Loads Of Shit, Sorry, "Art" Lost In Fire

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-26 03:44pm

BBC News

The lost treasures

Seriously, this has even more impact on me now because the art department at my university is getting cut down and many are protesting. Guess someone wants more than random inanimate objects in showrooms with 6-figure monetary values.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-05-26 03:53pm

While I think some modern art is little more than worthless junk, some of it has aesthetic value and other pieces are just so oddly unique and cool looking.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-05-26 04:17pm

As pointless as modern art may seem to the naked eye, the creators of such edifices usually wish to make an ideological statement with it, no matter the subtlety of said statement.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-05-26 04:19pm

art doesnt have to be about maknig a statement. infact, it has never been about making a statement, its about doing what you enjoy. picasso's work is, by most standards, utter shit, but its fun. and thats what counts: having fun. even if it looks silly, useless, and ugly.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-05-26 08:15pm

"Art" should require some skill, I saw one piece out of the twelve in that gallery that was beyond a 6th grader's skills.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-05-26 08:25pm

Frank Hipper wrote:"Art" should require some skill, I saw one piece out of the twelve in that gallery that was beyond a 6th grader's skills.

I'm firmly convinced that Post-Modern and Conceptual Art has boiled down to "weird for the sake of weird". Or "creepy and a bit horrifying" in the case of Vito Acconci's "Seedbed" (look it up

).

My favorite story involving modern art was the art director of gallery ordered a series of exposed pipes which she thought was an installation to be removed. This caused all the toilets on the second floor of the building to stop working.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-05-27 01:19am

One of these days I'm going to apply for a modern art grant for my old underwear collections. I think I'll call it The Great Brown Streak. Then I'll display and make up some horseshit about how it expresses my disgust with society and my world. And you know the modern art crowd would eat it right up.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-05-27 01:31am

KrauserKrauser wrote:One of these days I'm going to apply for a modern art grant for my old underwear collections. I think I'll call it The Great Brown Streak. Then I'll display and make up some horseshit about how it expresses my disgust with society and my world. And you know the modern art crowd would eat it right up.

Nah, they wouldn't because you don't have the half of the equation that matters. You aren't already famous. Modern artists tend to do the really weird shit after they become notorious.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-05-27 01:49am

Nathan F.'s Guide To Art

Art:

Art:

Not Art:

THE END

I think that explains my sentiments well enough.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-05-27 02:08am

kojikun wrote:art doesnt have to be about maknig a statement. infact, it has never been about making a statement, its about doing what you enjoy. picasso's work is, by most standards, utter shit, but its fun. and thats what counts: having fun. even if it looks silly, useless, and ugly.

Actually, art always makes a statement - the artist, whether he knows it or not, expresses his worldview in what he creates. For example, it's possible that Picasso's work was so chaotic-looking because Picasso viewed the world as confusing.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-05-27 02:26am

Modern art appears meaningless to me. Unlike real pictures drawn in earlier times modern art consists of strange shapes and colors.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-05-27 02:37am

evilcat4000 wrote:Modern art appears meaningless to me. Unlike real pictures drawn in earlier times modern art consists of strange shapes and colors.

Modern art is not necessarily meaningless just because it appears abstract and awkward.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-05-27 02:45am

Peregrin Toker wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:Modern art appears meaningless to me. Unlike real pictures drawn in earlier times modern art consists of strange shapes and colors.
Modern art is not necessarily meaningless just because it appears abstract and awkward.

It is very difficult to find the message from modern art. In contrast you could look at a 16 th century drawing and immedietly understand what the picture is about.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-27 02:52am

evilcat4000 wrote:It is very difficult to find the message from modern art. In contrast you could look at a 16 th century drawing and immedietly understand what the picture is about.

Do you want to look at something just because you "understand" it though? All my art is impressionist or later, I may not understand it but I find it more much aesthetically pleasing and more stimulating than renaissance stuff.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-27 03:04am

For example I currently have this

or atleast a crappy poster of it on my wall. I've no idea what the hell it's supposed to mean and it probably didn't take all that much skill to do but I find it fascinating and kind of beautiful (trust me it looks much better bigger and off the computer screen).

