Modern art critics. Oh dear...

[UndercoverElephant]

I always suspected modern art was up it's own backside and that the critics hadn't got a clue. Now I'm sure:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/5081744.stm

[Tirdun]

Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience [...] But it's up to the artist to use language that can be understood. Most of these jokers don't want to use a language you and I can learn; they would rather sneer because we 'fail' to see what they are driving at. If anything. Obscurity is the refuge of incompetence.
-Jubal Harshaw, Stranger In A Strange Land

I've kept this quote from Heinlein around forever.

[Meffy]

It said the head had been safely stored ready to be collected by the artist.
=>_<= Please store my head alongside it.

Zardoz -- the universe's revenge for this.

[UserGoogol]

To be fair, I have to agree with the judging panel. The face is kind of stupid looking, whereas the wooden support pole is rather elegant, and contrasts nicely against the metal it's resting on.

[Godmode]

I like the face, I'd probably like it better if I had a good view of it...they should prop that up with a stick or something.
:p

[Meffy]

I like the face, I'd probably like it better if I had a good view of it...they should prop that up with a stick or something.
:p
The face might sag, and there would be charges of Dali derivation.

[Darat]

Being discussed also in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58458

[chriswl]

There was a nice commentary on this in the Guardian a few days ago:

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1798851,00.html

"I wonder, though, whether the RA's embarrassment is quite the humiliation of modern art that it appears. The argument that the selection panel has been stupid - and fooled into elevating a mistake into art - rests largely on the fact that they were not seeing what the artist intended. But an artist's interpretation of his or her own work has only limited validity; it's outsiders who decide how it goes down. You can write a play and call it a comedy, but if theatregoers don't laugh there's no arguing with them.

Or imagine that the last chapter of a crime novel were accidentally omitted in a mix-up at the printers. Readers and critics who admired the ambiguity of the ending - and welcomed the author's departure from the convention that every loose end must be tied - are not wrong or stupid. They simply responded honestly to what they were shown and expressed a preference for work that was willing to ignore traditions."

I think I agree with that. There is something quite intriguing and sinister about a bone on a plinth entitled "One Day Closer To Paradise".

[Renfield]

Where modern art is concerned, I always suspected the real artistry was in coming up with the explanations, justifications, and interpritations of this stuff. Now that seems even more likely.

Since the work of "art" here was actually only the support and not a work in itself, does it qualify as "found" art, I wonder? Have the judges inadvertantly become the artists here, since it was they who(m?) discovered this thing and put it up there?

[Rustle]

There was a nice commentary on this in the Guardian a few days ago:

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1798851,00.html



I think I agree with that. There is something quite intriguing and sinister about a bone on a plinth entitled "One Day Closer To Paradise".

I think the commentary misses entirely in its analogies. What happened would be like this: A writer submits a short story to a publisher, who promptly publishes the front of the envelope, dismissing the manuscript inside.

I don't have a problem with displaying a wooden peg as art, but clearly the expertise and authority of these judges fell down. Don't you think?

[Rustle]

Since the work of "art" here was actually only the support and not a work in itself, does it qualify as "found" art, I wonder? Have the judges inadvertantly become the artists here, since it was they who(m?) discovered this thing and put it up there?

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

[tkingdoll]

I think the commentary misses entirely in its analogies. What happened would be like this: A writer submits a short story to a publisher, who promptly publishes the front of the envelope, dismissing the manuscript inside.



No, because the writer would immediately be sued for plagiarism by the Post Office.

[El Greco]

My criterion for deciding whether something is art I don't understand or junk I don't understand, is whether I could make it or think it myself. If I see something that even *I* could make or think, then it most probably is junk.

[UserGoogol]

I don't see why the difficulty of art should have any bearing on its quality. Art is good if it looks good. A plinth on a stone tablet looks good. Therefore, this is good art. That the artist just grabbed it so that he would have something to support his statue seems irrelevant as to the quality of the plinth as art.

[geni]

No, because the writer would immediately be sued for plagiarism by the Post Office.

Not legaly posible. They could sue for a copyright violation on the stamp and the postmark.

[kittynh]

I"m too exhausted posting in the other thread about modern art. Get some Thomas Hoving books, read up.

Remember, Van Gogh was known as the crazy guy that painting UGLY cheap sunflowers and his own UGLY poor bedroom. And what was up with the colors? Garish and bright. And none of it looks REAL.

[geni]

Remember, Van Gogh was known as the crazy guy that painting UGLY cheap sunflowers and his own UGLY poor bedroom. And what was up with the colors? Garish and bright. And none of it looks REAL.

Yes and?

[Renfield]

I don't think anyone, even Van Gogh's biggest haters, ever confused his work with coat pegs, or vice versa.