Does modern art need renaming? There was a time a few years ago when Damina Hurst could at least semi-legitimately chainsaw a sheep in half and preserve it in formaldehyde and call it art. It may not have fallen into many people idea of aesthetically pleasing but it was genuinely challenging and different. Now mod art is at best staid and repetative and at best utter dross (sorry but if I want to see a pile of bricks I'll go to Wickes and if I can see an unmade bed every morning) - is there anything out there truly either modern or art?

Art is currently defined as something that provokes thought and discussion, so your drawing attention to it validates it!

I just love it when 'professional art critics' are hoodwinked and made to look like the fools that they are.
Who remembers the pic done by an elephant weilding a paint brush or the chimp for that matter and the critics wwent overboard about the resulting canvas.
If it makes you think, fine but I don't then want to hear that it's been bought by the Tate modern for thousands of pounds, I can't remember how much the crumpled piece of A4 paper was bought for but if they want another I'm sure my printer could oblige.

Originally posted by Strix
Art is currently defined as something that provokes thought and discussion, so your drawing attention to it validates it!

But no single work of "art" has been mentioned so none has provoked thought or discussion - rather the lack of anything that provokes thought and discussion in a field of endevour that claims to do so is the root cause of this thread - does that mean all the repetative and derivative dross that passes for art these days is immediately invalid?

Originally posted by WALLBUILDER
I just love it when 'professional art critics' are hoodwinked and made to look like the fools that they are.
Who remembers the pic done by an elephant weilding a paint brush or the chimp for that matter and the critics wwent overboard about the resulting canvas.
If it makes you think, fine but I don't then want to hear that it's been bought by the Tate modern for thousands of pounds, I can't remember how much the crumpled piece of A4 paper was bought for but if they want another I'm sure my printer could oblige.

I suppose that just goes to prove that you should never trust a critic - after all most art critics are failed, talentless artists!

Originally posted by WALLBUILDER
I can't remember how much the crumpled piece of A4 paper was bought for but if they want another I'm sure my printer could oblige. Looks like you're onto a money spinner there WB! An art machine!

Originally posted by Strix
Looks like you're onto a money spinner there WB! An art machine!

That's not what I call it!!!

Tate modern is full of it. Some pieces you like, others you don't. But the place is huge and has rotation of displays throughout the year.
I have never been and not seen at least a couple of works that I have liked (but couldn't afford obviously!).

I suspect this is another media creation as they only pick on up the "piles of bricks", "unmade bed" things and alass the good work doesn't get the attention it deserves.

Originally posted by Strix
Looks like you're onto a money spinner there WB! An art machine!

Quick! Copyright it!!!

Originally posted by kilauea
I suspect this is another media creation as they only pick on up the "piles of bricks", "unmade bed" things and alass the good work doesn't get the attention it deserves.

Very true but it doesn't help when they seem to change hands for huge amounts. One of my favorite displays I saw at Weston Park were a load of pipes, three or four bits joined together to make a funny shape, they're were dozens of these little things then in the middle of them was the same shape but made out of huge sections of pipe. As you loked at these things you got the curious feeling you were lookingat a mother thing and all her little baby things, very weird and very thought provoking.

Was going to start a new thread (after going off on a tangent when arguing about page 3 girls) but this will do! This angered me:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/877093-blank-canvas-set-to-fetch-60-000-at-auction

:rant:now that is not art! It isn't thought provoking! Its a pretentious joke!

Was going to start a new thread (after going off on a tangent when arguing about page 3 girls) but this will do! This angered me:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/877093-blank-canvas-set-to-fetch-60-000-at-auction

:rant:now that is not art! It isn't thought provoking! Its a pretentious joke!

Whatever it is, this Metro website don't know what they are talking about.
Why does the headline say "Blank Banksy canvas..." when the body of the article names Bob Law (died 2004) as the "artist"?

Apart from that, it's from 1969. They've had 42 years to get upset. Why now all of a sudden? What was it sold for last time -20, 40.000? It's a well known piece and didn't just suddenly appear out of the blue with that price tag.

Good morning and hello to all here

Art is defined in the eyes of the beholder. Importantly, item on display is given more credibility as 'art,' when some fools pay to see and even worse, pay good money to have it in their home.

Thanks

I suppose that just goes to prove that you should never trust a critic - after all most art critics are failed, talentless artists!

No they're not.

Does modern art need renaming? There was a time a few years ago when Damina Hurst could at least semi-legitimately chainsaw a sheep in half and preserve it in formaldehyde and call it art. It may not have fallen into many people idea of aesthetically pleasing but it was genuinely challenging and different. Now mod art is at best staid and repetative and at best utter dross (sorry but if I want to see a pile of bricks I'll go to Wickes and if I can see an unmade bed every morning) - is there anything out there truly either modern or art?

And yes there is, but modern art is not what you are referring to - I think you are talking about conceptual art, postmodernism, and the recent (in art terms) fad for the kitsch, retro, and all things self-referential. Brit art (At least get the names right! It's Damien Hirst) had it's stars, it's winners and losers, and a lot of it went up in smoke. But it was all pretty conceptual.

Modern Art refers particularly to stuff between the start of WWI and about the time when you & I were born (I think we're about the same age, but I'm talking about the very late 60s/early 70s).

The nice thing about art, though, is that you don't have to like it, or know anything about it if you don't want to. Like what you like, don't like what you don't like.

I'm not mad for pop-art, but look how it influenced the world. And abstract expressionism too. Surrealism has become part of conventional reality, banal even, but the man on the clapham omnibus at the time thought the surrealists were clinically insane.

The impressionists were so named as a term of abuse.

It's only art.

This angered me
Why anger? If someone is willing to pay a lot of money for something you consider awful I don't see why it would make you angry.

I quite like it, the idea of it. I wouldn't buy it, or put it in my house if it was even given to me, but if someone wants to call it art then so be it.

pretentious nonsense, the lot of it imo.

Also, yes it is telling (and hilarious) that art critics cannot tell intentionally made art from the accidental work of young children and/or animals.

Can anyone here name an art critic, without looking it up?

It's not always abotu the finnished piece, it's the thought process behind it and why they have decided to make that piece. you can say you could recreate some toss modern art? Brilliant, but why don't you come up with some that no one has done before?

