Most ridiculous thing touted as "art"
- Thread starter OceanRunner
- Start date
Recommended Videos
'My bed', definitely. I can't believe she managed to sell that shit for 150 000 quid. I would struggle to get 100 quid for my bed, no matter how much symbolism I infused it with, just because I am not a famous artist.
That's the reality of it: It doesn't matter what the piece of art is. What matters is who made it and how famous they are. Kind of makes you wonder how people like Tracy Emin got that status in the first place... God forbid she actually made proper art at one point.
Edit: What bothers me about modern art is that it probably will go out of style in a while, and most of it won't be remembered in the future. At least I hope no one will make an effort to preserve 'My bed' in a museum for the future. Like Jeremy Clarkson once said: Real art, like real jeans, never goes out of style. You'll never hear anyone say 'That Mona Lisa; she's so yesterday'.
That's the reality of it: It doesn't matter what the piece of art is. What matters is who made it and how famous they are. Kind of makes you wonder how people like Tracy Emin got that status in the first place... God forbid she actually made proper art at one point.
Edit: What bothers me about modern art is that it probably will go out of style in a while, and most of it won't be remembered in the future. At least I hope no one will make an effort to preserve 'My bed' in a museum for the future. Like Jeremy Clarkson once said: Real art, like real jeans, never goes out of style. You'll never hear anyone say 'That Mona Lisa; she's so yesterday'.
------- That image depicts the journey through life, the gaps representing the difficult areas you must cross, and just as it came from nothing, it ultimately ends with nothing.
See you can make any picture seem intricate and important.[/sarcasm]
See you can make any picture seem intricate and important.[/sarcasm]
Same here, but what I see around my department really gets the goat as much of it is plagiarism or stencils. Sometimes both. Funny thing is you bring that shit up and not one prof is willing to back you. EVEN THE ONE YOU CUT STENCILS FOR WHILE YOU WERE HIS WORKSTUDY. Check out his shitty art here:heavy-metal-ink said:
http://williamcharlesharbortakabillychuck.blogspot.com/
The people who know art in the department call him the clip art queen. (He's not a homosexual)
If you see a car crashing in any of that work, I cut that goddamn stencil.
That one called Fountain that was a urinal turned upside down. Oh, but it had the artist's signature on it, so of course that means its art not, you know, vandalism
Modern "Art" has always been an odd subject for me. Some of the really abstract stuff can still be considered art because the artist put a lot of work into the work. And there a lot of artists who are famous now, but were considered untalented weirdoes during their time. Plus art has come to a point were it isn't just pretty, it can say all sorts of things about a wealth of subjects including art in general. I may not really "get" some of the more modern stuff, but I at least realize that its art that just isn't for me.
Some of the stuff where the artist just painted two colored boxes on a blank canvas... yeah I'm sorry but that ain't art. I don't care it has some "deeper meaning". If a 5 year old can replicate it in less than a minute, I'm not considering it art.
Some of the stuff where the artist just painted two colored boxes on a blank canvas... yeah I'm sorry but that ain't art. I don't care it has some "deeper meaning". If a 5 year old can replicate it in less than a minute, I'm not considering it art.
Having taken a semester of Western Art History (like that's saying much), I'm surprised at the things that historians chose to analyze as important artistic pieces. Like Pollock's Lavender Mist:
-lavender-mist.jpg)
Mondrian's Composition in Red, Blue, and Yellow: (made only using primary colors, black, white, and vertical and horizontal lines):
And Kandinsky's Improvisation series. This is #28:
Mondrian's Composition in Red, Blue, and Yellow: (made only using primary colors, black, white, and vertical and horizontal lines):
And Kandinsky's Improvisation series. This is #28:
And since you made me remember his name (I was talking about him the other night), I'm also going to put Canyon on this list. For those who have bothered to open anything in this post, yes, that is a taxidermied bird stuck to the front of the canvas.heavy-metal-ink said:
I don't believe that what constitutes "art" is subjective - our appreciation for art certainly is, but art itself is not. It boils down to the application of talent and effort to a given medium to create something new. People who say "anything is art" are missing the point - naturally occurring rock formations are not art; paintings made of those same naturally occurring rock formations are.
Cutting an animal in half and preserving it in plastic? Not a work of art - you've simply cut a bloody cow, that you did not make, in half. Sculpting half a cow? Art. Using a bed for a while and then labeling it a work of art and putting it up for auction? Crass marketing yes, art no. Creating a painting of that same unmade and frankly quite disgusting and mundane bed? ART!
Essentially, if all you've done is take household objects/bodily excretions/a bucket of paint, done nothing/put it on display/tossed it at a wall, and called the outcome "art", you're a charlatan and a liar, and the people who defend those "works of art" are pretentious jackasses. There is no deep meaning in a white square with a tiny black dot in the middle beyond "I'm a lazy and pretentious asshole who has cannily figured out a way to get famous and wealthy by producing 'art' that involved less effort than a two-year old's scribblings". If a monkey could replicate your "paintings", you haven't made one - whether or not the outcome is pleasant to look at, it still takes zero talent to throw paint on a canvas at random/cover yourself in paint and roll around for a while/etc.
Whether or not art is any good or not is where the subjective interpretation of artwork comes into play, but a room with a device that randomly flings red wax at the wall? If you are calling that a work of art, you are either the artist (and thus laughing your way to the bank) or insufferable. Suspending a crucifix in a mason jar of urine is not and can never be artwork in the same way that randomly re-arranging the furniture in my living room will not make the eventual outcome a work of art. Anyone who says differently probably went to art school.
Cutting an animal in half and preserving it in plastic? Not a work of art - you've simply cut a bloody cow, that you did not make, in half. Sculpting half a cow? Art. Using a bed for a while and then labeling it a work of art and putting it up for auction? Crass marketing yes, art no. Creating a painting of that same unmade and frankly quite disgusting and mundane bed? ART!
Essentially, if all you've done is take household objects/bodily excretions/a bucket of paint, done nothing/put it on display/tossed it at a wall, and called the outcome "art", you're a charlatan and a liar, and the people who defend those "works of art" are pretentious jackasses. There is no deep meaning in a white square with a tiny black dot in the middle beyond "I'm a lazy and pretentious asshole who has cannily figured out a way to get famous and wealthy by producing 'art' that involved less effort than a two-year old's scribblings". If a monkey could replicate your "paintings", you haven't made one - whether or not the outcome is pleasant to look at, it still takes zero talent to throw paint on a canvas at random/cover yourself in paint and roll around for a while/etc.
Whether or not art is any good or not is where the subjective interpretation of artwork comes into play, but a room with a device that randomly flings red wax at the wall? If you are calling that a work of art, you are either the artist (and thus laughing your way to the bank) or insufferable. Suspending a crucifix in a mason jar of urine is not and can never be artwork in the same way that randomly re-arranging the furniture in my living room will not make the eventual outcome a work of art. Anyone who says differently probably went to art school.
A cosmo, a moon, a rally flag, a prototype version of Guitar Hero's command line, an 8 Ball, a citrus slice, a flute, an abstract Eiffel Tower, vinyl records, a turntable, a Ritz cracker topped with pimento, a mast, a tick, and a pickaxe.IcyEvils said:
It's not exactly interpretation when all the elements you see don't fit together to form some sort of coherent meaning. It's more like those I Spy picture books that hide a bunch of random things together. If it's meant to be an evaluation of one's psyche, then it works, but it can be done more easily with a Rorschach test.
But if everything is art, then the word "art" is useless and redundant, cause it doesn't describe anything.Billion Backs said:
You might as well leave the word art out of everything, cause it doesn't describe anything about anything that differs from everything else.