h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yep... that sums it up for me

Hello, my name is Mr. Dreadful and I'm a Stuckist.

There's a role for sulking in art...massive or otherwise..

I'm a fan...I think she's a character in another wise bland saachi inspired art scene

I agree that she's a character, but is an unmade bed *really* art? *I* could do that for gawd's sake!

You could, but you didn't.

I saw the bed and responded to it on an emotional level - it made me - for want of a better word - sulk.

Not sure what that means though - trying to define art is a futile excercise - because there's no one answer.

Whatever *it* is I'll defend the right of people to make it and the right of people to look at it.

I'm not denying her right to do what she does, nor the right for people to like it... I just think it's pants.

Still, at least it's not that pile of bricks that was doing the rounds a few years back.

And another thing... I don't care that she did and I didn't, while I could have done the bed I wouldn't want to.

The bed was quite literally pants - but thats beside the point.

I'm always amazed by the fact that people seem to get cross about contempory art. It's OK not to like it. Just don't go and see it.

I don't like/relate/see the point of western films - but I let it go...

Lifes too short..

I don't go to see contemporary art, that's because I don't like it. I have as much right to complain about it as you have to like it.

dear all, I'm with mr dreadful.
I find a lot of modern art fairly loathsome but recently went for a wander around the gallery of modern art in Edinburgh, after a friend of mine assured me that much of it was amazing and that I would enjoy it.
She was wrong. Most of it was utter swill and I hated it.
Self indulgent, self important, fatuous twaddle, not requiring much talent or expertise.
And it's worth getting upset about because it's the heritage we are leaving for future generations to judge our society by. And what are we leaving? The mona lisa? Van Gogh's Irises? Girl with a pearl earring?
no, a grubby bed, bits of animals and some bird taking photos of herself with a fish.
load of arse.
KD

some artists inject morality in their art that cross the boundaries of knowledge

<>

Where exactly is the morality in an unmade bed or half a sheep?

none that I can see.
Morality has nothing to do with it - and anyway, if we're talking about morality, I think Tracy Emin is definitely out of place.
Much of modern art is merely trying to be shocking for the sake it - which is frankly tiresome. I do not subscribe to the 'mirror to nature' school of thought. I'm happy for things to be abstract, unorthodox etc but I want to believe that there is some poetry to it. While it's fine for art to be autobiographical - surely really good art transcends the personality of the creator. You should be able to decide whether it's good or not without knowing who is resposible for it before hand. And surely, part of art ought to be a certain craftsmanship - learning how to apply a learned skill to express your artistic and creative visions. Setting up a bed in a room requires no real craftsmanship that I can see. It is therefore not fair or reasonible to compare it or give it the same name as that which does.
bah humbug
kd

I'm often bewildered by modern art. I don't really understand how people can display stuff that anyone can do but everyone admires it and calls it a great work of art. Some modern art obviously requires a lot of care and skill but some of it doesn't. There was an exhibition at the art gallery last year and one exhibit was just two large piles of posters, with one of each put up on the walls. One poster said 'no worries' and one said 'sorry', in black capital letters. Anyone could do that. If I create a pile of posters that say 'good morning' in black capital letters, will I get them displayed in an art gallery as an important work of art?

Hey forgive me Mr dreadful - I didn't mean to imply you shouldn't complain - I have a frustrating habit of replying in general terms to a specific post.

My point is the 'extreme' positions people take on the art debate fascinate me - it seems somehow more important than other arguments - I would argue it's not - it's just stuff - nothing to get heated about..

I find some art rubbish - contempory or otherwise - and some art good..It's simple

yes but the issue surely, is that there seems to be an awful lot more rubbish these days than there used to be. How many really good artists are in the public awareness, compared to the oceans of talentless gits?

Kim

I reckon if we went back to fifteenth century Florence there'd be a lot of rubbish painters getting lots of attention but only the genuinely talented Grand Masters have survived...

Whatever field of endeavour there's a conflict between those that clamour for short term recognition and those who take their time..

That's why I preach a relaxed approach - the artists who set out to shock will be - to use a cliche - chip papers the next day..

ok - lets take the Jim Hacker approach
name five really good current artists, who are well known currently, who you think will survive for posterity.

I'd include-

Tracey Emin - see above - it's as much about her unflinching view of her world as the work itself - she's angry, miserable and - yes - a bit sulky - but then that's pretty representative of the times don;t you think?

Damien Hirst - love him or hate him the animals in tanks have become icons that will be with us forever..

Derek Jarman - although he died a few years ago he's still very influential - he takes no prisoners - but all the better for it - his last film 'blue' which is simply a voice over detailing his experiences dying of aids is both a tragic and happy experience that shakes you out of your comfort zone.

Robert Frank - photographer - happily nips between the traditional and contempory - but all his work captures the spirit of the subject - his 60's London pictures will be more important than any history book to the future.

Anbd finally I'd include Robert Crumb - degenerate US cartoonist who has an exhibition in London as we speak. For 40 years he's been sharing the underbelly of US society with his darkly comic cartoon strips. When future generations want to know what went wrong in the last half of the 20th century - R. Crumb will provide the answers...

There a mixed bag - and as ever a very personal choice...

I agree whole heartedly with Jarman and crumb. I don't know Robert Frank - I'll be honest.

Hirst and Emin I disagree. I do not believe they will be discussed and remembered in 400 years time - because I do not think the works themselves will physically last and I do no think future generations will find anything to relate to in their work. I find Tracy Emin, from the interviews I have seen, to be lacking in intelligence, humour and modesty. I do not think she will have lasting appeal. Hirst I think likes to shock for shock's sake - but sucessive generations are harder and harder to shock. His work will lose what little drama it has as the world accelerates past his pubescant tactics.
kd

> to be lacking in intelligence, humour and modesty.

or to put it another way..

Instinctive, serious and confident..

I think that what differentiates Emin's work captures her personality so if you're challenged by her - you're not going to like her stuff..

And may take on Hirst is that he has crossed over into popular culture - so while critics may move on it will take many years for the public to change their ideas - modern equals Damian Hirst's animals in tanks...just as classical ert equals the Mona Lisa.