Can anyone here name an art critic, without looking it up?

I can't, what's your point?

I can't, what's your point?

My point is, people are talking about art critics like they exist, yet can't name one, especially one that has been "fooled" in some kind of "sting" operation to see if they can distinguish between the Mona Lisa and and a copy of it made by an infant orang-utan.

The aroma of inverted snobbery is blending with urban mythology, and it smells like poop to me.

My point is, people are talking about art critics like they exist, yet can't name oneSo what? I can't name any homeopaths, that doesn't magically validate their profession either.

especially one that has been "fooled" in some kind of "sting" operationSorry to break this to you, but it has been done, multiple times to various different art critics and artists over the past century or so. Google is your friend, or do you really want me to go dig up a few examples for you? If it's any consolation critics can also apparently be fooled by intentionally bad poetry.

edit: also who are you quoting with the "fooled" and "sting" parts? That had me kind of confused.

Why anger? If someone is willing to pay a lot of money for something you consider awful I don't see why it would make you angry.

I quite like it, the idea of it. I wouldn't buy it, or put it in my house if it was even given to me, but if someone wants to call it art then so be it.

I am angered that people accept that it is art and that people are stupid enough to pay that money for such pretentious rubbish.

Is that ok?

Can anyone here name an art critic, without looking it up?

:hihi:

Is all.

Was going to start a new thread (after going off on a tangent when arguing about page 3 girls) but this will do! This angered me:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/877093-blank-canvas-set-to-fetch-60-000-at-auction

:rant:now that is not art! It isn't thought provoking! Its a pretentious joke!

And on topic, of course it's thought-provoking. It has provoked you to the thought that it's a pretentious joke.

In your head you have a set of criteria that, for you, constitutes art, and this piece doesn't match it. To reach that conclusion, you have thought about this work and decided that it doesn't meet your criteria. No?

And - further food for thought - why can't pretentious jokes be art? Some of the best art is, intentionally, both...

And on topic, of course it's thought-provoking. It has provoked you to the thought that it's a pretentious joke.

In your head you have a set of criteria that, for you, constitutes art, and this piece doesn't match it. To reach that conclusion, you have thought about this work and decided that it doesn't meet your criteria. No?

And - further food for thought - why can't pretentious jokes be art? Some of the best art is, intentionally, both...

Only if you class "thought provoking" as making you answer any question.

Such as "do you like the colour red?" That is not my idea of thought provoking!

What you are saying is that absolutely everything is art. Everything makes me think something!

Only if you class "thought provoking" as making you answer any question.

Such as "do you like the colour red?" That is not my idea of thought provoking!

What you are saying is that absolutely everything is art. Everything makes me think something!

that was my plan for my latest exhibition :mad: have you been spying on me?

that was my plan for my latest exhibition :mad: have you been spying on me?

spying is art-you are part of my exhibition mwa ha haaaa:twisted:

This thread is art and my foot is art!

Only if you class "thought provoking" as making you answer any question.

Such as "do you like the colour red?" That is not my idea of thought provoking!

But it could be. Hypothetically, let's say you have Person A, who likes red, and Person B, who doesn't like red. They could have a stimulating chat about why exactly they have the preferences they do that could encompass the symbolic qualities of the colour, their own perceptions and experiences of it, notable reds they have known, etc etc.

Just as your reaction to the blank canvas could be expanded, if one was so inclined, into a discussion of - as the article says - ''the seductive idea of nothing'' - which has so many possibilities for being thought-provoking I don't even know where to start.

I am angered that people accept that it is art and that people are stupid enough to pay that money for such pretentious rubbish.

Is that ok?

Do you believe that there is more to art than just the finished product?

So what? I can't name any homeopaths, that doesn't magically validate their profession either.

How is homeopathy analagous to art criticism and art history?

And it's not a question of validating them, so much validating that you know what you are talking about when you refer to nameless but specific art critics.

Sorry to break this to you, but it has been done, multiple times to various different art critics and artists over the past century or so. Google is your friend, or do you really want me to go dig up a few examples for you?

Please, indulge me - after all it's not my assertion, it's yours.

How is homeopathy analagous to art criticismYou seemed to imply that because I can't name any art critics I'm not in a position to talk about how art criticism is riddled with people who don't know what they're doing, I was simply pointing out that I can by using homeopaths as an example.
Please, indulge me - after all it's not my assertion, it's yours.Here is one example (http://serdar-hizli-art.com/art/definition_beauty_art.htm) that took me literally 10 seconds to find, seriously, google is your friend, there are plenty more.

Also, here (http://reverent.org/an_artist_or_an_ape.html)'s a fun little test you can try yourself

There's an age-old, and very simple test to decide if something qualifies as a work of art. Put it in the middle of a pile of rubbish, and ask someone who doesn't know the work in advance to pick out the work of art from the pile of rubbish.

If nobody can distinguish the artwork from the rubbish, then the conclusion is obvious.

There's an age-old, and very simple test to decide if something qualifies as a work of art. Put it in the middle of a pile of rubbish, and ask someone who doesn't know the work in advance to pick out the work of art from the pile of rubbish.

If nobody can distinguish the artwork from the rubbish, then the conclusion is obvious.

now I like that!

[...]Also, here (http://reverent.org/an_artist_or_an_ape.html)'s a fun little test you can try yourself

I know naff-all about art, in the scheme of things, and I got five out of the six right.

Which is not to say that fakes, hoaxes and forgeries don't get past the critics. Of course they do. I know more about this on the literary side than paintings or conceptual art but there's an increasing body of criticism that looks in detail at these hoaxes, judging them on aesthetic grounds alongside the 'moral' - the idea that because a hoax is a hoax it's automatically stripped of aesthetic value is not as straightforward as it might seem.

Intentionality (in this context, the idea that the creator of a hoax means it to be bad art, or not art at all) isn't everything.

There's an age-old, and very simple test to decide if something qualifies as a work of art. Put it in the middle of a pile of rubbish, and ask someone who doesn't know the work in advance to pick out the work of art from the pile of rubbish.

If nobody can distinguish the artwork from the rubbish, then the conclusion is obvious.

This sounds like a Tracey Emin installation.

Do you believe that there is more to art than just the finished product?

No not really.

