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

[Stofsk]

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.

'Death of the Author' is supposed to refer to a work who's author is DEAD and who's opinions on said work is UNKNOWN. Hence, 'Death of the Author' - you can't know what was going through the author's mind when he wrote something, and if he didn't leave any commentary it would be somewhat impossible to determine what he thinks. This is where literary criticism takes over, in an effort to try to find meaning in a work. Just because some critics are morons and so on doesn't actually mean the concept is flawed.

Incidentally, your rant against literary critics is amusing. I hate them too, by the way - but that's mainly because I read books for the enjoyment of them, not for any 'deep and meaningful' realisation.

[Stuart Mackey]

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.

'Death of the Author' is supposed to refer to a work who's author is DEAD and who's opinions on said work is UNKNOWN. Hence, 'Death of the Author' - you can't know what was going through the author's mind when he wrote something, and if he didn't leave any commentary it would be somewhat impossible to determine what he thinks. This is where literary criticism takes over, in an effort to try to find meaning in a work. Just because some critics are morons and so on doesn't actually mean the concept is flawed.

I think the context used further up was in relation to the living rather than the dead. With respect to a ded author or artist, you are of course correct.

Incidentally, your rant against literary critics is amusing. I hate them too, by the way - but that's mainly because I read books for the enjoyment of them, not for any 'deep and meaningful' realisation.

Well I too read for enjoyment or knowledge, critics are just published opinions and no better than anyone elses.

[LordShaithis]

I have an artistically-inclined friend who's deeply and personally offended by this sort of "non-art" to the point of delivering a loud and expletive-laden rant in the middle of the modern art section of the Detroit Institute of Arts. She's been a bit down lately, so I sent her this article, figuring it would cheer her up.

[Anhaga]

'Death of the Author' is supposed to refer to a work who's author is DEAD and who's opinions on said work is UNKNOWN. Hence, 'Death of the Author' - you can't know what was going through the author's mind when he wrote something, and if he didn't leave any commentary it would be somewhat impossible to determine what he thinks. This is where literary criticism takes over, in an effort to try to find meaning in a work. Just because some critics are morons and so on doesn't actually mean the concept is flawed.

You're right- I just realised that I used the concept in the wrong context.

[Tribun]

Concerning this modern "art", there is a good german saying:

"Moderne Kunst...verhunzt."

[Glocksman]

Emin anger over public 'sniggers'

Tracey Emin has condemned people who "sniggered" at contemporary art and laughed when pieces of her work were destroyed by a fire in a warehouse.

I've been condemned. Oh noes!

"The majority of the British public have no regard or no respect to what me and my peers do, to the point that they laugh at a disaster like a fire.

"We really don't need to laugh at the culture in our own country," she said.

Expand your horizons a bit, honey.
It's not just the British public that has no respect for most of what's called 'modern art'.

[Alyeska]

Interesting tidbit. The same claims made against modern art have often been made against the "classic" art back when it was considered modern.

[Master of Ossus]

Let's take a look at some definitions of the word "art" from Dictionary.com to see if modern art qualifies as "art."

1.Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

Not really. Not only does there appear to be little actual effort involved, but no attempts are made to imitate, supplement, or alter the work of nature. I'm honestly not too sure what "counteracting" nature involves, given that "alter" is a separate category, but I can't suggest that modern art effectively counteracts nature. To do so (again, using the dictionary.com definition), it would have to "oppose and mitigate the effects [of nature] by contrary action." Can ANYONE seriously suggest that modern art plays that role?

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

Seeing as how the vast majority of people think that modern art looks horrible, and is a piece of shit, then this definition does not fit. I have also heard many "artists" saying that they have no regard for beauty when making their works, and I hardly think anyone can look at the works that were burned and term many of them "beautiful."

The study of these activities.

I see no evidence of studying go on.

The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

Those are not what I would term "works of beauty."

High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

Not only are none of those works "high quality," but I also think that they're poorly conceived, and many of them have NO aesthetic value.

A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.

Since "modern art" has already been shown not to be a category of art in the first place, this definition is irrelevant.

A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

While these works are nonscientific, I have trouble defining them as being a "branch of learning." Moreover, this is not really a valid way of defining works of art.

All of the other definitions deal with "art" as a trade (ie. "The Blacksmith's art"), and are similarly irrelevant.

Thus, it is clear that "modern art," is in fact a misnomer. It isn't even art at all. I suggest that we use another term, "post-modernist shit," to describe their work.

[Andrew J.]

Thus, it is clear that "modern art," is in fact a misnomer. It isn't even art at all. I suggest that we use another term, "post-modernist shit," to describe their work.

I can't stand it when anything is called post-modern, or anything like it. Unless you've got a time machine, you can't be post-modern.

