me. thus why i chose to post in it, participate in the debate on the topic.



and you've already said that. and i've disagreed. and there it is.
btw - i don't care if you can give me 100 to 1 odds of most modern art being shit...wouldn't even bother debating it. point is, to me and many others.......there is plenty of modern art that is fantastic.

so all the artists listed thus far...off the top of my head....


matisse
modigliani
rothko
kandinsky
chagall
o'keeffe
van gogh
munch
klimt
picasso
miro
pollack


etc...and others....


all their work is shite?
ok then.
carry on.



bottomline...i simply disagree with your assessment that modern art = shit. that's it. however, unlike you...i also don't *argue* the right to call it 'art' or not. again, it is so subjective....so all i will question is if i personally would consider something 'good' art, and yea....entirely different topic. for me, much of modern art IS good....GREAt art.....and sure, mixed in there, there is shite. however, i won't disiss it all b/c of some i do not appreciate.


and no i don't do links from work. firstly, can't be bothered....and secondly, i like to avoid any issues pulling up random links may cause my computer. yea, even some art sites are wonky.


and i truly appreciate this post:

Westernsky wrote:

Modern Art = Shit.


The thing about art, modern, conceptual or otherwise, is that good art will force a reaction (good or bad), it will challenge you, it may even make you uncomfortable, but most importantly it will stay with you.
I ask my students to be open to the possibilities. They don't have to like it, but at a minimum acknowledge it in context and see what happens.


Also, there has to be something to this black square idea; we've been pondering it for nearly a century.

jamie uk

There's something stinky in this thread, and it's not my feet


Yeah, there's a lot of b***s*** being spread around.

I always though art, painting etc required some actual talent, some skill, appears it just requires a brass neck. Oh, and the ability to use long words to persuade people that they are so thick they can't appreciate how great your 'creations' are.
Don't even bother. Just paint a good picture or piss off.

Bob Ross never had to persuade anyone, he just went, "look at that, a painting of a tree, isn't it excellent?" And we all went, "Bob, yes that is excellent."
He was the man.

harmless_little_f***

dunkman wrote:

i just looked up his stuff

and its good.. i quite like it

Had you not heard of Chagall before?

decides2dream

dunkman wrote:

i just looked up his stuff

and its good.. i quite like it


Rothko stuff...

painting of a slightly blurred sponge cake??... well. thats just shit

well done.

so then, right there DIsproves your modern art = shit equation.
my work here is done.



btw - have you ever seen a rothko in person? it is entirely different viewing in person, and i highly recommend it. that said, even if you see it and hate it...still dismiss it...fair enough. agree to disagree is always cool with me.

dunkman

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Had you not heard of Chagall before?

heard of him and seen his stuff is 2 different things.

so i looked up his stuff.

were you going to become all pompous and mock me for not knowing who he was?

that would sum up art elitism to me in that one sentence.

dunkman

decides2dream wrote:

well done.

so then, right there DIsproves your modern art = shit equation.
my work here is done.



btw - have you ever seen a rothko in person? it is entirely different viewing in person, and i highly recommend it. that said, even if you see it and hate it...still dismiss it...fair enough. agree to disagree is always cool with me.

i looked into the window of a bakers shop once when i was still drunk.

same thing... foggy sponge cakes.

decides2dream

dunkman wrote:

heard of him and seen his stuff is 2 different things.

so i looked up his stuff.

were you going to become all pompous and mock me for not knowing who he was?

that would sum up art elitism to me in that one sentence.

this i think most can agree:


art elitism = shit




absolutely!


however, on the the other hand....vast, sweeping dismissal of forms of art simply b/c your kid might be able to do so :rolleyes:...imho...is also = shit.

harmless_little_f***

jamie uk wrote:

There's something stinky in this thread, and it's not my feet


Yeah, there's a lot of b***s*** being spread around.

I always though art, painting etc required some actual talent, some skill, appears it just requires a brass neck. Oh, and the ability to use long words to persuade people that they are so thick they can't appreciate how great your 'creations' are.
Don't even bother. Just paint a good picture or piss off.

Bob Ross never had to persuade anyone, he just went, "look at that, a painting of a tree, isn't it excellent?" And we all went, "Bob, yes that is excellent."
He was the man.

And some of us thought it was one-trick-pony, seventies-kitsch inspired, cliched drivel.

