davieG Posted 17 June 2009 Posted 17 June 2009 Ground breaking or Emperor's New Clothes. I've just been watching the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition on BBC2. I like art and admire the skills and craftsmanship of the old classical artists but apart from one or two pieces I find modern art leaves me cold and is the classic Emperor's New Clothes. Any thoughts?
Pricey Posted 17 June 2009 Posted 17 June 2009 Ground breaking or Emperor's New Clothes.I've just been watching the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition on BBC2. I like art and admire the skills and craftsmanship of the old classical artists but apart from one or two pieces I find modern art leaves me cold and is the classic Emperor's New Clothes. Any thoughts? Completely agree, been dragged to a couple of modern art museums before and found almost all paintings far too abstract to, IMO, be impressive. In Berlin one painting was just plain blue .
Webbo Posted 17 June 2009 Posted 17 June 2009 I don't know much about art but I know what I like, and I like stock car racing.
davieG Posted 17 June 2009 Author Posted 17 June 2009 I don't know much about art but I know what I like, and I like stock car racing. I'm sure it's been presented as modern art by someone.
Head Honcho Posted 17 June 2009 Posted 17 June 2009 I'm not a fan of art for arts sake which much of todays art is but the early modern art stuff by Rene Magritte, Miro and Chagall I can look at all day.
Lillehamring Posted 17 June 2009 Posted 17 June 2009 Ground breaking or Emperor's New Clothes.I've just been watching the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition on BBC2. I like art and admire the skills and craftsmanship of the old classical artists but apart from one or two pieces I find modern art leaves me cold and is the classic Emperor's New Clothes. Any thoughts? a staggering generalisation there, mate... how are you defining modern art? even if you just include stuff done in the last ten years its still a very wide spectrum of styles and technique... i've seen some fabulous thought provoking, beautiful art and a lot of silly nonsense... ironically, webbo's comment is probably a lot more sensible than it first sounds also a lot of modern stuff, installation art for example often needs to be seen in the flesh, so to speak, to fully appreciate it. the more you see the more you'll probably find you like.
davieG Posted 17 June 2009 Author Posted 17 June 2009 a staggering generalisation there, mate...how are you defining modern art? even if you just include stuff done in the last ten years its still a very wide spectrum of styles and technique... i've seen some fabulous thought provoking, beautiful art and a lot of silly nonsense... ironically, webbo's comment is probably a lot more sensible than it first sounds also a lot of modern stuff, installation art for example often needs to be seen in the flesh, so to speak, to fully appreciate it. the more you see the more you'll probably find you like. Having just watched that programme there was very little I liked and what makes it worse is the art critics and commentators all sound so pretentious .
Thracian Posted 18 June 2009 Posted 18 June 2009 Having just watched that programme there was very little I liked and what makes it worse is the art critics and commentators all sound so pretentious . Unfortunately the pretentious nature of the critics goes with turf - rather as in the upper echolons of the antiques world. When serious money is being spent, there often seems to be no trust unless there's pretentiousness and the irony is, that the most pretentious people have staged the most elaborate cons. That said I've always found it enlightening, stimulating and usually quite entertaining to hear someone who really does know about art talk on the subject. Modern art is so diverse it really is a question of what you enjoy looking at or otherwise and whether your own wish is to have your imagination stiumulated or simply to feel good or, perhaps, inspired in being around the item. But art is not just about subject it is about other things like impact, story and notoreity. People like to be associated or to own things that have provoked reaction or controversy. Surely art, good or bad, is, as much as anything, a talking point. With any luck we'll be in Tate Modern later today or tomorrow. I'm greatly looking forward to it. It is a subject about which any insight will be a bonus.
General Smuts Posted 18 June 2009 Posted 18 June 2009 Modern art makes me want to rock out. I'm a pop art whore.
