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

When do the Tate Modern curators decide modern art began?

I don't know their website is hilarious all about how they are and i quote 'blowing the dome out of the water'!!!

Stirring emotions - possibly, but relying principally on shock value is a very cheap trick, and devoid of any long-term content. Personally, I can't see what artistic difference it makes if a painting has elephant s**t mixed with the paint or not, or whether a statue is cast out of bronze, wax, or frozen artist's p**s. All I sense is misdirection - an attempt to divert attention from the basic lack of technical ability of the artist. When an artist picks up something that somebody else (or nature) has made, and declares it to now be art simply because an artist says so, in my book they're in dire need of a good slap, and in a half-way decent art school, they'd get one.

There are many things that can be done with space and light and form and texture that cause deep emotional feelings, but if they're any good at all, they don't *need* a description or explanation. If you stand in a medieval cathedral, you don't need a guide to tell you what to *feel*.

Please note, I specifically avoided saying *all* modern or abstract art is crap - for example, I find lots of Rothko's paintings to have a deep aesthetic appeal even though they are quite simple in many ways. I get the feeling that he's speaking directly to my visual senses. Possibly another reason I respect his work is that I don't think he tried to tell everyone what he meant by a particular piece. There are a few great artists who go out of their way to tell everyone how great they are, but I think many of the best do posess a surprising amount of humility that is sadly lacking in many of the conceptual lot.
Again - maybe one reason I find the supporting words meaningless or unnecessary is because I'm an extremely visual thinker. Maybe some other people simply don't *see* things the same way. If so, I guess I'm the lucky one.

Possibly one workable definition of art is

'If you have to be *told* that something is art, then it probably isn't'
That seems to fit *my* prejudices - anyone got a better definition?

(Going back to Goldsworthy, one reason I appreciate his stuff is that it does stand being looked at for a decent length of time, and he doesn't seem to try to force ideas on people, or talk like some sad Left-Bank psuedo-intellectual.)

as a graduate of a very fine college of art and design, and being a fully motivated illustrator myself, i have found that most artists love to have a giggle at any willing public's expense. i was encouraged once to create a performance piece, in which i sat a doll on a home-built swing, and simply called it my "mood swing," with great aweing response from the class and professor. i sat to myself, thinking "suckerrrrss...."

listening to painting majors babble on and on about this and that has made me somewhat frustrated with fellow artists. especially when i spend 46 hours on a self portrait for portrait painting class in the strictest detail, and some other kids brings in a piece of wood covered in table varnish with bits of carpet stuck to it, and calls it even.

...to each his own, i suppose.

I thought this one was worth kicking back up to the top of the ask h2g2 list.

I was attracted to this conversation thread because I liked the title. It sums up my feelings about art. And wine, and music, and ... and... There's an awful lot of snobbery out there and I deeply resent the attitude, 'This is a masterpiece and this is why it's a masterpiece, and if you don't agree that it's a masterpiece then you must be stupid.' That strikes me as being a very "Emperor's New Clothes" attitude.

As far as I'm concerned, a work of art either interests me or it doesn't. With a few exceptions, portraits do nothing for me, but that doesn't mean that they're not art or that they're bad art. A lot of the art that I like is either 'old' (no later than 17th century - my PC desktop varies between Brueghel's "Tower of Babel" and Durer's "Rhinocerus"), or modern (I *love* some of Dali's work, especially when it involves optical illusions. I also love Escher, for the same reason.)

I was never comfortable about *some* modern art until I read "The Human Animal" by Desmond Morris, in which he describes why modern art has gone so abstract. Why does it take an anthropologist to cut through the cr*p? Having said that, the worst piece of 'art' I have ever seen was in an art gallery in Arnhem. The painting consisted of a 1m square canvas painted apple green. No shading, no changes in texture, just solid, flat apple green. I don't know what it was meant to represent (I don't speak Dutch, so I couldn't read the title), but I took one look and thought, "If that's art, I'm in the wrong job!"

I have to say that I love Andy Goldsworthys work ... I love both the more permanent of his pieces as much as the gone in the blink of an eye ones. He's clearly a very shrewd businessman too, realising that while he can be commissioned to do a piece for £x,000, he can make a mint from selling all those who aren't silly enough to pay for a sculpture that'll last until the sun comes up, the book with the photos!

"I read only for myself and like only that which suits my taste" Mr Voltaire wrote this in Candide and it holds for art as much as anything else. Like wine, books, music or indeed anything it's very personal.

Personally I don't like Dalis work ... he was undoubtedly a genius and incredibly talented but I would never want to own one of his pieces. Patrick Caulfield on the otherhand I think is amazing and would buy any one of his works if only the bank manager would let me!

I will willingly admit that anyone should be entitled to their opinion but all I ask is that you see whatever your having an opinion on first before passing judgement.

I totally agree with your comment on seeing the work before passing judgement. I have never dismissed *all* modern art as rubbish because I haven't seen it all. Of what I have seen, there are works that I like and works that leave me cold. The same goes for 'Old Masters'. Just because the art world has decided that Da Vinci (for example) produced 'masterpieces', that doesn't mean I have to like them. Personally, I wouldn't give house-room to the Mona Lisa.

As for Dali, I don't like everything he ever did. Some of his work leaves me cold. Other pieces leave me wondering what was he on when he did them, and where can I get some? But then, I have yet to encounter an artist whose work I enjoy, regardless of what it is.

All in all, I think Voltair summed it up very nicely. Thanks for the quote.

Last sentence, second paragraph, should read: But then, I have yet to encounter an artist whose wore I always enjoy, regardless of what it is. Hopefully that makes more sense!

I had a very long conversation with a self-proclaimed conceptual artist once. His position was that rubbish becomes art when a person that has studied art says it is art. Your average punter can't call an unmade bed art because he hasn't gone to art school and therefore can't possibly understand what 'art' is. He also had a go at the things we have in the house because we find them aesthetically pleasing, dismissing them with the line that 'you only have them because other people do'. No amount of repetition would persuade him that we had those things because they appealed on an aesthetic level.

After this conversation I am afraid I have dismissed *most* conceptual and modern art as pretentious twaddle.

And there it happens. I'm wandering round the local supermarket when I bump into an old schoolfriend I've not seen for years. Turns out he's studying fine art at Goldsmiths! I make the comment about what a load of pretentious twaddle some of these artists come out with and he says yep, it is

What a fabulous thread. This is more of a bookmark than anything else.

The only conceptual piece of art I ever knowingly saw was in Southampton Art Gallery in 1986. It was a circle about 10' across of 8" stones. I loved it. It was a perfect form made up of perfect forms, and reminded me of Stonehenge and Avebury, which are so completely different, being permanent, ancient, rough, and having major importance to the people of their time.

Mind you, by imagination was gripped by the plaster-cast of the house. I would have liked to have seen that, too.

Ben

I'm unsure whether much of that kind of art is really conceptual as such, rather than just modern/abstract/whatever. Personally, I reckon it's pretty much stretching the boundaries of the word 'art' anyway, a bit like a random collage of non-artist-made objects would also be doing.

I'm not a huge fan of the 'geometric pile of stones' style of art in general, partly since I just don't see much difference between it and a garden path, and possibly also because on the aesthetic front, I can't help being reminded about how much more wonderful naturally sculptured rocks can be in their proper setting.
It's kind of like looking at the short yellow grass in a London park in summer, and mentally comparing it to springy upland Yorshire turf, and feeling rather dissatisfied.