modern art = shit

13567…19

Comments

  • TrixieCat
    TrixieCat Posts: 5,756
    eMMI wrote:
    :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!
    I actually saw it on my monitor...tilt your head a bit. :p It is pretty wild, though I would never have looked for it.
    Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
    And I don't feel right when you're gone away
  • eMMI
    eMMI Posts: 6,262
    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 ;)

    I agree. I'd love to be able to go to more galleries.. but alas! I live in a city with not too many of those. :o

    we do have some interesting statues and stuff spread around the centre though. :D

    even a big big O-HOY sitting on top of a cliff, facing the sea, saluting the sailors of days gone, present and to come.
    "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."
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    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.

    I've always loved the inherent irony of placards explaining what conceptual art is supposed to 'mean'.. you get 'em at every exhibition. :D
    '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
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    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=


    i dont need to try them out mate.. i'm a graphic designer, i studied at an art college and got a qualification on Art & Design... i know all about colour theory, depth, other such bollocks...

    but a fucking 4 foot paing of 4 black squares isnt art my friend... and the cerebral waffle that accompanies is even more pretenious than the accompanying art piece...
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • TrixieCat
    TrixieCat Posts: 5,756
    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
    I don't consider any of those listed as modern artists, with the exception of Pollack and Warhol.
    Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
    And I don't feel right when you're gone away
  • eMMI
    eMMI Posts: 6,262
    TrixieCat wrote:
    I actually saw it on my monitor...tilt your head a bit. :p It is pretty wild, though I would never have looked for it.

    I tilted my head, tilted the screen.. I did all I could. :p and I think I did see the three lowest smaller squares..
    "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."
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    harmless_little_f*** wrote:
    Indeed! I wanted to put some Mark Rothko down but he's already dismissed that style. :o


    i dismissed that one piece as it looks like someone gave Helen Keller a packet of crayola and asked her to "go wild"

    i dismissed the piece.. not him or the style
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Sian-of-the-dead
    Sian-of-the-dead Posts: 8,963
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    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.

    I love your technical and accurate terms 'bollocksed up' and 'pseudo-intellectual shite', Fins :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
    dunkman wrote:
    i dont need to try them out mate.. i'm a graphic designer, i studied at an art college and got a qualification on Art & Design... i know all about colour theory, depth, other such bollocks...

    Woah. My apologies. :) I was proving the point that Modern Art = shit is a false blanket statement.
    '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
  • Brain of J.Lo
    Brain of J.Lo Posts: 3,259
    I disagree. :p
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    interesting read against modern art establishment.

    http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/philosophy1.asp#name

    http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2002/NYSOPA_speech/bouguereau1.asp
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    TrixieCat wrote:
    I don't consider any of those listed as modern artists, with the exception of Pollack and Warhol.



    well, they ARE all considered 'modern artists' according to art history books.
    every. single. one.

    dunkman wrote:
    i dont need to try them out mate.. i'm a graphic designer, i studied at an art college and got a qualification on Art & Design... i know all about colour theory, depth, other such bollocks...

    but a fucking 4 foot paing of 4 black squares isnt art my friend... and the cerebral waffle that accompanies is even more pretenious than the accompanying art piece...



    and hey, opinions are like assholes eh? :p and we're all entitled to em. doesn't make one *right* though of course. we all can think what we want to think, but i personally think it's rather closed to say YOUR particular definition of 'what art IS' is the ONLY acceptable definition. i may not 'like' someone's art...may question it....but i don't think it's for ME to decide what someone else deems their 'art.' i may not support it, certainly won't buy it...but there are VERY many differing opinions out there on it, period.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • TrixieCat
    TrixieCat Posts: 5,756
    decides2dream wrote:
    well, they ARE all considered 'modern artists' according to art history books.
    every. single. one.
    Surrealists and expressionists and add some cubism in there.
    Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
    And I don't feel right when you're gone away
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    decides2dream wrote:

    and hey, don't forget scupture and photography.
    to dismiss "modern art" in one feel swoop, short-sighted at best.

    nobodies done that..

    modern art (that equals) shit

    then i gave examples.


    songs = shit

    Candle In The Wind

    am i now saying all pop songs written between 1970 and 1978 are shit.. no... that one song is.


    not one of you has posted a pic that otherwise disproves the theory thus far... ergo... shit.

    even being short-sighted i can make better art using a potato thats had a daisy carved into it
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    TrixieCat wrote:
    Surrealists and expressionists and add some cubism in there.

    To be fair, all those subgroups come under the umbrella of 'Modern art'.. Conceptual art comes later.
    '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
  • civ_eng_girl
    civ_eng_girl Posts: 2,001
    TrixieCat wrote:
    Surrealists and expressionists and add some cubism in there.

    yes... but still all "modern artists".

    that's why Dunky's thread title is misleading....

    it should be more specific:

    "crappy-conceptual-pretentious-bollocks-that-i-could-create-myself-(but actually didn't) = shite (IMO)" ;):D
    ~~*~~ ...i surfaced and all of my being was enlightend... ~~*~~
  • Sian-of-the-dead
    Sian-of-the-dead Posts: 8,963
    TrixieCat wrote:
    I don't consider any of those listed as modern artists, with the exception of Pollack and Warhol.

    These aren't modern art? :confused:

    http://edubuzz.org/blogs/athelstaneford/files/2007/12/snail.jpg

    http://images.andale.com/f2/111/103/10125972/1041638804366_picasso2.jpg

    http://www.poster.net/klimt-gustav/klimt-gustav-the-tree-of-life-stoclet-frieze-7001371.jpg

    http://www.bangor.ac.uk/english/filmmodules/Filmhistory/lobsterpicture.JPG
    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
    TrixieCat wrote:
    Surrealists and expressionists and add some cubism in there.




    and ALL of those art movements = modern art. :)



    dunk to say modern art = shit to me reads as A:LL modern art = shit. for me, that equation is wrong, pure and simple. i see plenty of examples of fantastic, brilliant amazing art posted in this thread. apparently you do not. differing perspetives eh?


    visit the art wall and view the 'favorite artists' thread......you'll probably think most is shite :p....but most is sublime to me and many others.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • TrixieCat
    TrixieCat Posts: 5,756
    Dunk, this is one of my favorite photographers. He does digital manipulation.
    I think he is awesome.
    His name is Jeffrey Scott.
    The opening page has one of my favorite pieces by him. It is SWF, some of his other stuff is not.

    http://www.factory1019art.com/
    Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
    And I don't feel right when you're gone away
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    decides2dream wrote:
    and hey, opinions are like assholes eh? :p and we're all entitled to em. doesn't make one *right* though of course. we all can think what we want to think, but i personally think it's rather closed to say YOUR particular definition of 'what art IS' is the ONLY acceptable definition. i may not 'like' someone's art...may question it....but i don't think it's for ME to decide what someone else deems their 'art.' i may not support it, certainly won't buy it...but there are VERY many differing opinions out there on it, period.


    quite clearly that was my opinion.... 4 foot painting of black squares isnt art...

    where did i say that was *right*.. i didnt... i said it wasnt art... my opinion.

    latin du latin, ad nauseous
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.

Categories