Its analgous to writing a novel. The art is the final draft of the book, its not the guy sitting with writers block chewing his pen.

The empty sheet of paper is just a guy with painters block that gave up!

No not really.

So would you not find an exhibition of paintings produced in Auschwitz interesting as an expression of the peoples time spent in there, or would you judge it entirely on how good the finished product is?

So would you not find an exhibition of paintings produced in Auschwitz interesting as an expression of the peoples time spent in there, or would you judge it entirely on how good the finished product is?

It would be interesting from an historical perspective but that is irrelevant to the quality of the artwork.

So would you not find an exhibition of paintings produced in Auschwitz interesting as an expression of the peoples time spent in there, or would you judge entirely on how good the finished product is?

I would judge each painting on the finished product, I would expect the finish product to be influenced by auschwitz and that may well make the finished product better but I wouldn't think a painting was good because it was done in auschwitz.

You are thinking of research, it can be interesting to know why the artist did what they did but it doesn't influence how good the final product is.

I would judge each painting on the finished product, I would expect the finish product to be influenced by auschwitz and that may well make the finished product better but I wouldn't think a paiting was good because it was done in auschwitz.

I don't think that describing art as good or bad is really serves a purpose as to describing what art is. I'd rather describe it as interesting or boring, I've seen art that I've really disliked but I've still found really interesting, because for me the journey involved in creating the art is is really important, as I accept the art as an expression from the artist. Whether this is a concious or subconscious expression is also really interesting.

I don't think that describing art as good or bad is really serves a purpose as to describing what art is. I'd rather describe it as interesting or boring, I've seen art that I've really disliked but I've still found really interesting, because for me the journey involved in creating the art is is really important, as I accept the art as an expression from the artist. Whether this is a concious or subconscious expression is also really interesting.

When you look at art that you dislike and find interesting because of the journey are you saying you read up on the artist then find it interesting or that you are thinking about the journey based on the final product? If the latter then the journey you are talking about is one you have found in the final product.

You can insert "interesting" instead of "better" in my previous comment.

When you look at art that you dislike and find interesting because of the journey are you saying you read up on the artist then find it interesting or that you are thinking about the journey based on the final product? If the latter then the journey you are talking about is one you have found in the final product.

You can insert "interesting" instead of "better" in my previous comment.

You could achieve similar results either way. In the example from Metro, you could look at the Bob Law canvas (which isn't entirely blank - it has a black border and is dated. It also has a title, Nothing to Be Afraid Of V 22.8.69, which you'd see if you viewed it in a gallery) and wonder to yourself why someone would be prompted to do that. You'd almost inevitably come to the conclusion that he's saying something about less is more. Or less is at least worth considering.

Or you could google Bob Law and discover that he worked in the minimalist tradition, etc. Then if you were interested, you could google that too and discover something about what minimalism was about (which is what I've just done).

You could achieve similar results either way. In the example from Metro, you could look at the Bob Law canvas (which isn't entirely blank - it has a black border and is dated. It also has a title, Nothing to Be Afraid Of V 22.8.69, which you'd see if you viewed it in a gallery) and wonder to yourself why someone would be prompted to do that. You'd almost inevitably come to the conclusion that he's saying something about less is more. Or less is at least worth considering.

Or you could google Bob Law and discover that he worked in the minimalist tradition, etc. Then if you were interested, you could google that too and discover something about what minimalism was about (which is what I've just done).

none of that makes a blank piece of paper (even with a date) interesting. It is also irrelevant to the final piece of art. I think its a bit of a cheat to say he was a minimalist artist so its great art.

I think what he is saying is, I can do nothing and get paid for it by idiots! I guess it comes down to whether you think marketing is art. He has obviously done well at the marketing BS.

none of that makes a blank piece of paper (even with a date) interesting. It is also irrelevant to the final piece of art. I think its a bit of a cheat to say he was a minimalist artist so its great art.

I think what he is saying is, I can do nothing and get paid for it by idiots! I guess it comes down to whether you think marketing is art. He has obviously done well at the marketing BS.

I didn't offer an opinion on whether or not it was great art, just that there's thought that has gone into it and it's part of an established artistic tradition.

And I *do* think that a (nearly) blank piece of paper called Nothing to Be Afraid Of is interesting. It's prompted this debate, for a start - which has obviously sustained our interest for the last however long - and I suspect that the artist anticipated hostile reactions to his art, which is possibly one of the reasons why he called it what he did.

When you look at art that you dislike and find interesting because of the journey are you saying you read up on the artist then find it interesting or that you are thinking about the journey based on the final product? If the latter then the journey you are talking about is one you have found in the final product.

You can insert "interesting" instead of "better" in my previous comment.

If I look at art and dislike it, I usually want to know why, so then I try to find more about it.

I didn't offer an opinion on whether or not it was great art, just that there's thought that has gone into it and it's part of an established artistic tradition.

And I *do* think that a (nearly) blank piece of paper called Nothing to Be Afraid Of is interesting. It's prompted this debate, for a start - which has obviously sustained our interest for the last however long - and I suspect that the artist anticipated hostile reactions to his art, which is possibly one of the reasons why he called it what he did.

All of that just sounds pretentious to me! People always use that controversy argument and I just think thats rubbish. The art is not annoying me at all, its a blank piece of paper and is therefore irrelevant. The fact that people classify it as art is what annoys me!

If you are into art there is the opening of an exhibition by last years fine art graduates. It is taking place from 7pm at the Creative Arts Development Space, on Smithfield, Shalesmore.

Plus as it is an opening there is FREE DRINK! (art lover or not, who doesn't like free booze?)

so come question your conceptions on art, or jus get drunk and cause a state!

Its the emporers new clothes!

Wish I had thought of that earlier, but I read it somewhere so can't claim credit. That is exactly what this is!

Can anyone here name an art critic, without looking it up?

The inimitable Brian Sewell (http://youtu.be/HY0bGLFGnL4)
Andrew Graham Dixon
Maggie Hambling (Sp?)
? Serota the director of Tate Modern at some point
Sister Wendy, you know that nun woman

What do I win?

Its the emporers new clothes!

Wish I had thought of that earlier, but I read it somewhere so can't claim credit. That is exactly what this is!

It's alright, nobody is forcing you to like it. You can stick to watercolour landscapes and portraits if you want.

