New Poll: What do you think about Modern Art?

[shane05]

The thing about 'modern' artist that bugs me so much is not so much the content but the general pretension that comes along with it. I met this guy once who went on and on justifying why he was painting ties. Dude, just admit you like painting ties! No one will think less of you. In class I read manifest after manifest of people overtalking their interests, it just gets to be too much.

[House of Usher]

Ah, the old Tracey Emin bed debate. I don't know what it's supposed to mean, but I've got my own interpretation. Is there ever any meaning inherent in the art? There's what the artist intends it to convey, and there's the meaning the viewer projects onto it. If I cared to know what Tracey Emin intended it to mean I could look it up on Google. But I'm not that interested.

My own particular reading of that one is that she's saying something about intimacy, privacy, and the public gaze. It's a theme that I have detected in other examples of her work, e.g. the tent embroidered with names. Her unmade bed is something construed as belonging to the private realm, same as the names of people she has slept with. By incorporating these things into her body of work she's putting aspects of her private life on public view. It's exhibitionism, but just because it's revelatory it doesn't necessarily have to be, and she's by no means the first to have made this kind of art.

And, yes, anyone could do it. In fact, anyone who appears on Tricia does it, as does anyone who sells their story to the newspaper along the lines of "I had sex with someone once", and, to a certain extent, so does anyone who reveals anything personal on an internet message board.

Wanting to acquaint strangers with the intimate details of our lives is symtomatic of late modernity; an Intimation of Postmodernity, if you will. I find it quite fascinating, but then it's my job to be interested in that sort of thing.


House of Usher
(Heading for Pseud's Corner)

[Wils]

To be pedantic, shouldn't the poll title be "What do you think about Post Modernist and Concept Art?" or at least de-capitalise 'Modern'?

The Modern Art movement *was* nearly 100 years ago. ;)

[shane05]

Look at the big brain on Wils!

[Dudley]

...as made reasonably clear in the "options" section of the poll (first 2 answers).

I'd hate to try to define postmodernist art, but I have left a category for people who dislike conceptual art specifically.


I went to see the Nauman (sp?) exhibit at Tate Modern a couple of days ago.  Highly recommended - you come out with this wierd sense of paying more attention to what you hear than what you see that persists for a long time thereafter.

[Tweak72]

i dont have a problem with modern art somuch as modern artist bunch whinning self important bussness maggots who over see the work and dont put that much of them selves into the work past telling their assistances what to do (possibly via email). twats!

[Mikey]

Yeah,it's not the art I necessarily dislike-it's the bullshit around it,if you don't like it you just don't "get" it type of attitude.I thought art,as JEB says,was about making you stop and look,promoting an immediate reaction.

Art should show you it's meaning IMHO,you shouldn't be guessing what the artist intended,it should lead you there.

Unmade bed?Bag of shite more like.
M.

[Tweak72]

thank GOD im not alone
cheers micky

[Oddboy]

Ah, the old "...but is it art?" debate...

I'd define art as this:

1 - Art with a Capital A) - something which has no purpose other then to look interesting. This is dependent on the artists intentions.
Also, if it is not interesting, then it is crap art. If it is interesting, then it is good art. NB.

2 - art, lower case) - any picture that has been drawn or painted (or, drawn/painted digitally in this new computerised world we live in). Including comics, advertisements, and the mad painty squiggles my 3yr old niece insists are dragons and lions.

Some things can be both art and Art (the Mona Lisa). Some things are just one or the other (That statue of David, or Tony the Tiger). Some things are neither (the M4).

[Conexus]

but your definition of art only encapsulates the visual (leaving alone writers and musicians)

Boo! Hiss! Boo!

[longmanshort]

"Art should show you it's meaning IMHO,you shouldn't be guessing what the artist intended,it should lead you there."

No offence mate, but can't you make up your own mind about it? Art, IMHO (and I'm guessing you'll see that abbreviation on this thread more than even a religious thread!) is that art should inspire, provoke and illicit emotions. To just be TOLD that something means something, doesn't mean that it DOES. We all make our minds up and the interpretation of a very 'explicit' piece can be wildly different depending on who you ask ...

[buserian]

I've always loved the (possibly untrue) tale of the Glasgow wifie looking at the pile of bricks. She turned to her mate and said "It's no as if they're even nice bricks."

Cheers,
Graham

[shane05]

'(leaving alone writers and musicians)'

They're their own catagories. Just putting words on a paper doesn't make one a 'writer', and beating a drum doesn't make one a 'musician'.

Same as putting paint on a canvas or putting some emotive work up doesn't make one an 'artist'.

[Oddboy]

but your definition of art only encapsulates the visual (leaving alone writers and musicians)


Absolutely. "art" (lowercase) *only* encapsulates the visual. Musicians produce "music" (lowercase).
It is quite possible for music to be "Art" (capital A).
Lyricists / poets can produce "Art" too, with "poems" and "lyrics".

[Mikey]

"but can't you make up your own mind about it?"

That's what I mean LMS,although I didn't say it too clearly-I was referring to the art-snob attitude that you can have a *wrong* interpretation of something.By leading you there I mean the piece inspires your own reaction,and if art expresses common human emotion,would you not end up at the artists view?

M.