Art

El Guapo! · 02-05-2012 09:53PM #1

Am I the only one who can't stand all this modern "art" shíte? It all looks like crap to me, and yet it sells for thousands and thousands of dollars in modern art museums.

This is art.

This is fúcking amazing art.

Meanwhile this..... is a sheep in a box. Seriously. A sheep in a fúcking box. Are you having a laugh?!?!

And it seems to be just enjoyed by hipsters and extraordinarily wealthy tossers who sit there staring at a canvas covered in scribbles, that if you did in art class in school they'd think you were retarded and send you to the special class. And they stroke their chins and say it's "an amazing piece that really speaks to you" or some shít like that.
I'm gonna take a shít in my shoe and give it a hippy name and sell it to some toffee-nosed wanker for a million quid.

So am I right, and it's all crap? Or am I just an un-cultured bollox?

FloatingVoter · 02-05-2012 09:58PM

Uncultured bollox alert. Its perfectly obvious the sheep has a bigger dick than the Italian dude. I have an M.A. in Fine Art and am champagne buddies with Damien Hirst.

Links234 · 02-05-2012 09:59PM

Dean09 wrote: »

This is fúcking amazing art.

Looks like an advert for johnnie walker

Superbus · 02-05-2012 10:00PM

I totally agree.

Art

Not art

Immaculate Pasta · 02-05-2012 10:00PM

You uncultured swine :cool:

stupidusername · 02-05-2012 10:01PM

Totally agree. but then no doubt people that don't see that tripe as art will be called uncultured, and crass etc etc...

That Damian Hurst guy has to be a real life troll

My name is URL · 02-05-2012 10:04PM

A sheep in a glass box is still better than contemporary performance arts like this shite -

May be NSFW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY

The King of Moo · 02-05-2012 10:04PM

The problem with art is that it's subjective. I personally find lots of high-profile modern art to be nonsense (though there is some good stuff out there), but it's hard to say that some works are objectively good or bad.

Because of that, pretty much anything goes nowadays as there aren't the rigid definitions of what counts as art that there used to be (and rightly so). Therefore art that shocks or artists who develop a reputation get all of the recognition.

Where To · 02-05-2012 10:06PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

The problem with art is that it's subjective. I personally find lots of high-profile modern art to be nonsense (though there is some good stuff out there), but it's hard to say that some works are objectively good or bad.

Because of that, pretty much anything goes nowadays as there aren't the rigid definitions of what counts as art that there used to be (and rightly so). Therefore art that shocks or artists who develop a reputation get all of the recognition.

Subjective as in sh1te?

The King of Moo · 02-05-2012 10:08PM

Where To wrote: »

Subjective as in sh1te?

Yes, if that's your opinion

.

Palytoxin · 02-05-2012 10:08PM

My name is URL wrote: »

A sheep in a glass box is still better than contemporary performance arts like this shite -

What the fúck is that shíte, and why doesn't the camera stay on yer one instead of the audience?

Guill · 02-05-2012 10:08PM

I too like things and stuffs:

Art - my Fav

GTFO

My name is URL · 02-05-2012 10:11PM

Palytoxin wrote: »

What the fúck is that shíte, and why doesn't the camera stay on yer one instead of the audience?

All I know is that there's a distinct lack of explosions.

Guill · 02-05-2012 10:11PM

Wow, at 4;00 things go NSFW in a very large way.

stupidusername · 02-05-2012 10:12PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

The problem with art is that it's subjective. I personally find lots of high-profile modern art to be nonsense (though there is some good stuff out there), but it's hard to say that some works are objectively good or bad.

Because of that, pretty much anything goes nowadays as there aren't the rigid definitions of what counts as art that there used to be (and rightly so). Therefore art that shocks or artists who develop a reputation get all of the recognition.

I kinda wouldn't mind all the modern ****e, if the artists actually gave some interpretation of it. or do they?

otherwise I'm gonna sit on my bed for three days and call it art. then shout GIMME MONEY at people.

Guill wrote: »

I too like things and stuffs:

Art - my Fav

GTFO

your first link there is broken.

Guill · 02-05-2012 10:12PM

Works for me...

Superbus · 02-05-2012 10:14PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

Yes, if that's your opinion .

There's such a thing as an unquestionably bad movie, an unquestionably bad piece of music, an unquestionably bad book (:pac:) - I don't know why art is always put on an intellectual pedestal whereupon a piece of art can't just be dreadful.

kfallon · 02-05-2012 10:14PM

stupidusername wrote: »

otherwise I'm gonna sit on my bed for three days and call it art. then shout GIMME MONEY at people.

I like it!

However you may then be known as a 'piss artist' rather than just an 'artist'

El Guapo! · 02-05-2012 10:17PM

My name is URL wrote: »

A sheep in a glass box is still better than contemporary performance arts like this shite -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY

That's probably my most hated video of all time. The first time I saw that video I instantly wanted to kill everybody in that room.

tSubh Dearg · 02-05-2012 10:18PM

Guill wrote: »

Works for me...