But it was entertaining.

dunkman

decides2dream wrote:

this i think most can agree:


art elitism = shit




absolutely!


however, on the the other hand....vast, sweeping dismissal of forms of art simply b/c your kid might be able to do so :rolleyes:...imho...is also = shit.

i agree.. who said their kids could do it?

harmless_little_f***

dunkman wrote:

heard of him and seen his stuff is 2 different things.

so i looked up his stuff.

were you going to become all pompous and mock me for not knowing who he was?

No but I might've called you out on the fact that you waved your art/design qualifications in my face whilst saying you knew all about the artists I suggested you looked at last time, so I shouldn't bother suggesting them.

norm

decides2dream wrote:

this i think most can agree:


art elitism = shit




absolutely!


however, on the the other hand....vast, sweeping dismissal of forms of art simply b/c your kid might be able to do so :rolleyes:...imho...is also = shit.

bingo!!

rival.

dunkman wrote:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_1985.63.5.jpg

shit


http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/image_galleries/turner_prize_2007_gallery.shtml

all 4 of these examples = shit

agreed.

those are pretty zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

decides2dream

dunkman wrote:

i agree.. who said their kids could do it?

was it you who said something about a work that look like a kid was given crayolas? dunno, again...not looking back. anyhoo, it wasn't actually a direct reference to this thread.....just a general dismissal of that mode of thought....imo of course.




what can i say, i actually enjoy most modern art VERY much...mostly for the thought process, and the emotions evoked. een with some of the shite. whereas old masters.....absolutely amazing technical skill, can marvel at their technique, compositions, etc....but overall, the subject isn't of great interest for a lot of it....lots of repetitive work b/c let's face it, MUCH of it is based on religion, etc. granted, it is fantastic when skill/technique ANd interesting thoughts/concepts are in one. however, even in the utter simplicity of much 'modern art'.....many, probably most, of the artists DO possess the technical skill, and choose to utilize it differently, if at all. look at the early work of picasso, the man most definitely could draw/paint, etc.


as much as i can love a painting such as vermeer's girl with a pearl earring...and i DO adore it, and am happy to say i got to see it in person last summer........i ALSO love immensely the work of marc chagall. i cannot recall the name of the painting off the top of my head, but one that is a painting of he and his wife, hand and hand...flaoting in an interior...all dream-like. gorgeous.


hereya go, i niked this from a post on the art wall:

dreamncolor wrote:

one of my MOST favorite painters, ever.....russian, marc chagall:

http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Chagal.html


talk about dreamlike imagery....gorgeous.....

upper left image...click on it...entitled birthday
love it.

jamie uk

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

And some of us thought it was one-trick-pony, seventies-kitsch inspired, cliched drivel.

But it was entertaining.

clever words......doth not make one clever

harmless_little_f***

jamie uk wrote:

clever words......doth not make one clever

I thought of adding more adjectives but those were my favourites.

chiquimonkey

the thing that amuses me is when people say artists like van gogh or monet aren't modern. in their time, they were considered *hugely* radical. something doesn't have to have plumbing sticking out of it or a vacuum in a plastic box to be construed as 'modern'

speaking of vacuums in boxes, jeff koons gives my soul a rash lol

beauty of art, it's subjective, open to everybody that chooses to view it and allow it to affect them. there is no right or wrong,

nobody can categorically say something is "shit", you can only express your own opinion on it. now koons, sure, i'll say he's shit....rothko isn't my cup of tea either, but that's my opinion

dunkman

decides2dream wrote:

was it you who said something about a work that look like a kid was given crayolas? dunno, again...not looking back.

no i said it looked like someone gave Helen Keller a packet of Crayola and asked her to go wild... but thanks for the sweeping generalisation and atypical assumption

dunkman

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

No but I might've called you out on the fact that you waved your art/design qualifications in my face whilst saying you knew all about the artists I suggested you looked at last time, so I shouldn't bother suggesting them.

you said "try these"

and then listed 4 world famous artists dude..

be like you starting a thread called "cars = shit" and then me going.. hey man.. try these Alfa Romeo, Porsche, Ferrari.... you'd just be like... yeah man i know what they are.

you implied i hadnt seen a picasso, or a klimt, or munch, or pollock.. etc... with the "try these" comment.

i've heard of Chigall.. can i recall all of his art from the recesses of my drug-addled brain... no.. hence why i looked his stuff up.

anyway... brown bear in a fucking suit on my first post = shit