Webbo Posted 18 June 2009 Posted 18 June 2009 ironically, webbo's comment is probably a lot more sensible than it first sounds It wasn't meant to be.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 20 June 2009 Posted 20 June 2009 Most modern art appears to me to have been produced by someone under the "influence".
stez Posted 20 June 2009 Posted 20 June 2009 Most modern art appears to me to have been produced by someone under the "influence". indeedy-do!
Lillehamring Posted 21 June 2009 Posted 21 June 2009 It wasn't meant to be. heh... every cliche is built around a likely truth...
davieG Posted 9 May 2012 Author Posted 9 May 2012 The artwork Orange, red, yellow by Mark Rothko has achieved the highest ever price for a piece of contemporary art at auction - fetching $86.9m (£53.8m). The 1961 painting was sold at Christie's in New York. I just don't get it!
Finnegan Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 Because there's nothing to get. It's just about having the audacity to be as pretentious as is actually possible.
MikeyT Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 The artwork Orange, red, yellow by Mark Rothko has achieved the highest ever price for a piece of contemporary art at auction - fetching $86.9m (£53.8m). The 1961 painting was sold at Christie's in New York. I just don't get it! Looks like something my 6 year old nephew would do at school.
James. Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 Some of it is obviously massively pretentious but then some of it is incredibly cool. I went to the Yayoi Kusama exhibition at the Tate which was great - really interesting to see the influence of her art on the culture at the time and conversley the influence of the prevailing culture on her art. One of her pieces was a room full of lights and mirrors giving the impression of an infinite space, it was brilliant. Also some of the stuff I've sene at the Saatchi gallery was great. The below installation by Richard Wilson was a complete headfúck.
Rincewind Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 Saw an artist/sculpture on a TV program and her piece was an untidy bed. They said every time she exhibits it, it has to be arranged exactly the same every time. Would people know if it wasn't? Not really sure about what is regarded as modern art. It is the artists interpretation I suppose of sof something or other. I try to get it so not to seem uncouth. But then again I am not keen on the 'chocolate box' style of painting. I have a copy of the Haywain above my fireplace by Constable. I like that because of the detail. Also have a picture of a clown. He's sitting on a drrum looking quite sad whistling and holding a cigar. Forget where I got it now. My favourite is one called The Scream. And I don't see how a picture of a bowl of flowers can be regarded as one of the best (Van Gogh)
davieG Posted 9 May 2012 Author Posted 9 May 2012 Saw an artist/sculpture on a TV program and her piece was an untidy bed. They said every time she exhibits it, it has to be arranged exactly the same every time. Would people know if it wasn't? Not really sure about what is regarded as modern art. It is the artists interpretation I suppose of sof something or other. I try to get it so not to seem uncouth. But then again I am not keen on the 'chocolate box' style of painting. I have a copy of the Haywain above my fireplace by Constable. I like that because of the detail. Also have a picture of a clown. He's sitting on a drrum looking quite sad whistling and holding a cigar. Forget where I got it now. My favourite is one called The Scream. And I don't see how a picture of a bowl of flowers can be regarded as one of the best (Van Gogh) Last week - Norwegian expressionist Edvard Munch's The Scream has become the most expensive artwork sold at auction, after it fetched $119.9m (£74m).
Rincewind Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 I will have to make do with a fake for now. Does the price it was sold at mean that I have taste?
davieG Posted 9 May 2012 Author Posted 9 May 2012 I will have to make do with a fake for now. Does the price it was sold at mean that I have taste? Taste or pretensions, I prefer this to the orange squares above as it certainly says something but worth £74 million?
Zingari Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 If I'm really honest , I'd sooner look at pics of scantily clad ladies like in the Miss England semi and hottest celebs threads.
AdamN Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 Taste or pretensions, I prefer this to the orange squares above as it certainly says something but worth £74 million? I imagine it went for that much based on how iconic/famous it is, as opposed to how good the painting itself is. I suppose it had to be worth £74m to someone! Besides, if someone wants to spend ridiculous sums on crap then who are we to stop them? In fact, I kind of admire the artists who manage to sell their works for vast amounts of money, cos if I was able to earn millions by scrawling some nonsensical shit on a canvas then I bloody well would!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.