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

Modern conceptual art has no merit whatsoever. It takes no skill to lay a pile of bricks or exhibit an unmade bed.

It's all about money in my opinion. Why bother spending days, or even weeks on an intricate beautiful painting that nobody will appreciate when you can just cobble together a load of old junk and make £100,000 from it?

I'll second that. I've often wondered if I should jack in my day job and take up modern art, as it appears anyone could vomit onto a paving slab and pass it off as modern art these days . Provided, of course, you could come up with some spin as to how it represented some idiom of modern life and its ultimate tragedy, or some other cr*p like that.

Ultimately, it's style over substance and bull**** over actual talent.

Displays like the unmade bed, etc are not art. The only art involved is the art of controversy, which seems to pay off very well.

Well...I have to wade in as Samson against the Phillistines (hmmph. bloody long-hared intellectuals!) Yes, it's tainted by money. Yes, a lot of the art world is up it's own a**e. Yes, 90% of *anything* is crap. And yet, and yet...there's definitely something there. There must be...otherwise I (and others) wouldn't like it. And - honestly - I do! Some of it. You may think that I'm slavishly in thrall to the chattering classes...well - I'm not sure how I can convince you otherwise. Trust me. I think part of it is that you're missing the point. Duchamp probably started off the whole conceptual art malarkey by exhibiting a urinal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4059997.stm. Unlike, say, a Constable, this 'found object' required no skill in its execution. It was the *idea* that was art. What if I exhibit this in a gallery and pretend it's art? Something new to think about, no? And that's what art - all good art - gives us...something to think about. Since the invention of photography it's not been enough just to represent. Even in painting (eg Picasso) the driving force has been 'What's another way of looking at things?' I'll even defend Tracy Emin - who I'm not especially fond of. Leaving aside the fact that in conventional media she's an *outstandingly* good drawer and lithographer - her idea of presenting her life as art - 'me, me, look at me, I'm Tracy Emin' - is an intersting approach. And she does give you the whole deal - she doesn't hide the tatty bits! I doubt I'll make any converts. But...hell...I don't like Opera. I've tried, but I just don't. However...there are people whose taste and opinions In respect who claim to get a lot out of it. They rave about it! They must be right. There must be something *I'm* missing. Coincidentally, this week's talking point mirrors an ongoing debate here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=524287&skip=4300&show=20 (Post 4316 onwards) (Italics...could the relevant posts maybe be moved over here?)

<>

Hey!

<> .

Well, I am long haired, but only because I'm a woman. And I don't feel especially intellectual.

I'm an engineer, and part of what I do in my job involves looking at things from different angles and in different ways; I have to think as a user, a repairer, a designer, a manufacturer, heck, even as a manager (although I try to avoid that bit ).... So perhaps I struggle with the way modern art often tries (as you say, Edward) to get us to look at things differently. I find its pretentiousness annoying in the same way I find workplace politics and buzzwords annoying. Or maybe I just miss the point.

For me to be able to consider something as art, I need to be able to appreciate that some skill went into it, be that skill metal-working, carving, painting, an eye for colour and line, or drawing. For a lot of modern art, that doesn't seem to be there.

I mean, apparently the statue of Alison Lapper in Trafalgar Square is considered modern art. I'd agree that's art as it's a brilliantly carved statue that does make people think about their preconceptions. In a similar vein, I'm undecided as to whether I *like* Picasso's paintings, but he definitely had a gift for painting which I respect. What gift is there in displaying an dirty, unmade bed, or a urinal?

Hi Edward,

I can accept your premise, only if I lower my standard for what Art is.

To take your premise to its logical conclusion, any random piece of dog poo is 'Art'. I've known a Saint Bernard who was a prolific maestro.

But...all you lot are saying is that you - *you personally* don't like it.

What if I say that I get something out of it. Am I wrong? Am I just a pretentious dupe?

As for the St Bernard...well, conceivably his poo could be an objet trouvee - stranger things have happened. It would take an artist to choose to exhibit it with the intention that it be viewed as art. (I doubt that this was what Rover intended). But...this is hypothetical. It hasn't happened, has it? The argument is as sensible as saying 'As an engineer, I could make a bridge out of jelly.' Well...yes you could. But not a very good one.

