Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

not the usual hot political topic of choice for the GDF but one that usually gives a pretty good 2 sided debate

what is the point of modern art?

should artists be able to carry out things in keeping with their imagination...should a "proper" artist have a talent to match the thought

many pieces of modern art seem to lack any merit and are totally bereft of artistic skill...

take some of the examples of this last year...

a constantly running tap in an abandoned building somewhere in London...thats all it was...water coming from a tap...the only reason it got any attention was because it was "displayed" in the middle of a hose pipe ban

then you have the exhibitions such as one where a load of expensive department store bags were layed out on the floor in rows

or the stack of bread crates that sold for several thousand pounds simply because someone who claims to be an artist stacked them up

i mean...where is the skill in this

http://www.modernartinc.com/basjanader/16.jpg

to me, an art form should both have a personal meaning to the creator and also please its audience...

while art and artists don't have fans in the traditional sense that music and film icons have fans...they do have collectors

it seems that the art world is very insular and artists merely metaphorically fellate one another while simultanaously ripping off rich idiots who think they can buy there way to cultural enlightenment

it also seems that when the art world is attacked...its ultimate response is that those doing the criticising simply lack the artistic ability to comprehend their work...a pathetic attempt at making themselves seem on a higher cultural plain simply because they can defecate in a bag and hang it in an art gallery

then take the art critics...have you ever come across such a pretentious bunch of cretins in all your life...here is an extract from a typical art critic review



in English please

perhaps it is us mere mortals who lack the ability to understand...but i personally think that modern art is the furniture equivalent of a flat pack ikea table when compared with artists of old and their intricate and talented creations

Most modern art absolutely sucks.

Yeah....some art is really stupid.....I could do that.....maybe I'll rearage a few things, throw in a few cans, and bales of hay, and call that a masterpiece....OH and some dead birds too.....

Uncultured swines! schmoll

The Tex is an avid modern art supporter! diva

Originally posted by jaden101
not the usual hot political topic of choice for the GDF but one that usually gives a pretty good 2 sided debate

what is the point of modern art?

should artists be able to carry out things in keeping with their imagination...should a "proper" artist have a talent to match the thought

many pieces of modern art seem to lack any merit and are totally bereft of artistic skill...

take some of the examples of this last year...

a constantly running tap in an abandoned building somewhere in London...thats all it was...water coming from a tap...the only reason it got any attention was because it was "displayed" in the middle of a hose pipe ban

then you have the exhibitions such as one where a load of expensive department store bags were layed out on the floor in rows

or the stack of bread crates that sold for several thousand pounds simply because someone who claims to be an artist stacked them up

i mean...where is the skill in this

http://www.modernartinc.com/basjanader/16.jpg

to me, an art form should both have a personal meaning to the creator and also please its audience...

while art and artists don't have fans in the traditional sense that music and film icons have fans...they do have collectors

it seems that the art world is very insular and artists merely metaphorically fellate one another while simultanaously ripping off rich idiots who think they can buy there way to cultural enlightenment

it also seems that when the art world is attacked...its ultimate response is that those doing the criticising simply lack the artistic ability to comprehend their work...a pathetic attempt at making themselves seem on a higher cultural plain simply because they can defecate in a bag and hang it in an art gallery

then take the art critics...have you ever come across such a pretentious bunch of cretins in all your life...here is an extract from a typical art critic review



in English please

perhaps it is us mere mortals who lack the ability to understand...but i personally think that modern art is the furniture equivalent of a flat pack ikea table when compared with artists of old and their intricate and talented creations

Looks like the alleys in NY

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
Looks like the alleys in NY

except that the alleys in NY smell of food that was already eaten.

Artists feeling the need to express themselves. I have no problem with that.

What i do have a problem is with having a monstrosity erected permanently in public places. Especially when the 200-year-old location and the 4.5 ton sculpture contrast so heavily with eachother.

What I have a problem with is that there are people who will actually buy a literal crock of shit in a jar If you want to shit in a jar, knock yourself out, but please god don't demand 2 million dollars for it.

I know what you mean Jaden. I've often wondered that myself. The running tap installation had to be turned off though It's almost like the first person to come up with a particular random idea is considered a brilliant artist As for analysis, with stuff like that you can say just about anything about it and it'd be right, because art is subjective. The whole "it's subjective" excuse has been used many times over.

Before the invention of Photography, Painting was employed the same way Phtos are today.

Afterwhich, the point of keep accurate photo realistic paintings died down, Thus Abstract Art was Born. Nowadays, Scenery Painting is Extreamly Tacky, no matter how beutiful it is. Solution: Change style, don't amke it photorealistc, make it less tacky.

the difference between traditional art and modern art is that traditional art was to please the veiwer, and be aesthetically pleasing. modern art is more about making a statement. the tap piece for example, theres a continually running tap in a disused biulding. if people keep running their traps the resevoirs will be empty, like the building. its almost metamorphical in a sense. i'm not a huge fan of modern art buts i do accept the meanings behind the artwork, if sometimes hidden can be found and agreed with.

Originally posted by darth_royke
the difference between traditional art and modern art is that traditional art was to please the veiwer, and be aesthetically pleasing. modern art is more about making a statement.

'Traditional art' also aimed to make a statement, but what has happened is that the statement has become paramount, while technique seems to be less important.

The role of art is often said to be communication.

Communication can be defined as the information to which a referent refers.

Following this theoretical strand, modern art is a deconstruction of the nature of art as it was understood.

I've been in a modern art museum.. last month I believe..
and generaly it was very interesting..though I must admit that some of exhibitions were disgusting to me.