If you want a University degree just go for 'Fine Art', a monkey could get one! Old shoes going round in a circle, carrier bags full of rubbish against a wall, old rusting machinery, anything goes, as long as one can explain it in a deep and profound way. Bullshit made by an 'elite' club who know they are shit! Get them to paint a real picture and it'll look like a 2yr olds picture!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Modern art.
- Thread starter 2sheikhs
- Start date
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
skyblue78 said:If you want a University degree just go for 'Fine Art', a monkey could get one! Old shoes going round in a circle, carrier bags full of rubbish against a wall, old rusting machinery, anything goes, as long as one can explain it in a deep and profound way. Bullshit made by an 'elite' club who know they are shit! Get them to paint a real picture and it'll look like a 2yr olds picture!
I take it you have a Fine Art degree then?
I would imagine not,because if you did,then you would know that you are talking complete and utter nonsense.
'Modern art' itself is a pretty meaningless and redundant term anyway,as it doesn't refer to any specific artistic genre or movement,and is usually brought into play when someone wants to label any given piece of work that they either don't like or don't understand.
Or both.
Painting like a two year old is actually incredibly difficult,because two year olds have a wonderfully naive worldview that we have long since lost,and replaced with cynicism,and this is reflected in the way they portray things.
Pablo Picasso once said that it took him eighty years to learn how to paint like a child.
I assume you have heard of Picasso,given your obvious knowledge of art.
JamesTenOne
Well-Known Member
Ten artists I'm sure that you will really really like:
Hans-Peter Feldman
Samantha Donnelly
Matthew Sawyer
Daniel Eatock
Martin Creed
Miranda July
Sue Webster
Sophie Calle
Erwin Wurm
Karla Black
[/quote]I take it you have a Fine Art degree then?
I would imagine not,because if you did,then you would know that you are talking complete and utter nonsense.
'Modern art' itself is a pretty meaningless and redundant term anyway,as it doesn't refer to any specific artistic genre or movement,and is usually brought into play when someone wants to label any given piece of work that they either don't like or don't understand.
Or both.
Painting like a two year old is actually incredibly difficult,because two year olds have a wonderfully naive worldview that we have long since lost,and replaced with cynicism,and this is reflected in the way they portray things.
Pablo Picasso once said that it took him eighty years to learn how to paint like a child.
I assume you have heard of Picasso,given your obvious knowledge of art.[/quote]
Yes, of course Ive heard of Picasso, its a lovely car if you have a family. Seriously though I dont have an art degree, but I have plenty of mates who have done art degrees (one is virtually a 'professional' art student) and Ive witnessed loads of degree shows. Some of the 'art' is absolutely laughable, as Ive described, rubbish, rusty machinery, old shoes etc. I do appreciate what I think is good art which is Dali, Monet and Degas. Art is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, and you like what you like.
I would imagine not,because if you did,then you would know that you are talking complete and utter nonsense.
'Modern art' itself is a pretty meaningless and redundant term anyway,as it doesn't refer to any specific artistic genre or movement,and is usually brought into play when someone wants to label any given piece of work that they either don't like or don't understand.
Or both.
Painting like a two year old is actually incredibly difficult,because two year olds have a wonderfully naive worldview that we have long since lost,and replaced with cynicism,and this is reflected in the way they portray things.
Pablo Picasso once said that it took him eighty years to learn how to paint like a child.
I assume you have heard of Picasso,given your obvious knowledge of art.[/quote]
Yes, of course Ive heard of Picasso, its a lovely car if you have a family. Seriously though I dont have an art degree, but I have plenty of mates who have done art degrees (one is virtually a 'professional' art student) and Ive witnessed loads of degree shows. Some of the 'art' is absolutely laughable, as Ive described, rubbish, rusty machinery, old shoes etc. I do appreciate what I think is good art which is Dali, Monet and Degas. Art is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, and you like what you like.
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
I take it you have a Fine Art degree then?
I would imagine not,because if you did,then you would know that you are talking complete and utter nonsense.
'Modern art' itself is a pretty meaningless and redundant term anyway,as it doesn't refer to any specific artistic genre or movement,and is usually brought into play when someone wants to label any given piece of work that they either don't like or don't understand.
Or both.
Painting like a two year old is actually incredibly difficult,because two year olds have a wonderfully naive worldview that we have long since lost,and replaced with cynicism,and this is reflected in the way they portray things.
Pablo Picasso once said that it took him eighty years to learn how to paint like a child.