[Tsyroc]

I don't really have much of a problem with people calling just about anything art. I do however reserve the right to laugh my ass off at some of the ridiculously priced pieces of art that just about anyone could do.

For instance, anyone got one of Jackson Pollack's "drop cloth" looking paintings?

[Gil Hamilton]

I see no evidence of studying go on.

A "study" means something different in art vocabulary. A study is a preliminary outline or an experimental impression of characteristics and features of a subject. For instance, in a life drawing class, a teacher may ask for a "sixty second study" of a model, which means that we are to quickly hit the major details of the figure, such as the line of the spine, the location of major joints, the angle of the head, et cetera. A bit of modern art could be called a "study" depending on the piece and how flexible (ie how willing they are to close one eye and pretend they get it) the viewer is..

[Gil Hamilton]

Anyway, a better definition of art, which is the one we received in both Art Appreciation and Aesthetics classes is "Art is a production designed to evoke a specific emotion or reaction in someone".

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Anyway, a better definition of art, which is the one we received in both Art Appreciation and Aesthetics classes is "Art is a production designed to evoke a specific emotion or reaction in someone".

If that reaction is "what complete shit this is," then I think most modern art is quite successful.

[Plekhanov]

If that reaction is "what complete shit this is," then I think most modern art is quite successful.

Most people I know have a similar reaction to SciFi, just because you don’t get it (as most people don’t get SciFi) and just because most of it is worthless shit (like most SciFi & in fact most of every genre) doesn’t stop some “modern art” from being really worthwhile, stimulating and on occasion beautiful.

[Saurencaerthai]

Anyway, a better definition of art, which is the one we received in both Art Appreciation and Aesthetics classes is "Art is a production designed to evoke a specific emotion or reaction in someone".

Much closer to the point. Another view which plays off of this is that the actual art occurs between the work (or artist) and the audience.

The fault with the dictionary definition given earlier I find is it's attributation to beauty. Art can easily be nasty. Take Goya's execution scenes, for one. Or Charles Ives, or George Antheil, who created music that to many, can be diffacult to listen to.
I would say that one function of art is to convey truth and stimulate thought. Another facet would be that art is metaphor.

Now, on the issue of "Modern Art", the question arises: "Is it GOOD art?" That is up to the audience. There is good modern art, however, there also is poor modern art.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Nathan F.'s Guide To Art

What is your definition of Art?


This is mine. Compare. You might not agree that post modern art is art, but it is just as much art as anything else. Beauty is relative, and all is some way representitive of or counter to nature: Abstract or Naturalistic or Realistic. (simplified vastly) They are also produced by some convention or standard utilized consciously.

I am not saying you have to like it, but I don't agree it isn't art. It may not be appealing though to particular people. I like Dadaism.

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.


1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.



1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.


1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation



This is also the true definition/meaning of art.

[Gil Hamilton]

Much closer to the point. Another view which plays off of this is that the actual art occurs between the work (or artist) and the audience.

The fault with the dictionary definition given earlier I find is it's attributation to beauty. Art can easily be nasty. Take Goya's execution scenes, for one. Or Charles Ives, or George Antheil, who created music that to many, can be diffacult to listen to.
I would say that one function of art is to convey truth and stimulate thought. Another facet would be that art is metaphor.

Now, on the issue of "Modern Art", the question arises: "Is it GOOD art?" That is up to the audience. There is good modern art, however, there also is poor modern art.

This is true. Much of Goya's work during and after he went horribly insane documenting Napolean's invasion of Spain wouldn't be considered art under MoO's definition of art.

[PrinceofLowLight]

Sure it's art. You can call anything you want art.

Rather than arguing over a legalistic definition of art, maybe it might be more productive excercise to ponder this:
What makes most of the random shit you see in a Modern Art gallery from me wrapping my remote control in dirty socks and calling it art?

[Mayabird]

Sure it's art. You can call anything you want art.

Rather than arguing over a legalistic definition of art, maybe it might be more productive excercise to ponder this:
What makes most of the random shit you see in a Modern Art gallery from me wrapping my remote control in dirty socks and calling it art?

I think you left out the word "different" in there. But yes, that's a good way to put it.

The way I see it, the difference between good art in general and most modern art is that some actual effort, skill, and work goes into what I consider good art (including the stuff that I'm not really interested in) but to make some shitty modern art, it takes more time to type what silly symbolism it's supposed to have than to throw the thing together and make up a meaning for it. It never seems like they gave a damn about the actual art as much as their nonsense about what it's all supposed to mean. And then, even worse, they demand to be recognized as great. I'll make that decision for myself, thank you very much, and being a pretencious blowhard tends to not help your chances.

That being said, there are some things that could be considered "modern art" that I like (I have one in my room right now) but they are definately part of the good category where some work went into it. The artist actually gave a damn about making something nice (though weird, but a good weird that comes from being an imaginative odd fellow and not just shock value weird).

