# Modern Art... Art At All?



## kyektulu (Jul 13, 2005)

I just thought I would share with everyone my intense hatred of so called 'modern' art. I personally cannot understand how such things as an unmade bed, a peice of blue tack with a thumbprint on it and a painting made out of elephant dung can be described as 'works of genious' and 'awe inspireing', can you? Call me old fashiond but as a painter myself I cannot see the point of the turner prize at all now, it seems like the days are gone when you had to have talent to be described as an artist. 
To me a great painting is such as the works of Davinchi, Boris Vallego, Fred Fields, Brom etc. A work of art should have the createors passion and soul in it, I just dont see that in a blob of blue tack!


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jul 13, 2005)

I agree with you in this respect, although I'm sure there are some good modern artists out there who get tarred with the same brush.

Personally, I don't mind if supercilious rich snobs spend ridiculous sums of money on godawful cack, as long as they don't try and tell me how marvellous it is, whilst smoking out of a cigarette holder and sipping mumsies champers 

oh, and don't get me started on art critics....


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 13, 2005)

The whole post-modernist movement is one big free-for-all in terms of expression, which has it's good points (interest in individual expression) and bad points (taking the pee).

The Turner Prize itself seems to have turned into a parody of itself, really, and happiest courting media attention controversy rather than artistic talent.

Maybe we should start ourselves a new art movement?


----------



## polymorphikos (Jul 14, 2005)

I agree. I suggest we fuse words, images, sounds, smells, thoughts and time, and mix it all together to create images that provide one with all the information of an actual individual standing within that scene, as though three seconds of film time frozen in ink.

I call it - Comics!


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 14, 2005)

I don't care either if supercilious rich snobs spend ridiculous amounts of _ their own money_ on ... well, I don't much care what they spend their money on period.

But when local government spends _tens of thousands_ of my tax dollars (money that could be going to schools or to libraries for instance) on some hideous sculpture that looks like a gigantic version of something I would use to anchor a picture to the wall ... then I get a little testy.


----------



## Maggie (Jul 14, 2005)

I agree.  Art should move you in some way not make you feel sick to the core (half animals suspended in liquid why??) i dont class that as art, I just find it sickening.


Art to me is a piece of work that moves me emotionally in a good way, something that is pleasing to my eye.

 I also agree that councils should be ashamed of themselves spending huge amounts on lumps of metal to adorn their citys, most people just look at them in bewilderment not with pride, so they should use this money to help our future generation in every way possible. 

 There off my soap box now


----------



## GOLLUM (Jul 14, 2005)

I also agree can't understand what this modern art is all about...       

Give me a nice pair of painted leather trousers any day of the week, now that's art...


----------