I assume you have heard of Picasso,given your obvious knowledge of art.[/quote]
Yes, of course Ive heard of Picasso, its a lovely car if you have a family. Seriously though I dont have an art degree, but I have plenty of mates who have done art degrees (one is virtually a 'professional' art student) and Ive witnessed loads of degree shows. Some of the 'art' is absolutely laughable, as Ive described, rubbish, rusty machinery, old shoes etc. I do appreciate what I think is good art which is Dali, Monet and Degas. Art is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, and you like what you like.[/quote]
Now that's more like it!
You were right to a degree in your previous post in that a lot of contemporary art does defy conventional assessment,and a lot of it,such as Chris Ofili and his 'elephant dung' paintings passes me by.
But then art of it's day has always been controversial - Rubens got grief for his nudes,and the impressionists,(such as Monet and Degas),were also accused of not being able to paint 'properly' at the time.
Sometimes I think we all confuse good art with art which we appreciate personally,which is a natural reaction.
There has and always will be good and bad art in any field,and 'modern art',(whatever that is),is no exception.
I would imagine not,because if you did,then you would know that you are talking complete and utter nonsense.
'Modern art' itself is a pretty meaningless and redundant term anyway,as it doesn't refer to any specific artistic genre or movement,and is usually brought into play when someone wants to label any given piece of work that they either don't like or don't understand.
Or both.
Painting like a two year old is actually incredibly difficult,because two year olds have a wonderfully naive worldview that we have long since lost,and replaced with cynicism,and this is reflected in the way they portray things.
Pablo Picasso once said that it took him eighty years to learn how to paint like a child.
I assume you have heard of Picasso,given your obvious knowledge of art.[/quote]
Yes, of course Ive heard of Picasso, its a lovely car if you have a family. Seriously though I dont have an art degree, but I have plenty of mates who have done art degrees (one is virtually a 'professional' art student) and Ive witnessed loads of degree shows. Some of the 'art' is absolutely laughable, as Ive described, rubbish, rusty machinery, old shoes etc. I do appreciate what I think is good art which is Dali, Monet and Degas. Art is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, and you like what you like.[/quote]
Now that's more like it!
You were right to a degree in your previous post in that a lot of contemporary art does defy conventional assessment,and a lot of it,such as Chris Ofili and his 'elephant dung' paintings passes me by.
But then art of it's day has always been controversial - Rubens got grief for his nudes,and the impressionists,(such as Monet and Degas),were also accused of not being able to paint 'properly' at the time.
Sometimes I think we all confuse good art with art which we appreciate personally,which is a natural reaction.
There has and always will be good and bad art in any field,and 'modern art',(whatever that is),is no exception.
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
Tolstoy's definition is a good one I think
"Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them."
burning blue soul
Well-Known Member
johnny crossan said:Tolstoy's definition is a good one I think
"Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them."
my take on 'modern art' and this quote is similar.
to me this kind of 'structural' art is about taking an item or image out of its normal environment and looking at it in a different way, but also at the same time seeing the things about it you take most for granted, because in this new environment you think about it in a clear and personal way.
for example take the park bench Aphex mentioned earlier. when it is in a park with litter blowing around it and overgrown grass and fag dimps underneath, it is just another peice of urban furniture. but take it out of this environment and put in a room on its own, it immediately becomes a conduit for all the past experiences and feelings you can personally associate with it. you will think about the people (or you!) who have sat there slept there or shagged there, look at the grafitti and names carved into it.
it becomes something more than it was because we now 'see' it.
a lot of other physical art speaks in the same way, even that stuff damian hirst does - personal interpretation, thats how they get away with it, and sometimes it is very powerful.
tueartsboots
Well-Known Member
It's pretentious bollocks.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
anymore than 2sheiks said:Enlighten me. What does a 6 foot wide ashtray full of dimps and cig packets represent?MATCITY said:Its not about what it is,its what it represents
an average day in the life of my stepdad.
Lucky13
Well-Known Member
anymore than 2sheiks said:Please!!!! Can somebody explain to me why a set of saucepans painted in different colours hung on a wall is artistic. Or a 6ft wide ashtray full of dimps and empty cig packets is thought provoking and pushes the boundaries?
Am I missing something here? Am I that much of a philistine or ignoramus that I can't see the merits of these "works of art"?
Your talking about it , it's provoked a reaction , the artist will tell you that was the intention , therefore it's art.