modern art = shit

dunkman

genie wrote:

i used to go and watch fine art a lot when i was young, then i moved on to watching modern art and i must say for few years i was of the same opinion, however i've changed my mind after watching modern paintings/sculptures and exhibitions. Modern art has fresh ideas, different styles, its vibrant and sometimes challenging. Few paintings that i've seen cannot compare to dozens of old fashioned stale style of paintings, because they are so much better!

but hey each to their own i suppose....

i like your last line.. your sig not so much but your last line

I'm not stopping people looking at it, watching or even doing it.. but my opinion is that the examples i have given so far are utter shit... its my opinion.

people like different music... i might think its crap or others think my music is crap.. i dont care.. its their opinion.

dunkman

decides2dream wrote:

EXACTLY!
was there last summer for the pj gig, and same feelings......like hallowed ground, beautiful and haunting.


funny too, i see comments about how we 'all could do it'...and i dare say, i doubt it. mixing those colors just so, the luminousity, the balance and contrast of colors, the mood evoked.....nah...i don't buy it. just b/c some say it often enough doesn't make it so.


there's a couple rothkos at MoMA as well, but the exhibition at the tate really is superb! someday i want to go to the church or chapel that he did work for in texas i think? i've heard it's pretty phenomenal.


to each his/her own of course.......

i could paint the misty sponge cake... i could.

i could also sellotape a squirrel to a anvil and then write the words "perambulate? moi?" on the side of that anvil... some daft fucker with more money than genitalia will buy i if i talk enough existeniallist crap about it.

tomorrow i'll be carving a lung made out of clarified butter

start bidding please

Urban Hiker

Love the candidate, but the art is shit (IMO)

http://lincart.com/artists/album03

Jeremy1012

dunkman wrote:

i could paint the misty sponge cake... i could.

It's not about whether or not you would have the technical ability to paint the 'misty sponge cake' if you were given the colours and a brush. A million guitarists can play the guitar solo to stairway to heaven, some technically better than Page himself. They didn't write it though. Art isn't about who can do something, it's about who did.

genie

dunkman wrote:

i like your last line.. your sig not so much ; ) but your last line : )

I'm not stopping people looking at it, watching or even doing it.. but my opinion is that the examples i have given so far are utter shit... its my opinion.

people like different music... i might think its crap or others think my music is crap.. i dont care.. its their opinion.

exactly who knows maybe one day you'll change your mind too

as for my signature, i really do miss him.....i know it's stupid, to miss someone you've never known, to miss someone who wouldn't miss you back

decides2dream

Jeremy1012 wrote:

It's not about whether or not you would have the technical ability to paint the 'misty sponge cake' if you were given the colours and a brush. A million guitarists can play the guitar solo to stairway to heaven, some technically better than Page himself. They didn't write it though. Art isn't about who can do something, it's about who did.

thank you.


and at this point, or while ago really ...this has all become a circular convo - imo of course....so it's all down to "you spin me round like a record round round, baby"........:D




and lgt - so am I!

a true highlight for certain!
it had been 15+ years since i was lst in london...and great to experience that!

jamie uk

Jeremy1012 wrote:

http://www.gerhard-richter.com/art/paintings/#abstracts

Check out the abstracts. They are clearly "modern" art and to some people would seem to be just random colours and shapes. Really though, I think if you can't feel anything for these paintings then you need to reprogram your mind to be less conventionalist.

By and large Jamie, I'd call it the 'emporers new clothes' but hey, if you like the iron bars....;)

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Art isn't about who can do something, it's about who did.

i respectfully call bullshit on that viewpoint

but whatev. like what you like.

Jeremy1012

jamie uk wrote:

By and large Jamie, I'd call it the 'emporers new clothes' but hey, if you like the iron bars....;)

Well I'd never heard of him until I walked past one of those in the Tate one day and was like "whoa, this is incredible" so it's not really a case of the emperor's new clothes at all I hadn't been told he was awesome or anything and trust me, I was approaching a lot of stuff in there with cynicism that day. A lot of that sort of stuff IS bullshit but a lot is true art that gets dismissed by people as pseudo-intellectual crap because it doesn't look like the Mona Lisa. The Richter paintings are much more impressive and complex in person. I spent about 20 minutes looking at the two in the Tate and I know bugger all about art from a critical perspective but they did something for me.

Just my thoughts

Jeremy1012

MrSmith wrote:

i respectfully call bullshit on that viewpoint

but whatev. like what you like.

So you would be more impressed if I played someone else's guitar solo that you liked or copied your favourite painting very well than if I did something original and different?

I respectfully call bullshit on yours

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Jeremy1012 wrote:

So you would be more impressed if I played someone else's guitar solo that you liked or copied your favourite painting very well than if I did something original and different?

I respectfully call bullshit on yours

i'd be impressed if you did something original and different that took an equal amount of skill and talent as the old masters.

And yes i would be greatly impressed if you could play stairway with the skill and talent of a Jimmy Page, but it wouldnt be art.

I would be far less impressed if you played 5 notes at random in a unique way and called it a masterpiece on par with Stairway to Heaven. thats not art either.

Jeremy1012

MrSmith wrote:

i'd be impressed if you did something original and different that took an equal amount of skill and talent as the old masters.

And yes i would be greatly impressed if you could play stairway with the skill and talent of a Jimmy Page, but it wouldnt be art.

I would be far less impressed if you played 5 notes at random in a unique way and called it a masterpiece on par with Stairway to Heaven.

