Modern art is crap (or piss): conclusive proof :)

[salm]

In literature as well as science you cannot get away with anything and everything. For instance, if I were to tear out a page from the phone book or some manual or other and sign it, I would not be able to pass it off as literature simply because I said it is literature before anyone else did.

why is this relevant? wer´re talking about modern art not science or literature. it´s a different field with different rules.

There is also the question of propriety: if I were to tear out a page from some manual or other and sign it, I could not claim that it were my own work at all, much less literature.

why not? of course you could.

Now let's look at the urinnal piece with regards to these points. Did the "artist" sculpt that urinal himself? No. Did it require any skill on his part at all? No. The idea that anything can be 100% inspiration and 0% prespiration and still worthy of respect is ridiculous.

why is that redicolous?

These points stand quite apart from the fact that the urinal piece was rubbish regardless.

no it´s not. it works. it gets people annoyed and therefor fulfills a nice and amusing purpous.

[Master of Ossus]

wrong. it´s not meant to be crappy. it´s meant to annoy people. it works very well, so it´s not crappy at all.

The only way it succeeds at annoying people is by being crappy. Concession accepted.

Whether or not the response it garners is impressive, it generates that response by being ridiculously stupid.

what do you mean "if no one sees it"? tons of people have seen this toilette. and tons of people get outraged even though they could simply ignore it.

Many more people would look at modern art if it was actually respectable. As it is, less than one tenth of one percent of people regularly attend an art museum, and many of those cite Modern Art's stupidity as a reason that they don't go. Concession accepted.

they make up problems where there actually are non. it´s hilarious.

Whether or not you find it funny, the fact of the matter is that the urinal has inspired no spin-offs and unreasonably claimed a tax deduction. The engineer who designed the piece should sue the artist, since it's out-and-out plagiarism.

if nobody was outraged at this toilette it wouldn´t work. it wouldn´t even be art.

Alright, how do you define art?

it would be a plain and boring pissoire signed by some dead guy. no one would give a shit.

And it still is. Only a tiny minority of the population gives a damn about modern art.

the fact that you people are getting annoyed makes it art. you are being exhibited. you are the main characters in this work. not that boring pissoire.

I get really pissed off when I watched the video of this guy smashing that woman's car. God damn, that video is higher art. The black guy featured in it must be a genius. Give him a federal subsidy! Give him an award!

Face it: if the only goal of modern art is to generate a reaction--ANY reaction, then it enjoys only moderate success because of its small following. There are much more mundane things that generate far stronger reactions, yet are not held up as standards of art.

[Master of Ossus]

why is this relevant? wer´re talking about modern art not science or literature. it´s a different field with different rules.

Ah, yes, modern art need not ascribe to any rules, nor can it possibly hold up against literature or any other field of art which is of infinitely higher quality.

There is also the question of propriety: if I were to tear out a page from some manual or other and sign it, I could not claim that it were my own work at all, much less literature.

why not? of course you could.

Uh, no. In any other field, it would be plagiarism and you would be sued for passing off the manual's writer's work as your own.

The idea that anything can be 100% inspiration and 0% prespiration and still worthy of respect is ridiculous.

why is that redicolous?

Have you ever read Swift's story of Laputia?

no it´s not. it works. it gets people annoyed and therefor fulfills a nice and amusing purpous.

So does the "Holdin' it Down" video, but you don't see anyone clammering to display that PT cruiser in an art museum.

[Peregrin Toker]

However, I will never say that something isn't art just because I don't find it visually appealing or because I don't agree with the ideals promoted by it.

I *will* say something isn't art when it's a public urinal turned on it's side and signed by some idiot.

Apparently, concepts such as "symbolism" and "metaphors" are completely lost on you.

Also, don't forget that "most influental" doesn't mean "best". It's very certain that Duchamp pioneered "installation art", though as surrealism his inverted urinal is a quite weak effort which I find rather uninspiring. If I want a celebration of the bizarre, I'd look at something by Dalí, Ernst or Tanguy.

Many more people would look at modern art if it was actually respectable. As it is, less than one tenth of one percent of people regularly attend an art museum, and many of those cite Modern Art's stupidity as a reason that they don't go. Concession accepted.

Well, modern art is more popular than you think - last time I checked, the movie Alien has quite a lot of fans, and it qualifies as modern art in my mind since the title character (as well as many of the sets) were designed by the neo-surrealist painter H. R. Giger.

If you can call modern art stupid and still like the design of the monster in Alien, you're a hypocrit, plain and simple, because the Xenomorph creature design is a piece of modern art.

[Peregrin Toker]

Many more people would look at modern art if it was actually respectable. As it is, less than one tenth of one percent of people regularly attend an art museum, and many of those cite Modern Art's stupidity as a reason that they don't go. Concession accepted.