I can't stand Tracey Emin and would happily see all her stuff wiped from history but it’s a real shame that some of that other stuff has gone.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-05-27 05:14am

You can't say "That's not art" just because you don't like it or find it pleasing to the eye.
It always lies in the eye of the viewer.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-05-27 06:22am

Dahak wrote:You can't say "That's not art" just because you don't like it or find it pleasing to the eye.
It always lies in the eye of the viewer.

Aahh, but you can say it's very crude art, naively executed with no aesthetic value.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-05-27 06:22am

Dahak wrote:You can't say "That's not art" just because you don't like it or find it pleasing to the eye.
It always lies in the eye of the viewer.

This is true.

My mum had an artist living next door, a chap called Peter, and he would have small exhibition in his home. All these art snobs would come over and pontificate to each other over the meaning of his works, and Peter would listen to this and chuckle later that all of their interpretaions were bullshit

After all how would they know the meaning of this or that? Were they mind readers or did they gain their knowledge from a vergence in the force?

Anhaga · Post by **Anhaga** » 2004-05-27 06:44am

Stuart Mackey wrote: This is true.

My mum had an artist living next door, a chap called Peter, and he would have small exhibition in his home. All these art snobs would come over and pontificate to each other over the meaning of his works, and Peter would listen to this and chuckle later that all of their interpretaions were bullshit After all how would they know the meaning of this or that? Were they mind readers or did they gain their knowledge from a vergence in the force?

Well there's a literary concept known as the 'Death of the Author' which might apply here. It basically states that the authors (or in this case the artists) opinion of his or her own work is irrelevant to criticism as each individual critic is free to form their own interpretation of it, bringing his or her own experiences and values to the table.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-05-27 06:44am

I agree with Valdemar. i could do better than that in high school.

On the other hand this isn't too bad:

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-05-27 06:58am

Anhaga wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: This is true.

My mum had an artist living next door, a chap called Peter, and he would have small exhibition in his home. All these art snobs would come over and pontificate to each other over the meaning of his works, and Peter would listen to this and chuckle later that all of their interpretaions were bullshit After all how would they know the meaning of this or that? Were they mind readers or did they gain their knowledge from a vergence in the force?
Well there's a literary concept known as the 'Death of the Author' which might apply here. It basically states that the authors (or in this case the artists) opinion of his or her own work is irrelevant to criticism as each individual critic is free to form their own interpretation of it, bringing his or her own experiences and values to the table.

Sounds like a crock of shit designed to to excuse the uninformed rantings of literary snobs who pull shite out of their ass to sound important and wordly in front of their snobbish mates.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-05-27 07:18am

Frank Hipper wrote:
Dahak wrote:You can't say "That's not art" just because you don't like it or find it pleasing to the eye.
It always lies in the eye of the viewer.
Aahh, but you can say it's very crude art, naively executed with no aesthetic value.

With no value to you.
Someone else might find it to be a wonderful piece of art. Art, by definition, is purely subjective.

And when people start ranting about that "this is not art, it's shit, it should be forbidden" always smacks me as the way the Nazis tried to forbid "degenerate art".

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-27 07:25am

Dahak wrote:With no value to you.
Someone else might find it to be a wonderful piece of art. Art, by definition, is purely subjective.

And when people start ranting about that "this is not art, it's shit, it should be forbidden" always smacks me as the way the Nazis tried to forbid "degenerate art".

When all else fails, compare your opponents to the Nazis.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-05-27 07:38am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Dahak wrote:With no value to you.
Someone else might find it to be a wonderful piece of art. Art, by definition, is purely subjective.

And when people start ranting about that "this is not art, it's shit, it should be forbidden" always smacks me as the way the Nazis tried to forbid "degenerate art".
When all else fails, compare your opponents to the Nazis.

Which I didn't. No one said that we should shoot the artists and burn their works.

It just illustrates that one can't, and shouldn't, classify things as art, and others as non-art because one doesn't like it, understand it, or is against one's political view (ref. the incident in Sweden with the Israeli ambassador).

jenat-lai · Post by **jenat-lai** » 2004-05-27 07:42am

All of the above drawn/painted/created my my best friend Elli... most of which is better than most of the 'art' I'v seen as modern art.