Our understanding of talent is subjective though and skill is unnecessary in creating art. That was my point. I think Gerhard Richter, the artist I posted a link to earlier, is a far more talented artist than some person who paints photorealistic pictures of sunsets etc. If I want to see a photorealistic image I will look at a photo. What people who dismiss modern art don't seem to realise is that unconventional or less technically stunning does not necessarily equal inferior. There are many sides to art. Richter's abstract paintings affect me more than a painting by Monet for example. Just because they don't do the same to someone else, like Jamie or Dunk, doesn't mean that his work is bad.

I am not saying that some of the modern art posted in this thread isn't shit. of course with a broadening of art it becomes harder to sort the bad from the good but since when was art supposed to be easy? I like being challenged. I don't want to watch American Pie when I can watch Persona. I don't want to listen to Rod Stewart when I can listen to Tom Waits. Some people hate Waits' style and would much rather hear sweetened versions of his songs by Rod Stewart but that doesn't make Waits bad.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Our understanding of talent is subjective though and skill is unnecessary in creating art. That was my point. I think Gerhard Richter, the artist I posted a link to earlier, is a far more talented artist than some person who paints photorealistic pictures of sunsets etc. If I want to see a photorealistic image I will look at a photo. What people who dismiss modern art don't seem to realise is that unconventional or less technically stunning does not necessarily equal inferior. There are many sides to art. Richter's abstract paintings affect me more than a painting by Monet for example. Just because they don't do the same to someone else, like Jamie or Dunk, doesn't mean that his work is bad.

I am not saying that some of the modern art posted in this thread isn't shit. of course with a broadening of art it becomes harder to sort the bad from the good but since when was art supposed to be easy? I like being challenged. I don't want to watch American Pie when I can watch Persona. I don't want to listen to Rod Stewart when I can listen to Tom Waits. Some people hate Waits' style and would much rather hear sweetened versions of his songs by Rod Stewart but that doesn't make Waits bad.

I don't believe that skill is unnecessary in creating art. A poet or writer needs special skill with language, a musician needs skill with an instrument. why does a visual artist get off easy? why should I value an unskilled artist's work? One must have skill to convey an idea or emotion to someone visually (and not by using a stupid placard!)

i agree that photorealism is a huge waste of time, but thats not what the great ones go for either. I love the impressionists. they often blended technical skill and creativity masterfully. But much of the art since sucks because the art establishment has completely rejected any degree of quality, and many in fact go out of their way to discourage technical ability and consider the ideas of art pre-19th century to be inferior. they threw out hundreds of years of artistry. anyone can be an artist now.

Urban Hiker

Can we post more links to what we (we being the poster of the link and anybody who agrees with said poster) consider to be shitty art, before this gets moved over to The Moving Train.

Place your tongue in your cheek or bite it if you have to, but please have some fun. :rolleyes:;)

http://theworstartaward2006.wordpress.com/

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

eh most art just ends up as decoration for someone's bathroom anyway.

Urban Hiker

MrSmith wrote:

eh most art just ends up as decoration for someone's bathroom anyway.

Where art and shit become one.

harmless_little_f***

MrSmith wrote:

I don't believe that skill is unnecessary in creating art. A poet or writer needs special skill with language, a musician needs skill with an instrument. why does a visual artist get off easy? why should I value an unskilled artist's work? One must have skill to convey an idea or emotion to someone visually (and not by using a stupid placard!)

i agree that photorealism is a huge waste of time, but thats not what the great ones go for either. I love the impressionists. they often blended technical skill and creativity masterfully. But much of the art since sucks because the art establishment has completely rejected any degree of quality, and many in fact go out of their way to discourage technical ability and consider the ideas of art pre-19th century to be inferior. they threw out hundreds of years of artistry. anyone can be an artist now.

Well do you like punk? The punk aesthetic says that anyone can be a musician if they're angry and disillusioned enough..

Have you heard the Moldy Peaches/ Kimya Dawson? Not a lot of technical ability there but I'll bet my knackered legs that it's good music, and art.

Westernsky

lgt wrote:

Saw his paintings for the first time at Tate Modern in a room specifically dedicated to Rothko as he wanted them to be exhibited when he donated those paintings. It really is an experience! LOVED IT!

I love how absolutely subversive Rothko was. Originally those painting were made to be installed in the restaurant of the Four Seasons in NYC.
As powerful as those painting are, I can't even imagine eating in their midsts.

Oh and for the Gerhard Richter fans, take a look at some of his other work. He is one of the few contemporary painters who moves effortlessly between purely abstractand figural (rendered) work. Some of his canvases are stunning in their precision.

civ_eng_girl

Urban Hiker wrote:

Can we post more links to what we (we being the poster of the link and anybody who agrees with said poster) consider to be shitty art, before this gets moved over to The Moving Train.

Place your tongue in your cheek or bite it if you have to, but please have some fun.

http://theworstartaward2006.wordpress.com/

lol!! some of those are soooo funny!

my favorite is #21

White mixed with yellow ochre #86/Student
Acrylic on canvas

Bananas are yellow.


i actually like some of those.... #29, with the metallic acyrillic is kina cool!

Urban Hiker

civ_eng_girl wrote:

lol!! some of those are soooo funny!

my favorite is #21

White mixed with yellow ochre #86/Student
Acrylic on canvas

Bananas are yellow.


i actually like some of those.... #29, with the metallic acyrillic is kina cool!

I also thought some were pretty damn good. Hell, I'd hang them in my bathroom or wear them on a t-shirt.

That number 21 is hilarious to me 'cause there is something very much like it in the special exhibits section of the Seattle Art Museum. I think I wanted to tell that painting to 'Fuck Off' when I saw it.