Not all urinals are works of art, either. But at least one was.

Oh...and to explain why:

early 19thC Paris. The art world is a back-biting set of competing, cliquey schools debating about which kind of art is best and who should be admitted into the Academie. Along comes Duchamp and says 'F--k it. Let's call this art!' That shut 'em up. They were too busy shouting at *him*! Think of it as the art world's equivalent of Dylan's 'Judas' moment.

(And yes, it had shock value in that it was not a urinal and not something else. This kind of stuff can get tedious...but at least it was still fresh back then).

I'm saying that it does not meet my standards for art.

The urinal was a joke. Duchamp made a good point, but the avant-garde artsy set decided that anything that gets attention must be Art.

I don't disagree with your arguments, but I'm not gonna be euchred into thinking that a mess is anything other than a mess.

As a potential art critic, I have to ask, 'What is the artist trying to convey?...Why?'

Just a point of clarification. It DOES take skill to lay bricks well, just not artistic talent. When done properly, it is meticulously beautiful, but still not art.

But, that does not mean that one could not use bricks to create a breathtaking sculpture. Not all sculptures must be carved from a single hunk. It's just not artistic to bring to life the vision of an architect, no matter how beautiful the result.

Like Music there is good and bad with just a little cream at the top. The problem is theft of legacy. Art has been stolen by the "the man" Basicaly the "Art world has been appropriated by the University system where people who were really hoping to be writers and perhaps studying Humanities inflitrated and co-opted the history of Art. This appropriation of the past work of skilled artists, painters and sculptors,as the roots of their "practice" has turned most "Art" into a bare illustration of a conceptual Idea or frame work. To withhold their claim as the legitimate heir to the great works of the past a negation of the rightful heirs becomes a neccesity. All of which is fine with me except for two things, firstly it masquerades as scientific when it is nepotistic and why cant "conceptulist" be clever enough to get out of galleries that were created for the display of Painting and sculptors and concieve of something new? Video in a gallery? usually awful, that's for tv.(NOt to be confused with a powerful video installation that transforms the space)I saw recently some work by tracey emin and in person conveys no more than it did as a paragraph in a magazine, then go look at a real painting as opposed to in a book, see. Its time for the creators of Images to stand up and say our work lives and reverberates outside of "language" and lets stop pretending that using "language" about Visual phenomenon is a democratic situation, its not. If you disagree dont write it, draw me a storyboard.

I think there are issues of mixing up conceptual art, modern art, and abstract art.

Regarding 'modern art', in one sense it's merely a temporal description. To the extent it refers to a non-temporal classification (certain *types* of art), it's worth having some agreement on what the term does and doesn't cover.

Regarding 'abstract art', it's possible to have an aesthetic reaction to an abstract piece (without having extra information about the creator or their intentions), whether largely at the level of the visual system or possibly at some higher mental level.

It's *possible* to have a deep asthetic reaction to something abstract or representational that happens by chance - something that wasn't intended to be remotely artistic, something catching the light in an odd way or seen from a different perspective, something natural, or something intended as *possible* art but which was utterly unpredictable, such as a painting made by throwing paint blindfold at a canvas.

I'm struggling with the idea of how much mental effort a conceptual artist need exert before claiming the 'art' in the work as their own.
In the case of blindfolded paint-throwing (making an essentially unpredictable object), if an 'artist' created a dozen works the same way, the only conceptual input from the artist seems to have been 'throw paint at canvas while blindfold', which is *precisely* the same idea in each case.
To the extent that the works create different reactions, that doesn't seem to be due to anything other than a combination of pure chance and the viewer's own mental baggage.

In the case of selecting found objects for display in a gallery with no obvious skilled alteration, (unmade beds, etc), some would argue it's the original idea that is the Art, but I'm wondering where that process stops.
If I'm a conceptual artist, and I tell my workshop to "toss an badger corpse into a fishtank", some would argue the real art is in my idea, even if some serious leeway was given to the actual worker.
However, if I'm told by my dealer to "churn out another piece for quick sale, preferably something with a squirrel in, and with a title about mortality", and I pass on that idea to my workshop unchanged, does that make the *dealer* the real artist?