All of that just sounds pretentious to me! People always use that controversy argument and I just think thats rubbish. The art is not annoying me at all, its a blank piece of paper and is therefore irrelevant. The fact that people classify it as art is what annoys me!

The fact that people classify the work as art is what annoys you - and yet you call it art in the previous sentence.

You say the controversy argument is rubbish while having an extensive debate about it, and having been inspired to post about it in the first place because you found the whole thing so irritating.

Bob Law - job done, dude.

The fact that people classify the work as art is what annoys you - and yet you call it art in the previous sentence.

You say the controversy argument is rubbish while having an extensive debate about it, and having been inspired to post about it in the first place because you found the whole thing so irritating.

Bob Law - job done, dude.

well according to you, but actually it isn't specific to his work. It started with a turner prize discussion. The controversy argument is rubbish and I called it art because that is what we were discussing. I admitted he is obviously great at marketing and if that is his art well done! If the marketing is not his art he has made a blank piece of paper and written the date on it. Yawn!

Job done

well according to you, but actually it isn't specific to his work. It started with a turner prize discussion. The controversy argument is rubbish and I called it art because that is what we were discussing. I admitted he is obviously great at marketing and if that is his art well done! If the marketing is not his art he has made a blank piece of paper and written the date on it. Yawn!

Job done

I'd replace 'marketing' with 'challenging people's perceptions of what constitutes art'. But you'd probably call that pretentious...

It's alright, nobody is forcing you to like it. You can stick to watercolour landscapes and portraits if you want.

see that is exactly what I would expect from someone that likes being pretentious-I am not actually a big fan of watercolours or portraits! I have very eclectic tastes but I don't like the emporers new clothes (you can continue to enjoy them if you wish!):D

I'd replace 'marketing' with 'challenging people's perceptions of what constitutes art'. But you'd probably call that pretentious...

yup I would

see that is exactly what I would expect from someone that likes being pretentious-I am not actually a big fan of watercolours or portraits! I have very eclectic tastes but I don't like the emporers new clothes (you can continue to enjoy them if you wish!):D

The point I was trying to make is that we've all got different tastes, it's allowed.

To dismiss something as not being art because it's not for you is the issue where I disagree with you. I hate installations, I cannot think of anything that'll make me go to one, apart from my wife, unfortunately. I just find them boring. I've had similar arguments about me not getting the art, maybe that's the case, but I still accept it as art. Just boring art.

Brian Sewell, excellent. Wasn't he Anthony Blunt's right hand man, in more than one sense ?

Brian Sewell is right handed, and often sat on Anthony Blunt’s right at dinner so yes you are correct.

yup I would

Out of interest, why? Because the idea that people have perceptions about what is and isn't art is pretentious? Because the fact that artists challenge that idea is pretentious?

Both of them have been going on for literally thousands of years.

The point I was trying to make is that we've all got different tastes, it's allowed.

To dismiss something as not being art because it's not for you is the issue where I disagree with you. I hate installations, I cannot think of anything that'll make me go to one, apart from my wife, unfortunately. I just find them boring. I've had similar arguments about me not getting the art, maybe that's the case, but I still accept it as art. Just boring art.

I think it is quite acceptable to dismiss things as art based on my opinion. Otherwise you have to accept that everything is art and I just don't. I am not going to accept everything other people tell me.

Out of interest, why? Because the idea that people have perceptions about what is and isn't art is pretentious? Because the fact that artists challenge that idea is pretentious?

Both of them have been going on for literally thousands of years.

Neither, because people attribute things to a piece of "art" to show they get it when in fact they are looking at the emporers new clothes.

Neither, because people attribute things to a piece of "art" to show they get it when in fact they are looking at the emporers new clothes.

Ok. Bargain basement definition of art from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art): 'Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.'

Do you still think that the piece from Bob Law is not art under that criteria?

Ok. Bargain basement definition of art from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art): 'Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.'

Do you still think that the piece from Bob Law is not art under that criteria?

Is me tidying my bedroom? Clearly that definition doesn't work and I don't think you can define what makes something art which is why its subjective.

Clearly me tidying my bedroom could win the turner prize but that doesn't make it art.

Was going to start a new thread (after going off on a tangent when arguing about page 3 girls) but this will do! This angered me:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/877093-blank-canvas-set-to-fetch-60-000-at-auction

:rant:now that is not art! It isn't thought provoking! Its a pretentious joke!

I think it looks better in landscape mode.

Is me tidying my bedroom? Clearly that definition doesn't work and I don't think you can define what makes something art which is why its subjective.

Clearly me tidying my bedroom could win the turner prize but that doesn't make it art.

But we do talk about the art of home-making. Through gritted teeth if you're me.

The definition's not perfect, true, but I'm with JFKvsNixon - just because you don't like it doesn't make it not art.

I think it is quite acceptable to dismiss things as art based on my opinion. Otherwise you have to accept that everything is art and I just don't. I am not going to accept everything other people tell me.

Maybe to some everything is an art form in some way or another. I'd accept both their right to believe this, and my opinion that everything isn't a form of art in one way or another. We would both be right, as we are talking about our own opinions, and art is about all about opinions is it not?

One thing is for sure, if we all held the same opinion on art, we'd live in a boring world.

He was also rumoured to be Herr Flick's younger brother, Quick Flick.

I’m still not following you, are you trying to imply something about Brian Sewell? Because if you are I’ll have to ask you to step outside.

On an unrelated topic, did you know Brian Sewell is gay?

Crumbs, he disguised that well; mind you he was shagging a traitor so he got more than one tip.

You seem to know a lot about him?

Would I be right in saying, 'Welcome to our forum Mr Sewell'?

Its the emporers new clothes!
The Emporer's New Clothes are a metaphor for sycophancy, and people not having the courage of one's convictions. Your analogy doesn't even work because this piece of art is obvious that nothing exists, and it is just a border.

I like it, for I like these things on principle. Any piece of work that is powerful enough to illicit a reaction, even a severely negative one, is fine by me.

Clearly me tidying my bedroom could win the turner prize but that doesn't make it art.
A contradiction, surely. If it's won an art prize then it is art.

