Modern Art Wanker
I've been saying for years Modern Art was a load of old toss, guess I was right all along.
(
Jeccius Steam Borderlands 2 junkie, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 19:23,
Reply)
Modern art is shit.
and anyone who says otherwise is a pretentious cock munching tit flap.
(
Kung_Fu_Russ ran out of amusing signatures on, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 19:29,
Reply)
“Excuse the pun, but it sounds like he’s taking the p***"
I am sorry, but unless that word is plaz or something - that guy has a messed up understanding of how you reproduce.
(, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 19:39, Reply)
Sexy white love piss?
Thats what my vicar calls it
(
Elvis of Nazareth This isn't a sig, it's a fucking liberty., Thu 10 Jan 2008, 19:59,
Reply)
ha wants....
...to create three drawings a week!
is that all?
(
Black Moon Not cracked, I'm all up to be., Thu 10 Jan 2008, 19:39,
Reply)
i guess he needs a bit of time for plenty of sperm to reproduce so he can then splurt it out into pretty patterns
or something like that
(
Lord_Munkee, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 19:53,
Reply)
"Judge them out of hand"
Pfffft!
(
KersaI Missive Free Michael Shields! with Monday's Liverpool Echo, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 19:54,
Reply)
I've always thought that art was something that is generally pleasing to the eye
Like a nice painting, or a sculpture or something.
Call me old fashioned
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 20:07,
Reply)
To me Art is something that
communicates a concept, and it can be a abstract concept, by a medium that has a certain higher level of composition to usual.
So a good political speech can be considered art, just like a poem. As a good political speech will often make use of rhythm etc. Further expression of what can come naturally; humming for example, is pretty much natural, making a work of art of music involves calculated composition of, well, humming.
Also, Art is whatever has that special... something; which I suppose is the success in composition, but hard to quantify.
If an artist makes something and then has to tell you what it represents then s/he has pretty much failed. The idea of art is to express to the person experiencing the art, not for the person making it. Modern art such as this wank is, in my opinion, doodling. I doodle on a sheet of paper, and hell, sometimes that can actually represent my thoughts at the time to someone who sees it (zigzags show chaotic thoughts, etc.), but it's pretty much still a doodle. Coating a skull in diamonds is just a very expensive doodle.
(, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 20:48, Reply)
Hmmm
I think it's now fairly acceptable to say that art isn't limited to things that are aesthetically pleasing. Art can be ugly and still be worthwhile if, for example, it has a political or social message (a genuine one, not a tenuous one) or if it evokes certain feelings in the person observing it.
But as a defender of 'modern art', this kind of thing depresses me. It has no worth, no artistic intent, no message, no aesthetic value and is shock for the sake of shock. It's horrible. If artists want modern art to be taken seriously, this kind of rubbish has to stop.
Having said that, if this IS art, I'd paint more often.
(, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 20:58, Reply)
Agreed!
I like a lot of modern art. I just think a lot of the time the message is lost. Take Shibboleth in the Tate Modern currently; it just doesn't click with everyone, so close, yet just not quite there.
Also, the message doesn't necessarily need to be an opinion or story or anything, it can just be portrayal of a 'feeling'. So for example Louise Bourgeois's sculptures, such as circular rooms, and cages with chairs in... and the big eff-off spider! (That's so friggin' cool... though it is bordering on doodle, I dare say, but a cool doodle none the less.)
Though when she went menopausal, oh god, did it show in her work. "Looky! I maded a penis out of marble!"
(, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 22:19, Reply)
True
Modern Art is a tricky subject because it attracts such vitriol from traditionalists. The knee jerk reaction from advocates of modern art is to claim that traditionalists are standing in the way of progress and that modern art does have value and worth (emotional, political etc.).
I think the people that make this point have a good argument, but it's hard to maintain it when artists are wanking on paper and selling it.
It is upsetting how quick people are to put down modern art though.
(, Thu 10 Jan 2008, 23:54, Reply)