[Jadeite]

One piece was a tent emblazoned with names called "Everyone I have ever slept with 1963-95" which first brought her to public attention.

"I had the inclination and inspiration 10 years ago to make that, I don't have that inspiration and inclination now," she said.

What bullshit.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't really like abstract stuff or post-modern art, but it really isn't my business to deny it. Someone likes it, someone makes it, and it means something to them. You might not agree. Oh well. It really isn't that important to get worked up over to me. I just am sad anything that represents a time is destroyed. It's still a loss.


Even if I think it's shitty, I think it has time-value.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Seeing as how the vast majority of people think that modern art looks horrible, and is a piece of shit, then this definition does not fit. I have also heard many "artists" saying that they have no regard for beauty when making their works, and I hardly think anyone can look at the works that were burned and term many of them "beautiful."

The majority isn't always right. Just because many believe it, does not make it so. The definition fits despite what a majority believe, becaues even if a minority believes it, art is subjective in taste. Quality is determined not just by taste, but by technique, rules, and emotional value. As I said before, beauty is subjective. What Person A thinks is beutiful isn't necessarily what person B thinks is beautiful. You are not wrong, and I am not right. There is no answer to what constitutes beauty.

But I agree to your point about thems saying they did not go for beauty. I read about that too with some art forms.

I'm honestly not too sure what "counteracting" nature involves

Counteracting nature is doing just the opposite. You are most definitly trying not to be naturalistic. It is probably abstract. I do not know, but I can guess. It probably would be more emotional and less realistic/from nature. IF they intentionally digress from natural styles and themes maybe? I will have to ask someone. I have seen post-modern art that does incorporate nature in the forms of people and their activities. They are taking teh basic husk of society and representing it.

Those are not what I would term "works of beauty."

Some I don't think is nice either, but I am not an art guru, so I probably wouldn't know beauty in art. I really can't appreciate technique, intention, or other elements of Art; I just liked the historical elements of it.

Not only are none of those works "high quality," but I also think that they're poorly conceived, and many of them have NO aesthetic value.

High quality based on whos scale? You are correct when you use the terms "think." It is not wrong, it's just your opinion and you have every right to it. Obviously you don't have to buy art you don't like. That would be massochistic.

There is usually a lot that goes into art that is beyond brief visuals. I can rarely see it, even in ancient art. But many times ancient art is not asthetic either, just liek modern art. It still follows some convention, form, style, and manipulation of nature/counter nature.


Take Dadaism for example. It is an art form, but it is also defined as the "anti-art." It developed for very real and important reasons as an outlet for early 20th century problems and depression due to war and poverty.

Since "modern art" has already been shown not to be a category of art in the first place, this definition is irrelevant.

Where has this been proven, since Modern Art exhibits elements of art discussed in art curriculae?

Colour, form, meaning, subject, socio-historical contexts, beauty (subjective). You could probably spend hours just analysing linear techniques.

[Plekhanov]

One piece was a tent emblazoned with names called "Everyone I have ever slept with 1963-95" which first brought her to public attention.

"I had the inclination and inspiration 10 years ago to make that, I don't have that inspiration and inclination now," she said.

What bullshit.

Tracy Emin's work is all self obsessed attempts to shock I suggest you treat her with the contempt she deserves by ignoring her and until she goes away. She feeds off outraged statements of distain, the best way to piss her and her peers off is simply to ignore them, nothing will upset them off more than that.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

If that reaction is "what complete shit this is," then I think most modern art is quite successful.

Most people I know have a similar reaction to SciFi, just because you don’t get it (as most people don’t get SciFi) and just because most of it is worthless shit (like most SciFi & in fact most of every genre) doesn’t stop some “modern art” from being really worthwhile, stimulating and on occasion beautiful.

Yes, there is good modern art. But the majority of exhibits I was exposed to when attempting an art minor (one of the reasons it took me so long to graduate) was just complete crap. 100 tortillas nailed to a wall. A 3 foot cube of chocolate. A signed tent. The list goes on.

I have to admit that much of my harshness is bitterness. I've known some great artists. People with real talent. And they were shat upon by their peers in the art community.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

One piece was a tent emblazoned with names called "Everyone I have ever slept with 1963-95" which first brought her to public attention.

"I had the inclination and inspiration 10 years ago to make that, I don't have that inspiration and inclination now," she said.

What bullshit.

Holy shit, that's the tent I'm talking about!!!

Seriously, in art class I was this close to writing down my class schedule on a toaster and turning it in... but I didn't have the guts. I ended up making sculptures and spending weeks on my projects, just to get really steamed whe some dipshit with that morning's paper and a roll of tape got the same grade. (and no, they didn't fold the paper or anything that requires any work.)