You seemed to imply that because I can't name any art critics I'm not in a position to talk about how art criticism is riddled with people who don't know what they're doing, I was simply pointing out that I can by using homeopaths as an example.
Here is one example (http://serdar-hizli-art.com/art/definition_beauty_art.htm) that took me literally 10 seconds to find, seriously, google is your friend, there are plenty more.


Not a child or animal in evidence there,

And your test was a piece of cake - 100%.

It's alright, nobody is forcing you to like it.

That's entirely beside the point. What is being forced, or attempted to be forced, is the necessity of calling things art which palpably are not.

"palpably not art" - ha ha ha ha ha ha.

But then I don't think you're joking.

Not a child or animal in evidence thereWay to move the goalposts bro, you didn't specify that, you simply claimed that you didn't believe.

"one[an art critic] that has been "fooled" in some kind of "sting" operation"

I showed you an example where pretty much the entire art world was 'fooled', surely that's enough?

In any case, here (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/gallery-discovers-art-was-painted-by-a-twoyearold-girl-14134862.html)'s a different example featuring a 2 year old. Again, 10 seconds on google is all you need to spend to find loads of examples, I really don't get why you're in denial about this.

You can fool the art world with intentionally bad art/art by children/animals. To be fair that test was pretty easy, but that was just a bit of fun, I didn't even try it until now, even I got 100%, and I don't even 'get' art.

Also, when you use quote marks, you need to actually reproduce what's been said by people, not approximate it, or make up your own phrases that were not used.

Way to move the goalposts bro, you didn't specify that, you simply claimed that you didn't believe.


Not me, I was trying to call you on this:

Also, yes it is telling (and hilarious) that art critics cannot tell intentionally made art from the accidental work of young children and/or animals.


I showed you an example where pretty much the entire art world was 'fooled', surely that's enough?


I don't think you read the whole article did you? Pretty much the whole Art World of Boston in 1927. Arguably the whole hoax was a work of art in itself.



In any case, here (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/gallery-discovers-art-was-painted-by-a-twoyearold-girl-14134862.html)'s a different example featuring a 2 year old. Again, 10 seconds on google is all you need to spend to find loads of examples, I really don't get why you're in denial about this.


I didn't deny it. But you seem to think that all of your examples constitute the "art world".

You can fool the art world with intentionally bad art/art by children/animals. To be fair that test was pretty easy, but that was just a bit of fun, I didn't even try it until now, even I got 100%, and I don't even 'get' art.

If it was that easy, what do you and I know that 'art critics' don't?

Also, when you use quote marks, you need to actually reproduce what's been said by people, not approximate it, or make up your own phrases that were not used.

I just do it to annoy people.

Not me, I was trying to call you on this:Well if only you'd actually quoted the relevant parts of my post instead of "just putting" random words of your "choice" into quotation marks then that might have been clear.

I don't think you read the whole article did you? Pretty much the whole Art World of Boston in 1927.Whoops my bad, I got it confused with a similar trick someone did with intentionally bad poetry that I read about the other day.

I didn't deny it. But you seem to think that all of your examples constitute the "art world".My examples show that it can, and has been done, on multiple occasions, to multiple different groups, which if you'll recall is the exact claim that I originally made.

In any case, it doesn't even really matter if it's not the most world renowned art critics that get fooled, the fact that the art lovers and the people who are the ones who perpetuate modern art can be so easily fooled is just as telling.

If it was that easy, what do you and I know that 'art critics' don't?Nothing, but that was a crappy online quiz with only 6 questions that was clearly put together by a moron, it proves nothing, I only linked to it for a bit of fun.


I just do it to annoy people.I find that hard to believe, nice cover though.

That's entirely beside the point. What is being forced, or attempted to be forced, is the necessity of calling things art which palpably are not.

To you maybe not, but to others yes it is art. That's the point, we're having an argument where we're both right. It's all a matter of opinion, around 6 billion of them.

To you maybe not, but to others yes it is art. That's the point, we're having an argument where we're both right. It's all a matter of opinion, around 6 billion of them.

It is not a matter of opinion; I refer you back to my original post in this thread. There is a very simple and straighforward to test to determine whether or not something qualifies as art.

It is not a matter of opinion; I refer you back to my original post in this thread. There is a very simple and straighforward to test to determine whether or not something qualifies as art.

So you're trying to argue that someones opinion on whether something is or isn't art isn't a matter of opinion. Have you thought this through?

It is not a matter of opinion; I refer you back to my original post in this thread. There is a very simple and straighforward to test to determine whether or not something qualifies as art.

I don't necessarily agree, but even so, by that test the Bob Law piece under discussion would pass as art with flying colours.

...............

Was burning a million (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl6039R0J2A&feature=related) quid considered art, when the K foundation (formerly the KLF) did it?

I did art GCSE at school, and some of what I did was good, but most of I did was rubbish.

It was 'art', but it wasn't good.

I think we are missing the point here. I think anything creative can be defined as 'art'. However, sometimes people can create ugly things with little effort. Or people can just produce something as disgusting as possible in order to cause controversy, and then class it as 'art' because it provokes conversation and thought.

So does Jeremy Kyle.

But it still takes a gifted genius with a rare talent to produce something which is undoubtedly beautiful.

But it still takes a gifted genius with a rare talent to produce something which is undoubtedly beautiful.
I watched a Tracey Emin interview on BBC4 where she argued that timing and circumstance are massive factors.

If I put forward a messy bed as art it would be boring now, and probably ignored. It was only such a big thing because she made it at the right time to make the largest impact. In that context one artist's messy bed and a second artist's messy bed would be considered in very different ways.

I don't necessarily agree, but even so, by that test the Bob Law piece under discussion would pass as art with flying colours.

no it wouldn't!

I did art GCSE at school, and some of what I did was good, but most of I did was rubbish.

It was 'art', but it wasn't good.

I think we are missing the point here. I think anything creative can be defined as 'art'. However, sometimes people can create ugly things with little effort. Or people can just produce something as disgusting as possible in order to cause controversy, and then class it as 'art' because it provokes conversation and thought.

So does Jeremy Kyle.

But it still takes a gifted genius with a rare talent to produce something which is undoubtedly beautiful.

yup, maybe we should be talking about jeremy kyle art versus da vinci art!

no it wouldn't!

Perhaps I overestimate the capacity for logical thought of the average person.

