llamatron Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Was going to start a new thread (after going off on a tangent when arguing about page 3 girls) but this will do! This angered me: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/877093-blank-canvas-set-to-fetch-60-000-at-auction :rant:now that is not art! It isn't thought provoking! Its a pretentious joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoPro Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Was going to start a new thread (after going off on a tangent when arguing about page 3 girls) but this will do! This angered me: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/877093-blank-canvas-set-to-fetch-60-000-at-auction :rant:now that is not art! It isn't thought provoking! Its a pretentious joke! Whatever it is, this Metro website don't know what they are talking about. Why does the headline say "Blank Banksy canvas..." when the body of the article names Bob Law (died 2004) as the "artist"? Apart from that, it's from 1969. They've had 42 years to get upset. Why now all of a sudden? What was it sold for last time -20, 40.000? It's a well known piece and didn't just suddenly appear out of the blue with that price tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDeville Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Good morning and hello to all here Art is defined in the eyes of the beholder. Importantly, item on display is given more credibility as 'art,' when some fools pay to see and even worse, pay good money to have it in their home. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I suppose that just goes to prove that you should never trust a critic - after all most art critics are failed, talentless artists! No they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Does modern art need renaming? There was a time a few years ago when Damina Hurst could at least semi-legitimately chainsaw a sheep in half and preserve it in formaldehyde and call it art. It may not have fallen into many people idea of aesthetically pleasing but it was genuinely challenging and different. Now mod art is at best staid and repetative and at best utter dross (sorry but if I want to see a pile of bricks I'll go to Wickes and if I can see an unmade bed every morning) - is there anything out there truly either modern or art? And yes there is, but modern art is not what you are referring to - I think you are talking about conceptual art, postmodernism, and the recent (in art terms) fad for the kitsch, retro, and all things self-referential. Brit art (At least get the names right! It's Damien Hirst) had it's stars, it's winners and losers, and a lot of it went up in smoke. But it was all pretty conceptual. Modern Art refers particularly to stuff between the start of WWI and about the time when you & I were born (I think we're about the same age, but I'm talking about the very late 60s/early 70s). The nice thing about art, though, is that you don't have to like it, or know anything about it if you don't want to. Like what you like, don't like what you don't like. I'm not mad for pop-art, but look how it influenced the world. And abstract expressionism too. Surrealism has become part of conventional reality, banal even, but the man on the clapham omnibus at the time thought the surrealists were clinically insane. The impressionists were so named as a term of abuse. It's only art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 This angered me Why anger? If someone is willing to pay a lot of money for something you consider awful I don't see why it would make you angry. I quite like it, the idea of it. I wouldn't buy it, or put it in my house if it was even given to me, but if someone wants to call it art then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 pretentious nonsense, the lot of it imo. Also, yes it is telling (and hilarious) that art critics cannot tell intentionally made art from the accidental work of young children and/or animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Can anyone here name an art critic, without looking it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 It's not always abotu the finnished piece, it's the thought process behind it and why they have decided to make that piece. you can say you could recreate some toss modern art? Brilliant, but why don't you come up with some that no one has done before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Can anyone here name an art critic, without looking it up? I can't, what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.