Last week I went to the graves art gallery in sheffield library to see the exhibition by Kim Merrington. Now I consider myself to be a quite level headed reasonable sort of bloke but the stuff by Ms Merrington filled me with horror. As far as we can tell they are photos of junk that has been arranged for the camera but they have been put in light boxes so they are (obviously) lit up. Now I quite like modern art and I get what she is trying to do. These are like portraits of someone's life by having the things that represent them but they look fxxking awful. To me they look like the cheapest tackiest kebab menu lit up outside a run down shop.
I like Emin's bed and I like Damien Hirst's stuff but this looks so bad and unimpressive. Where is the art in taking a picture of junk?
Has modern art gone too far?
Can someone of you intelligent people go to the graves and tell me what you think!! I really would value your opinion and perhaps a fresh perspective. It made me feel ill. Oh and I think it is obvious what is my comment in the comments book. Its the 'borderline creepy' one.
Here is some of her other stuff in the same vein.

Cheers you lot :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

http://www.domobaal.com/shows/pleasure/pleasure.html

I guess the true test is-Does it sell?

well no it doesnt Pop - I don't think. But the gallery are giving her 80 billion squiddies to show her work. I may have exaggerated a bit.
Thats the thing about mod art is that if its shown it will provide income whether it sells or not. So your point is somewhat irrelevant - will some government official with taxpayers money take a shine to it would be a more appropiate question! I suspect there isnt much of a market for Tracy Emin's bed out side of the Saatchi gallery but shes prob a millionarie because of it!

Point taken, Mini!

Hi there

If there is no apparent talent, and it seems an exercise in lets see how ridiculous we can be, we can all call ourselves modern artists!

I think with modern art, its who is the most original, in other words, who was the first, that actually sells in this area,once done, the novelty wears away for me!

I remember seeing a monolith of salt bricks erected on one of our beaches, weighing in at several tons, it cost a fair bit for the salt.

Then the art began, the sea came in and washed it all away, the funny think is, this person got an art grant from the art council, which in turn turned out to be tax payers money!

I think a picture, either oils, charcoals of the peoples faces who was told that it was tax payers money, would have been more enthralling and entertaining!

I suppose at the end of the day. .. ..

Art is to be loved, not understood. ..

Regards


Mark. .

Originally posted by Howy
Hi there

If there is no apparent talent, and it seems an exercise in lets see how ridiculous we can be, we can all call ourselves modern artists!


Mark. .

I think that the prize for this has already been won. No-one can top Piero Manzoni who canned his own feces as a statement of art. The Tate Gallery bought a can for more than a hundred times the worth of its weight in gold.

I can't find the BBC News story, but here's CBC's story: http://www.cbc.ca/artsCanada/stories/canned_crap020702

What a horredous waste of taxpayer's money.

Re-ptigga

These conceptual artists have the cheek to call folk and local art 'Primitive'!

Hey Ptigga

Loved the story and the link, the words, paint a thousand pictures!

Bet that was lottery fund money!

Oh well, hope it explodes in their faces one day!

Regards

Mark ..

The company I work at has very talented artists (we make computer games). They work very hard, produce amazing visuals, and probably get paid less in a year than those famous modern artists make for a single piece of 'art'.

Before I got a job here I visited them occasionally, because I worked for their publisher.

At that time these talented guys had put used, empty food stained pizza boxes on the wall, as a sort of art gallery.

Underneath each box was a modern art type title like 'juxtaposition of Light and Dark' and 'The Last Supper'.

It sort of summed up the whole pretentious modern art thing to me.

I still smile when I think of it.

OK I admit I'm a scientist so my oppinion probably doesnt carry much weight but for me art should express some thought, feeling, idea or sense of beauty. These are just random collection of stuff and don't speak to me at all - the 'lightweight as a whipped meringue' seems very appropriate.

I can't get to the Graves to see this stuff because I don't live near Sheffield, and you're right, the images don't seem to have a huge amount of depth, so I wouldn't make a special journey.

BUT, I'm not sure why they're being attacked quite so vehemently here. They are fairly clearly NOT just random collections of stuff. They're telling little stories about someone's - a fictional character's - life, and it looks as if the items have been carefully chosen. I find them fairly charming actually - not life changing or immensely profound, but certainly interesting enough to look at for a little while.

'Fairly charming' might sound like a bit of a back-handed compliment, but I don't mean it that way. I do like them. If I was in Sheffield I'd definitely go and see them.

That's not to say that some art, particularly conceptual art, isn't just smoke and mirrors. Personally, I like something to look at with my concepts, not just an explanation of an idea. But frankly, I think these images do give plenty to look at and think about.

However, if there's one thing that's guaranteed to divide opinion then it's taste in art, so I'm not knocking anyone else's thoughts on this. Just explaining my own. :)

arse i say - yes indeedy

Nice story on Ananova:


A cleaner at the Tate gallery threw out a modern art exhibit because she thought it was rubbish.

She thought the piece, cardboard and paper and wrapped in a see-through binliner, was a sack of litter, reports The Sun.

She had no idea it was all part of an installation by German artist Gustav Metzgerand displayed on the floor at London's Tate Britain.

Metzger's work, First Public Demonstration Of Autodestructive Art, stood proudly in the gallery's Art And The Sixties display.

He has been offered compensation by gallery bosses, who refused to say what the exhibit was worth.

A Tate spokesman said: "The bag was accidentally removed and damaged but was subsequently replaced."

this has always been the case with art. artists want this kind of reaction when the display their work. for them no reaction is bad. By talking about your disgust for this artists work you are giving her the credit and publicity she wants. well done you!

Originally posted by willoughby79
this has always been the case with art. artists want this kind of reaction when the display their work. for them no reaction is bad. By talking about your disgust for this artists work you are giving her the credit and publicity she wants. well done you!

I can't say I have any disgust for this work - or any strong reaction - its bland "chocolate-boxy" stuff with no feeling - though as you say that probably worse than it actually being bad or offensive!