But it seems to me PATENTLY OBVIOUS that in a pile of rubbish, a white canvas with a black border and a date is going to give off a hint or a whiff of art that a pile of potato peelings, discarded newspapers and whatever else might comprise your average pile of rubbish will not.

Perhaps I overestimate the capacity for logical thought of the average person.

But it seems to me PATENTLY OBVIOUS that in a pile of rubbish, a white canvas with a black border and a date is going to give off a hint or a whiff of art that a pile of potato peelings, discarded newspapers and whatever else might comprise your average pile of rubbish will not.

A blank canvas on a pile of rubbish you would assume to be rubbish! Thats logical!

A blank canvas on a pile of rubbish you would assume to be rubbish! Thats logical!

It isn't blank. It has a black border, and is dated. And is a canvas. In my mind, canvas = art.

I really think that if you asked someone to pick out the work of art from the pile of rubbish, a canvas with those characteristics is likely to win out over the other household waste items.

It isn't blank. It has a black border, and is dated. And is a canvas. In my mind, canvas = art.

I really think that if you asked someone to pick out the work of art from the pile of rubbish, a canvas with those characteristics is likely to win out over the other household waste items.

ooooh a border:hihi:

You would think someone gave up trying to paint something. I would probably pick it up and paint over it (well paint it anyway-theres nothing to paint over).

So you would call a fresh canvas art?

ooooh a border:hihi:

You would think someone gave up trying to paint something. I would probably pick it up and paint over it (well paint it anyway-theres nothing to paint over).

So you would call a fresh canvas art?

Canvas = artistic connotations, yes. Moreso than most rubbish.

Canvas = artistic connotations, yes. Moreso than most rubbish.

So the guy that made the canvas deserves the credit not the "artist" guy!

what about this artist?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/arts/2844191/Waikato-art-award-winner-just-rubbish-artists

he won without even turning up to make the piece:hihi::loopy:

So the guy that made the canvas deserves the credit not the "artist" guy!
But making the canvas isn't art. Making art is art.

I'd make this really obscure and say that making a painting isn't automatically art. I'm thinking here specifically of those dull Argos "New York skyline" prints. There is more art in a blank canvas from an artist, than in a dull painting made by a painter.

what about this artist?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/arts/2844191/Waikato-art-award-winner-just-rubbish-artists
I don't like that, because no thought has gone into it. It was made from a list of instructions. It's all subjective though, but in my opinion I don't like that.

But making the canvas isn't art. Making art is art.

I'd make this really obscure and say that making a painting isn't automatically art. I'm thinking here specifically of those dull Argos "New York skyline" prints. There is more art in a blank canvas from an artist, than in a dull painting made by a painter.


I don't like that, because no thought has gone into it. It was made from a list of instructions. It's all subjective though, but in my opinion I don't like that.

But we are talking of the piece of "art" that is a blank canvas (with the date on) and whether you could tell it was art if it was in a pile of rubbish. To me it would look like an unused bit of canvas not art work.

Second bold: and this is what annoys me about things that are classed as art. I don't think no thought has gone into it but very little thought has. Because some judge decides it is art, a pile of rubbish is worth £15000 and a blank canvas is worth £60k? Its stupid.

I don't wish to dumb down this discussion because I have been reading it and it is interesting.

What I wanted to say is that today I got an email from Groupon part of which offered some "art work" for sale, the said work was by Michael Vaughan the cricketer and is done by him whacking great lumps of paint at a canvas with his cricket bat. The work looks like something my grandaughter brings out of school.

Why can he demand x amount of money for his work and I get to hang my grandaughter's for free on my fridge?

I do enjoy a wander around a gallery and love paintings and sculptures, I don't mind some of the modernist work but if pushed would state a preference to classical art, where a man looks like a man and a donkey looks like a donkey. not the other way around.

So the guy that made the canvas deserves the credit not the "artist" guy!

what about this artist?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/arts/2844191/Waikato-art-award-winner-just-rubbish-artists

he won without even turning up to make the piece:hihi::loopy:

No, you've missed my point. Which is purely that in the middle of a pile of rubbish, a canvas is going to jump out as art. A canvas suggests art in a way that most rubbish does not. And the Bob Law piece, again, is not blank.

The pile of rubbish - don't think much of that, no. But I can see where he was going with it, and if he'd arranged the rubbish himself it would be one thing - the fact it was made on his instructions undermines it somewhat, though.

It's all subjective, but I like art that demonstrates skill built through many years of hard work on a bedrock of natural talent. Truly great art should be something that no one else could do, or would have thought to do.

It's all subjective, but I like art that demonstrates skill built through many years of hard work on a bedrock of natural talent. Truly great art should be something that no one else could do, or would have thought to do.

There's a piece of 'work' by Martin Creed entitled "Lights Going On and Off".

No, you've missed my point. Which is purely that in the middle of a pile of rubbish, a canvas is going to jump out as art. A canvas suggests art in a way that most rubbish does not. And the Bob Law piece, again, is not blank.

The pile of rubbish - don't think much of that, no. But I can see where he was going with it, and if he'd arranged the rubbish himself it would be one thing - the fact it was made on his instructions undermines it somewhat, though.

Sorry to but in as a newbie, but while I agree with this sentiment, I'm not sure I agree with *why*. I'm not sure it makes a difference that the work in question is a canvas - which, admittedly, references a specific and conventional form of art. And I don't think it would matter if the canvas were blank - of that had been the deliberate decision of the artist.

The point, I think, is about *intention*. If the artist intends an object - even a urinal - to be art, and does so with a motive and a point to prove, it's art. Simple as. And I'd agree with Jessica23 that the Law piece does that. It's a deliberate act, with an agenda.

I do, however, think it's pretty immaterial whether the artist poses a pile of rubbish himself, or arranges for it to be done. No one took Mozart to task for not playing the actual instruments.

... No one took Mozart to task for not playing the actual instruments.

Mozart was an accomplished piano, violin and cello player as well as several wind instruments.

Mozart was an accomplished piano, violin and cello player as well as several wind instruments.

Couldn't paint for toffee though.

Mozart was an accomplished piano, violin and cello player as well as several wind instruments.

Boom tish. I meant that he didn't do all the work of the orchestra, not that he couldn't play any instruments - but incidentally, he wasn't one of the foremost players of his age. Which is presumably why he left that job to someone else...

