Printable View
I go probably once a week to an exhibition opening, I live in Limerick, which is currently the European city of Culture, Eva international started this week, lots of good and lots of obscure crap stuff. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
Richard Mosse opened here a few weeks ago, awesome work! ^^
I've never been to a gallery, I've been to a museum once or twice and that's it. That's why I'm not voting in the poll.
Minimalist AbstractQuote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoBYeah, I did look that up, but just couldn't find a better term short of "Turnip Prize material". :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Madonna
The question on the thread is different to the question in the poll. I'm not going to vote that all Modern art is trash because 'Modern art' spans a long period of time and many artistic styles, and many modern artists are unbelievably talented. I have visited galleries of modern art on many occasions and I rarely find myself thinking the works there are making a mockery of art.
If by modern you don't mean 'Modern' but rather 'contemporary', I still disagree because there is obviously recently created art that requires talent and recently created art that is trash. This applies to all time periods. There has never been a time in history where all art created is fantastic because not all humans are artistically talented.
If by modern you don't mean 'Modern' but rather 'somebody painted a canvas red' like in the photo you've posted, I think it depends. In most cases these works don't seem to have a point, but I've seen a canvas that looks blank that actually had a face painted in texture so that it could only been seen from the right angle to represent how people facing mental illness can be invisible to most people and the message that spoke was incredible. I've also seen a canvas that was entirely one colour but was created using thousands and thousands of little dots, making a comment on the relationship between process and result. Sometimes the talent is not in the finished product, but in the ideas that were used to reach it.
I don't think anyone would argue that painting a canvas red for no reason and calling it art is a talent, but I definitely don't consider all, or even most, Modern art to be trash.
>>> The world of fine arts is nothing but hype these days, you just need to make a good name into the scene and your art will sell itself. It doesnt matter if you have talent or not.
Same goes for the world of music and fashion..:luca:
You make it sound so easy :PQuote:
Originally Posted by black orb
>>> Never said it was easy, make a name is probably not easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by EtcherSketcher
But the discussion here is about if they really have talent or not, if their art is really good or is just trash.. Common people like us who are not experienced art critics or anything can tell that is something wrong when you compare an orange canvas with two dots with a Vincent van Gogh painting..:luca:
It's art, but it sure is boring art. I wouldn't pay for it, for sure. I guess I prefer things that display a certain level of skill, not just someone's inner emotions ejaculated onto a canvas.
Maybe they have creativity, but I don't think they have a lot of talent, except a talent for making money on things that require little skill. That's actually a talent I wish I had, though.
Not to single you out but ITT people who complain about art being art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
Oh, I am fine with emotions being ejaculated onto a canvas, but it's not gonna impress me if it's not skillfully ejaculated :p
I like Modern Art, I think it is talent, definitely.
It annoys me when people dismiss modern art with the excuse 'but I could have done that!' - but you didn't.
Some modern art makes me angry and I think that's great - that's the point. Some of it is absolutely mindblowing though. I can't remember the name of the artist but I went to a wonderfully bizarre art show last year at the baltic and some of his pieces made me completely irate but some were just fantastic.
"I could have done that" because I have the skill required. "I didn't do it" because I don't have the creativity (or desire) to do it.
Sounds perfectly fine to me.
I guess it all depends on what you are looking for in a piece of art. I more often than not am looking to be impressed by a display of skill, combined with a decent portion of creativity.
From my extremely limited experience, I would say that most of what is considered contemporary art is an expression of creative talent over the typical artistic talent of more traditional art styles. And, in my opinion, creative talent is often trout.
What constitutes art and what big a part of it is talent is such a huge topic debated in academia to this day that I feel saying "I like it" or "it's dumb" in a forum is utterly pointless, as I doubt all of us have sufficient background to make a serious artistic debate here. I know I don't.
I find one of the greatest things about art is that you don't need to have any "sufficient background" whatsoever in order to offer a perfectly justified opinion. Art is there to be enjoyed and appreciated - you either enjoy/appreciate it or you don't. When it comes to art, everyone is a critic and no amount of education one critic might have in the field of art is suddenly going to make someone else feel all that differently.