In the sense that simple ideas can be art, presumably most advertising and grahpic design is art, and much engineering is also art unless it is somehow both obvious and purely utilitarian, if such a thing is possible?

I'm not saying that what conceptual artists produce is nothing *but* concept - there may indeed be some created aesthetic quality, and some expression of craft, and maybe some actually have natural talent or have learned something from art school other than marketing - I'm just puzzled as to why the concept or hype seems to be seen as being of more than minor importance.

Indeed, the seeming need or willingness of certain artists to keep re-using the same concepts, whether concrete, fishtanks, in-your-face gentitalia, animal droppings, or random cheap shock tactics would seem to point to a decided laziness or lack of imagination in the artists, and possibly in some of their audience.

"Now, let's see what Christo's doing for his next piece. Well, f&^% me! You'll *never* guess! He's going to take a *building*, and then he's going to..."

>>Indeed, the seeming need or willingness of certain artists to keep re-using the same concepts,

Well...a) They've got to make a living, b) More than one person might want a copy. (Charles Saatchi, usually)

Christo I'll defend. I don't actually think he makes great art...but he does make great spectacles. Some friends went to his thingy in Central Park NYC and thoroughly enjoyed it. A wrapped Reichstag doesn't have the same impact if the observer is in, say, Burnley.

It may be a spectacle, but so is a firework display, or Chris Evans dropping his trousers.

The question is, is it Art, and maybe even what *fraction* of the experience is Art - is Art some all-engulfing quality which claims ownership of all the emotional content of an experience even if there's only a *little* Art added to existing non-Art, like a cupful of Bitrex in a swimming pool of wine?

You mentioned the taint of money earlier. They can only make a living if someone thinks enough of their work to pay a substantial sum for it, or if they can churn out pieces that fetch a modest sum often enough. Is it art only if someone likes it? Some artists have only found acclaim posthumously.

Just out of interest...what do those of you here who don't like Modern Art think of conventional art?

I mean...I love art. Art of all sorts...from Caravaggio to Picasso to the stuff being derided here. In fact...If I'm honest, I don't like Hirst or Emin as much as many other contemporary artists; I prefer Caravaggio to just about all contemporary art; And I love Picasso way above all others. But the point is...I and others who love art really, *really* love it. We could spend hours in galleries, even looking at the stuff that's being called rubbish.

So...I'm curious...you sceptics...are there any bits of conventional art that you truly drool over, that inspire or excite you? I don't mean in a 'Ooh! That's quite pretty' way, but in a real, gut-wrenching way?

Examples, please. Just so that we can get an idea of what Modern Art's missing.

Hi, as a 'proper artist' I thought I'd chuck in my twopennorth:

Working in a shopping center on a project, two girls around eleven years old came over to watch me:

'Wow that's a good drawing, are you a proper artist?'
'Thanks. Yes, I'm being paid by the local gallery...(explained the project)'
'Right. So if you're a proper artist, can you draw Winnie the Pooh?...'

Moral: The audience will find art wherever & in whatever it wants....

As a sceptic, one piece of art which gives me a real gut reaction is one of Goya's - arrgh, it was featured in Rolf on Art, a series I've enjoyed watching, and I can't remember what it's called! Is it the 5th of 'something'? The one with the man about to be shot. I'm cementing my new status as "philistine" here . Please excuse me, I haven't had my morning coffee yet!

Anyway, the whole painting is striking in its detail, its composition, its colours, and the portraits of the people in it; you can actually sense the emotions and atmosphere of the scene, and knowing that it was a real scene gives it an extra impact.

Turner's "The Fighting Temeraire" is also another painting which I like; it's dramatic, its a statement which conveys the victorious history of the ship even as it was being towed in for decommissioning.

<<The audience will find art wherever & in whatever it wants....>>
I actually agree with this; art taste is as personal and individual as taste in music. But then, to me a car can be art, a building can be art, in ways that I can't readily define but can only attempt to explain as some quality of the lines which conveys skill and understanding of proportion, interaction, light and shape.