Because some judge decides it is art, a pile of rubbish is worth £15000 and a blank canvas is worth £60k? Its stupid.
What people will spend their money on is always stupid. You can't justify or dismiss something on the money that was paid for it. You could love something that cost a fiver and detest something that cost a million pounds, which is fine.

Secondly, a judge didn't decide it was art. The fact that an artist made it and an artist put it in an art contest makes it art. The judge just used their opinion to decide whether it should win or not. Get a different set of judges and the whole contest is different, because it is all subjective.

I meant that he didn't do all the work of the orchestra, not that he couldn't play any instruments - but incidentally, he wasn't one of the foremost players of his age. Which is presumably why he left that job to someone else...
He was a virtuoso and a child prodigy. He made a vast fortune as a child touring europe and playing to people. He was the foremost pianist of his age. He composed and conducted his own work. You've really picked a bad example here.

Secondly, he can't do the work of the orchestra, for he is just one man. He can only compose for other musicians. The music analogy doesn't work because beyond solo performance other musicians are always needed, whereas in art one man can do everything.

OK, then. Bad example. But looking back to an acknowledged *golden age* of craft skills in art - it's deemed entirely acceptable that painters like Titian directed a workshop of junior painters to actually execute their work. My point was really that the art is much more in the overarching vision that in the nuts-and-bolts of the making - so there's no less validity, art-wise, in directing other people to assemble your pile of rubbish than getting your own hands dirty.

it's deemed entirely acceptable that painters like Titian directed a workshop of junior painters to actually execute their work.
Indeed it is. Andy Warhol did the same in his factory system. I dislike the fact that there are Warhol prints that his hand never touched though, but people still consider it by him so it is their choice to buy them. I can understand your point though, but I severely dislike it.

No, you've missed my point. Which is purely that in the middle of a pile of rubbish, a canvas is going to jump out as art. A canvas suggests art in a way that most rubbish does not. And the Bob Law piece, again, is not blank.

The pile of rubbish - don't think much of that, no. But I can see where he was going with it, and if he'd arranged the rubbish himself it would be one thing - the fact it was made on his instructions undermines it somewhat, though.

no it would jump out as something useful in a pile of rubbish, an unused piece of canvas. Similarly an unused A4 pad would jump out.

Indeed it is. Andy Warhol did the same in his factory system. I dislike the fact that there are Warhol prints that his hand never touched though, but people still consider it by him so it is their choice to buy them. I can understand your point though, but I severely dislike it.

Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly like it either. I just think that idea is more relevant now than it was then. Given that art now leans heavily towards the conceptual, what matter is the architect of the idea, rather than the people who implement it.

no it would jump out as something useful in a pile of rubbish, an unused piece of canvas. Similarly an unused A4 pad would jump out.

It is not unused.

It is not blank.

It is not unused.

It is not blank.

In a pile of rubbish you would see a blank canvas that you could paint on!

In a pile of rubbish you would see a blank canvas that you could paint on!

Not if you looked at it properly, you wouldn't. You would see a canvas that someone had already painted on (or written on, or drawn on, or whatever he did with it).

Not if you looked at it properly, you wouldn't. You would see a canvas that someone had already painted on (or written on, or drawn on, or whatever he did with it).

nothing that is the point. The date and a frame would make it look like a painting someone had given up on!

We could keep arguing about nothing but we will have to agree to disagree! You can't force me to believe that an empty canvas is art!

nothing that is the point. The date and a frame would make it look like a painting someone had given up on!

We could keep arguing about nothing but we will have to agree to disagree! You can't force me to believe that an empty canvas is art!

But I can keep making the point that the canvas is not empty.

It might look like a painting someone had given up on (although I suspect not - a date is something that would usually come after completion, like a signature) - either way, it still looks like Art more than most rubbish does.

But I can keep making the point that the canvas is not empty.

It might look like a painting someone had given up on (although I suspect not - a date is something that would usually come after completion, like a signature) - either way, it still looks like Art more than most rubbish does.

Of course it is. You can keep saying it but even the artist was not suggesting there was anything there.

Of course it is. You can keep saying it but even the artist was not suggesting there was anything there.

He was drawing attention to the fact that most of the canvas was empty by drawing a border round it and writing the date on it.

The border, and the date, make it not empty.

He was drawing attention to the fact that most of the canvas was empty by drawing a border round it and writing the date on it.

The border, and the date, make it not empty.

no sorry but they frame an empty canvas! Do you want another round?:hihi:

I truly think the artist would be horrified by your frame obsession-I believe he will want you to consider what is within the frame-even I know that!

no sorry but they frame an empty canvas! Do you want another round?:hihi:

I truly think the artist would be horrified by your frame obsession-I believe he will want you to consider what is within the frame-even I know that!

Seems like a point missed again... I don't think it's really even relevant what's *on* the canvas. If the artist placed it there, in a context, and wants you to respond to it because of that, that's Art. Jessica23's got a point, though, in that the framing and dating of it is evidence of that intention.

Seems like a point missed again... I don't think it's really even relevant what's *on* the canvas. If the artist placed it there, in a context, and wants you to respond to it because of that, that's Art. Jessica23's got a point, though, in that the framing and dating of it is evidence of that intention.

But if it was in a skip would you think it was art or a blank canvas?

no sorry but they frame an empty canvas! Do you want another round?:hihi:

I truly think the artist would be horrified by your frame obsession-I believe he will want you to consider what is within the frame-even I know that!

It's probably as tedious for everyone else to read as it for us :hihi:

Anyone else got any views on whether the Bob Law piece would pass HeadingNorth's test for 'is it art' - the test being that the work can be picked out of a pile of rubbish? Or any views on whether or not a largely empty canvas that has a black border and a date written on it is, in fact, empty, or not empty?

Edit: I DO NOT HAVE A FRAME OBSESSION! I am merely saying that the presence of the frame shows that the canvas is not empty. That is all. If I was going to be obsessed with one aspect of this piece it would be the title, which I think is genius.

It's probably as tedious for everyone else to read as it for us :hihi:

Anyone else got any views on whether the Bob Law piece would pass HeadingNorth's test for 'is it art' - the test being that the work can be picked out of a pile of rubbish? Or any views on whether or not a largely empty canvas that has a black border and a date written on it is, in fact, empty, or not empty?