Well, modern art is more popular than you think - last time I checked, the movie Alien has quite a lot of fans, and it qualifies as modern art in my mind since the title character (as well as many of the sets) were designed by the neo-surrealist painter H. R. Giger.

If you can call modern art stupid and still like the design of the monster in Alien, you're a hypocrit, plain and simple, because the Xenomorph creature design is a piece of modern art.

But who knows.... perhaps Master of Ossus doesn't like Alien nor the look of the monster.

[Master of Ossus]

Well, modern art is more popular than you think - last time I checked, the movie Alien has quite a lot of fans, and it qualifies as modern art in my mind since the title character (as well as many of the sets) were designed by the neo-surrealist painter H. R. Giger.

Ah, yes. All art done by a neo-surrealist must be neo-surreal.

If you can call modern art stupid and still like the design of the monster in Alien, you're a hypocrit, plain and simple, because the Xenomorph creature design is a piece of modern art.

1. Even if it is a piece of modern art, it shares few if any similarities with the plagiarism rampant in higher art circles.
2. If it is a piece of modern art, why isn't it exhibited along with other works of art in modern art museums? Don't make the excuse that it was a prop in a movie, since art museums can and have exhibited pieces designed for movies as works of art in and of themselves.

Even if the xenomorph is a work of modern art you surely wouldn't be able to tell by listening to art reviewers. But go on, continue to perpetuate the idea that anything a modern artist does must be a piece of modern art.

And, incidentally, since my criticism of modern art has centered around the fact that it is intentionally designed to be obscure, the xenomorph wouldn't qualify by my standards as modern art, anyway.

[Pcm979]

Apparently, concepts such as "symbolism" and "metaphors" are completely lost on you.

Whooo, I was waiting for this. "If you don't understand it then you're an art-blind cretin." *Checks box off*

[Peregrin Toker]

Apparently, concepts such as "symbolism" and "metaphors" are completely lost on you.

Whooo, I was waiting for this. "If you don't understand it then you're an art-blind cretin." *Checks box off*

According to your logic, Britney Spears is better music than Stravinsky or Wagner because it's more accessible.

2. If it is a piece of modern art, why isn't it exhibited along with other works of art in modern art museums? Don't make the excuse that it was a prop in a movie, since art museums can and have exhibited pieces designed for movies as works of art in and of themselves.

Actually, the Xenomorph was not designed from-scratch specifically for Alien, it was actually a refinement of a creature depicted in the Giger painting Necronomicon IV, which might have been in an art museum at some time.

And, incidentally, since my criticism of modern art has centered around the fact that it is intentionally designed to be obscure, the xenomorph wouldn't qualify by my standards as modern art, anyway.

You mean it is intended to be inaccessible or repulsive. If they wanted it to be as obscure as possible, they wouldn't even put it into museums but just exchange it amongst themselves. It's entirely possible for deliberately inaccessible art to be well-known and thusly not obscure.

[Pcm979]

Apparently, concepts such as "symbolism" and "metaphors" are completely lost on you.

Whooo, I was waiting for this. "If you don't understand it then you're an art-blind cretin." *Checks box off*

According to your logic, Britney Spears is better music than Stravinsky or Wagner because it's more accessible.

We're talking about art here, dumbarse.

[Peregrin Toker]

Whooo, I was waiting for this. "If you don't understand it then you're an art-blind cretin." *Checks box off*

According to your logic, Britney Spears is better music than Stravinsky or Wagner because it's more accessible.

We're talking about art here, dumbarse.

You appear to hold the opinion that art's quality is directly proportional to its accessibility. I demonstrated how fallacious the same way of thought was when applied to music, which also is an artform.

[Pcm979]

Noo, that's not my opinion at all. Ms. Spears' music and your beloved signed urinal™ are both inferior to anything that takes actual time and effort to make.

[Peregrin Toker]

Noo, that's not my opinion at all. Ms. Spears' music and your beloved signed urinal? are both inferior to anything that takes actual time and effort to make.

So, you wouldn't have any problem with Duchamp's "Fountain" if it was a painting of an inverted urinal?

[Pcm979]

Assuming it was a *good* painting it would qualify as art to me. Not good art, and definately not the best art evar!11!, but art.

[Iceberg]

Well, modern art is more popular than you think - last time I checked, the movie Alien has quite a lot of fans, and it qualifies as modern art in my mind since the title character (as well as many of the sets) were designed by the neo-surrealist painter H. R. Giger.

Ah, yes. All art done by a neo-surrealist must be neo-surreal.

The Xenomorph is an insect as re-imagined through the lens of a fever dream baked at 350 degrees for 20 minutes and served up as though it were a steaming hot pepperoni pizza. I'd call that neo-surrealist...