First link is broken for me too. Says internal server error.

SteoL · 02-05-2012 10:19PM

Dean09 wrote: »

Am I the only one who can't stand all this modern "art" shíte? It all looks like crap to me, and yet it sells for thousands and thousands of dollars in modern art museums.

This is art.

This is fúcking amazing art.

Meanwhile this..... is a sheep in a box. Seriously. A sheep in a fúcking box. Are you having a laugh?!?!

And it seems to be just enjoyed by hipsters and extraordinarily wealthy tossers who sit there staring at a canvas covered in scribbles, that if you did in art class in school they'd think you were retarded and send you to the special class. And they stroke their chins and say it's "an amazing piece that really speaks to you" or some shít like that.
I'm gonna take a shít in my shoe and give it a hippy name and sell it to some toffee-nosed wanker for a million quid.

So am I right, and it's all crap? Or am I just an un-cultured bollox?

That second pic of the cliffs is fucking deadly. Yeah I can be left scratching my head at some of the things that pass for art in recent years.

stupidusername · 02-05-2012 10:19PM

kfallon wrote: »

I like it!

However you may then be known as a 'piss artist' rather than just an 'artist'

hmmm

*adds empty bottle to list*

Palytoxin · 02-05-2012 10:19PM

Guill wrote: »

Wow, at 4;00 things go NSFW in a very large way.

I didn't watch it long enough the first time to see that, why is this shizz called art :eek:

FloatingVoter · 02-05-2012 10:20PM

Look.. art...

dogs-playing-poker.jpg

no disputing that.

bfocusd · 02-05-2012 10:21PM

most art is difficult to understand, but im sure historical pieces didn't go down so well back in the day, they would have been out of the box.

The main reason I love art is because it's every where, their is a very strong link between art and architecture, in particular buildings in the 1920s designed almost 100years before it became a trend, many buildings influenced by modernism.

Even though it's a sheep in a box, there will be aspects of that used in other forms of design, buildings, advertising, fashion, it's all linked only subtlety.

I still wouldn't buy the sheep in a box though..

El Guapo! · 02-05-2012 10:21PM

Guill wrote: »

Works for me...

Works fine for me too.

Chorcai · 02-05-2012 10:24PM

Dean09 wrote: »

Am I the only one who can't stand all this modern "art" shíte? It all looks like crap to me, and yet it sells for thousands and thousands of dollars in modern art museums.

What you're talking about is Contempory Art. Modern Art was from 1860s to the 1970's.

Some of the examples used so far isn't even Contempory but Post-modern Art.

Sky King · 02-05-2012 10:24PM

I find it funny how **** artists use the phrase 'but look it's working because it's stimulating debate / discussion' when people point out to them how **** they are as artists and as people.

It's not art. It's **** and the only debate here is the level of ****ness you have attained.

Most of these hacks have nothing to offer society.

My name is URL · 02-05-2012 10:26PM

Guill wrote: »

Wow, at 4;00 things go NSFW in a very large way.

You could be right.. it definitely wouldn't go down well if you worked in a baked beans packaging plant.. it flies in the face of every instructional video ever produced for the baked beans packaging industry.

krudler · 02-05-2012 10:27PM

Dean09 wrote: »

That's probably my most hated video of all time. The first time I saw that video I instantly wanted to kill everybody in that room.

same here, every pretentious hipster cunt in that room needs a shotgun blast to the face

The King of Moo · 02-05-2012 10:29PM

stupidusername wrote: »

I kinda wouldn't mind all the modern ****e, if the artists actually gave some interpretation of it. or do they?

your first link there is broken.

Not too often from what I can tell, and that's part of the problem.
People can have their own interpretations of art which can be different from what the artist and are perfectly legitimate, but I still prefer a work of art which had a clear artistic vision behind it, even if I see it differently from how the artist intended.

The problem is that I think some modern artists create art without any clear vision or intended meaning behind it, as they think "well, the meaning's all up to the audience anyway, so it doesn't really matter what I think," which leads to a lot of the nonsense produced in the modern art world.

Superbus wrote: »

There's such a thing as an unquestionably bad movie, an unquestionably bad piece of music, an unquestionably bad book (:pac:) - I don't know why art is always put on an intellectual pedestal whereupon a piece of art can't just be dreadful.

I personally agree that all those things are terrible in my opinion, but I can't agree that they're unquestionably bad.

I'd say they're generally regarded as being poor, but if someone liked them (and a lot of people liked The Da Vinci Code!), then for them they're good works of art.

I do agree that there isn't the same tendency to negatively criticise works of art in the painting/performance art/conceptual art world compared to criticism of other artforms like cinema/literature etc.
I don't think we need to start saying things are objectively bad or that they're not art, but it would help to have prominent voices saying "I think that's a load of bollocks! It's just a bed!" Maybe that doesn't seem to happen because it's more of a tight-knit scene, who knows?

Art

Comments