Edit: I DO NOT HAVE A FRAME OBSESSION! I am merely saying that the presence of the frame shows that the canvas is not empty. That is all. If I was going to be obsessed with one aspect of this piece it would be the title, which I think is genius.

One of my favourite well known pieces is "The Scream". Name one of yours? (out of interest?)

Although I have eclectic art tastes I reckon my most common tastes are very dark sculptures/paintings. I also like advertisements old cadbury wrappings etc

It's probably as tedious for everyone else to read as it for us :hihi:

Anyone else got any views on whether the Bob Law piece would pass HeadingNorth's test for 'is it art' - the test being that the work can be picked out of a pile of rubbish? Or any views on whether or not a largely empty canvas that has a black border and a date written on it is, in fact, empty, or not empty?

Edit: I DO NOT HAVE A FRAME OBSESSION! I am merely saying that the presence of the frame shows that the canvas is not empty. That is all. If I was going to be obsessed with one aspect of this piece it would be the title, which I think is genius.

Thoughts on title seconded. Brilliant. And just a bit relevant to the discussion...

I don't like HeadingNorth's test. Tracey Emin's "My Bed" was art and was rubbish at the same time. If you put her mess in a pile of other mess, it would be hard to know which was which. Context and intent is the key.

I don't like HeadingNorth's test. Tracey Emin's "My Bed" was art and was rubbish at the same time. If you put her mess in a pile of other mess, it would be hard to know which was which. Context and intent is the key.

And seconded that too.

Many renaissance painters would get students to do all the tedious bits, have them practice painting clouds etc, whilst they would swan in at some later stage to do all the important stuff like faces, hands, cloth etc.

I just think there's art that people like, and art that people don't like. Art that people don't like is often classified as not art by the people that don't like it.

Art is also in the mind of the beholder. If in your frame of reference it is not art, then it is not art. But your frame of reference is completely unique to you and you cannot say with any certainty that the thing is not art to anyone else.

The art market is of course something quite different to art.

When I was younger I hated pretentious art, but after a lot of thought I really enjoy it now. I enjoy the fact that it winds people up aswell. :)

If all that human beings ever found interesting was pretty pictures then it would be dull. I like music to be uncomfortable and hard sometimes (Wagner, Sonic Youth) and I don't want all the books I read to be about happy lives. I want ugly sometimes, and I want pointless sometimes. Banality is the only thing that is truly worthless.

One of my favourite well known pieces is "The Scream". Name one of yours? (out of interest?)

Oooh, good question.

Of things I've actually seen, there was a small Rodin (title escapes me) which was awful and compelling and Picasso's variations on Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe exhibited with the Manet version which I LOVED.

Thoughts on title seconded. Brilliant. And just a bit relevant to the discussion...

Well, quite.

I don't like HeadingNorth's test. Tracey Emin's "My Bed" was art and was rubbish at the same time. If you put her mess in a pile of other mess, it would be hard to know which was which. Context and intent is the key.

That was headingnorths point and I completely agree with him. It is subjective but that test works well for me!

Oooh, good question.

Of things I've actually seen, there was a small Rodin (title escapes me) which was awful and compelling and Picasso's variations on Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe exhibited with the Manet version which I LOVED.

different taste in art confirmed:gag::hihi:

I don't like abstract art much although there are exceptions, I tend not to even look at rennaisance paitnings and portraits because they bore me. I do like landscapes and paintings of ships in storms-I am obsessed with clouds! I like photography as well.

I also like ye olde porn :blush:...well some tasteful ye olde porn (the 70s was a good decade for that although the 80s was abyssmal!!!)

different taste in art confirmed:gag::hihi:

It won't have come as a shock :D

One of my favourite well known pieces is "The Scream". Name one of yours? (out of interest?)

favourites I've seen (I'd love to see some Munch)

Empor, by Kandinsky. At the Guggenheim in Venice.

Clothing of the Bride, by Ernst. At the same.

A Game of Patience, by Frampton, at the Ferens, Hull.

Field for the British Isles, by Gormley, at several locations.

That was headingnorths point and I completely agree with him.
HeadingNorth's point was that if art cannot be distinguished from rubbish, then it is not art. If the art is literally rubbish then it is impossible for that to pass his test.

Yet art can be made out of literal rubbish, if there is an intent and a context to it. It could be a point about consumerism, or the environment, but you strip it of all artistic merit because of the methods used and not the message sent. It's not a fair test at all.

Picasso's variations on Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe exhibited with the Manet version which I LOVED.

I like Max Ernst's two takes on Dejeuner sur l'herbe. If I had a favourite painter, it would be him.

It won't have come as a shock :D

top image here is good!
http://www.waxoil.com/projects/outsider/borderline.php

It reminds me of Tim Burton-now he is amazing artist! Probably my favourite

The top image here is probably my favourite from him:
http://atomic-surgery.blogspot.com/2010/10/tim-burtons-trick-or-treat.html

I will stop now!

favourites I've seen (I'd love to see some Munch)

Empor, by Kandinsky. At the Guggenheim in Venice.

Clothing of the Bride, by Ernst. At the same.

A Game of Patience, by Frampton, at the Ferens, Hull.

Field for the British Isles, by Gormley, at several locations.

pretty mental but not my taste:hihi:

It reminds me of Tim Burton-now he is amazing artist! Probably my favourite
You might like Mark Ryden (http://www.markryden.com/) if you don't know of him already. I bought my gf a print years ago when we started seeing each other.

You might like Mark Ryden (http://www.markryden.com/) if you don't know of him already. I bought my gf a print years ago when we started seeing each other.

yeah thats pretty cool! I like the pendant although I would not wear it!

Oh no I forgot my ultimate favourite-the God!

Quentin Blake.

I reckon I have Quentin and Roald to thank for my liking for the dark side!

I see a common theme in my tastes-dark and comic!

Oooh, good question.

Of things I've actually seen, there was a small Rodin (title escapes me) which was awful and compelling and Picasso's variations on Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe exhibited with the Manet version which I LOVED.

I never liked Picasso until I actually saw his work and somebody explained what they thought he was intending to achieve, then it was like someone throwing a switch and I loved some of his paintings.