Its Turner Prize time

[mudskipper]

That'll be the proof of the pudding. Some kinds of art are easier for people to gather around in a mutual tulip-talking 'aren't we so cultured' group wank. Last time I went to the tate modern it was sickening listening to the tulip people managed to say to each other regarding a canvas with a single whole poked through it.

If people are still having the same conversations about that piece in 200 years time then I'll have been wrong. I doubt they will though

That's interesting though, thinking of what some people call 'art' as being part of the art-making process. I could see the attraction of seeing it in the same way you might view some old inventor's prototypes/tinkerings in a museum.

The point of the slit canvas, is questioning the tradition of art on a 2d surface - Fontana was challenging the flat canvas in the same way as Turner was challenging the necessity of versimilitude in his work. It's part of an evolution, and as such probably will still be being talked about in 200 years.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Are-You.../dp/0670920495 is worth a read if you're even slightly interested in the whys of modern art - very readable and not at all pretentious. It may not make you like it, but it will make it more interesting.

[vetran]

The point of the slit canvas, is questioning the tradition of art on a 2d surface - Fontana was challenging the flat canvas in the same way as Turner was challenging the necessity of versimilitude in his work. It's part of an evolution, and as such probably will still be being talked about in 200 years.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Are-You.../dp/0670920495 is worth a read if you're even slightly interested in the whys of modern art - very readable and not at all pretentious. It may not make you like it, but it will make it more interesting.

I think if all of these modern artists provided real quality images and gave them a twist like Banksy a lot more people would connect to it.

I suppose this is the concept of modern art, take something that you don't look at and make it beautiful to challenge the viewers idea of beauty and meaning:

The Ray by CHARDIN, Jean-Baptiste-Simon

I sort of understand this :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...soGuernica.jpg

and this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._of_Memory.jpg

Viewing much modern art I imagine Philip Glennister saying 'load of pretentious rubbish we need a proper painting like the Moana Liza'

[Mich the Tester]

I think if all of these modern artists provided real quality images and gave them a twist like Banksy a lot more people would connect to it.

A lot of them sell more 'accessible' works to earn a living. The works they'll sell you if you visit their studio might be the result of several experiments. It's perhaps a bit like the fashion industry; you see thin people wearing wierd clothes on the catwalk, but the stuff that goes into the shops is watered down and made more practical for manufacturers to make it and people to wear it. A good thing, because I'm not 9 stone and I don't want to wear a dress.

[mudskipper]

A lot of them sell more 'accessible' works to earn a living. The works they'll sell you if you visit their studio might be the result of several experiments. It's perhaps a bit like the fashion industry; you see thin people wearing wierd clothes on the catwalk, but the stuff that goes into the shops is watered down and made more practical for manufacturers to make it and people to wear it. A good thing, because I'm not 9 stone and I don't want to wear a dress.

[Mich the Tester]

I rather like the works of Jackson Pollock.

dunno why.

WHS and Mondriaan too. I dunno why either though.

[Mich the Tester]

Precisely, thankyou.

[mudskipper]

WHS and Mondriaan too. I dunno why either though.

A guy on Sunday's ride had a nice Mondrian cycle jersey.

http://www.prendas.co.uk/santini-la-...ng-jersey.html

[SpontaneousOrder]

The point of the slit canvas, is questioning the tradition of art on a 2d surface - Fontana was challenging the flat canvas in the same way as Turner was challenging the necessity of versimilitude in his work. It's part of an evolution, and as such probably will still be being talked about in 200 years.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Are-You.../dp/0670920495 is worth a read if you're even slightly interested in the whys of modern art - very readable and not at all pretentious. It may not make you like it, but it will make it more interesting.

meh... we had 3 dimensions on a canvas before.

I might give it a read though, because although I don't like the self-destructive nature of modern art, understandign the whys, as you say, might help me clarify the reasons why I like other kinds. I've got 2 weeks on a beach starting next week!

[SpontaneousOrder]

WHS and Mondriaan too. I dunno why either though.

Would you label it as art though? Regardless of whether it was interesting/aesthetically pleasing or not.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I think if all of these modern artists provided real quality images and gave them a twist like Banksy a lot more people would connect to it.

I suppose this is the concept of modern art, take something that you don't look at and make it beautiful to challenge the viewers idea of beauty and meaning:

The Ray by CHARDIN, Jean-Baptiste-Simon

I sort of understand this :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...soGuernica.jpg

and this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._of_Memory.jpg

Viewing much modern art I imagine Philip Glennister saying 'load of pretentious rubbish we need a proper painting like the Moana Liza'

I'm happier with those kinds of thing. Although Dali is questioning the objectivity of reality, he's not gone as far as removing all allusions to some kind of realness for the sake of some kind of nihilistic purity when it comes to painting.