Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

[beesonthewhatnow]

I've always gone with this definition:

Something that has been deliberately constructed to evoke specific thoughts and or emotions...

...with the hope it can be flogged for a few quid so they don't have to get a proper job.

 

[gabi]

I've always gone with this definition:

Something that has been deliberately constructed to evoke specific thoughts and or emotions.

Fine art or high art:

A: does the above so badly so that only 'experts' can work out (or at least think they can) what was attempting to be evoked.
B: Has been made by someone with the right art world connections.
C: Has been made by someone famous or infamous (considered shit until you are told it's by that guy who went nuts and cut his ear off and sent it to someone).

thing is, van gogh was actually a genius. in my eyes anyway. Anyone who considers his work as 'shit' should cut out their eyeballs.

 

[chilango]

Re the OP.

I really like Lucio Fontana's stuff.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

No because his work is magnificent. On the face of it it just looks like two colours but his inception draws you into a world of helplessness. Picture it as a window and the red glare reflecting against your own conscience it asks questions whilst being subtle at the same time. You need to see it up front to understand. Either that or you don't get abstract Impressionism lol.

LOL

You should be an estate agent

 

[ViolentPanda]

I dunno....i think with a good eye and camera, its not that hard. Its definitely not art, thats for sure...

Photography can be art, just as sculpture or painting can sometimes not be art. Just as music is sometimes art, and sometimes not.

 

[ViolentPanda]

people don't buy 8 million quid artworks because they like them

More often they buy them for either status reasons, or because of investment potential, both of which reasons are fairly nauseating, IMO.

 

[Orang Utan]

...with the hope it can be flogged for a few quid so they don't have to get a proper job.

Proper job? Why isn't being an artist a proper job?


Such obtuseness on this thread. An ignorance parade.

 

[ViolentPanda]

thing is, van gogh was actually a genius. in my eyes anyway. Anyone who considers his work as 'shit' should cut out their eyeballs.

Van Gogh and a couple of his contemporaries introduced people to a new way of picturing landscapes and portraits - ways that weren't truly representational of what was there, but were what they saw. I love that Van Gogh's paintings look to me like he was frantic to get down what he was seeing.
And they mostly didn't paint or sculpt saints either, which is a big fucking relief after about 7 centuries of martyr veneration and the licking of Church arse (and seeking of Church patronage) by artists.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Proper job? Why isn't being an artist a proper job?


Such obtuseness on this thread. An ignorance parade.

Here he goes again!!!

 

[Cheesypoof]

Photography can be art, just as sculpture or painting can sometimes not be art. Just as music is sometimes art, and sometimes not.

I guess when you put it like that, its right. I would be very reluctant to consider a photograph a work of art, unless it was REALLY something.

Actually, I think this is a very artistic photo that a photographer took of Amy Winehouse in Scotland. Really captures her in a classic, 1950s paparazzi style.

 

[Orang Utan]

Here he goes again!!!

Again?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Mark Rothko –White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose)
$71 million..in 2007..

Reminds me of Bassetts liquorice allsorts....

 

[Orang Utan]

If you don't like Rothko, then there's no hope

 

[Cheesypoof]

If you don't like Rothko, then there's no hope

why do you like him so much?

 

[Orang Utan]

why do you like him so much?

I like the way his paintings look. They make you gasp close up.

 

[Cheesypoof]

I like the way his paintings look. They make you gasp close up.

Really? Fair enough, I don't think they are shit btw. It is good when a supposedly 'red' painting is supremely detailed with layering and up close you can see blacks and other hues...I like that.

 

[Orang Utan]

I don't see why you wouldn't like Rothko. It's people who don't like the self-evidently staggeringly beautiful paintings of Rothko that need to explain themselves

 

[Dr_Herbz]

I like the way his paintings look. They make you gasp close up.

No, they don't. They're a bag of shite.

 

[Cheesypoof]

I don't see why you wouldn't like Rothko. It's people who don't like the self-evidently staggeringly beautiful paintings of Rothko that need to explain themselves

Check out some responses here....
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=630949

I do like it (only heard of him today)

 

[Orang Utan]

No, they don't. They're a bag of shite.

Explain why

 

[Dr_Herbz]

I don't see why you wouldn't like Rothko. It's people who don't like the self-evidently staggeringly beautiful paintings of Rothko that need to explain themselves

No.... It's people who do like that shite who need to explain themselves.

 

[Orang Utan]

No.... It's people who do like that shite who need to explain themselves.

I already have. Your turn.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Explain why

Because it's pretentious shite

 

[sleaterkinney]

Because it's pretentious shite

Most art is pretentious shite, maybe it's not for you?

 

[Orang Utan]

That word pretentious again....

 

[Orang Utan]

Because it's pretentious shite

Awesome painting. Two words isn't an explanation. Explain why you believe Rothko to be pretentious and why you think he is shite.

 

[Dillinger4]

Because it's pretentious shite

Thats beautiful

 

[Dillinger4]

What is it making a pretence towards?

 

[Dr_Herbz]

What is it making a pretence towards?

Not being shite.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Most art is pretentious shite, maybe it's not for you?

I agree. Most art is pretentious shite, and isn't for me but we're back to the same old question... what is art?

This might be art but it's shite. Anyone who can't see that is a deluded fool.