ART.

[Toughened]

Art I suppose is what people are willing to pay for it.
That being some ridculous prices at times.

[camera]

i appreciate art, didnt use to. + its up to an individual how to interpret em

[Catzsy]

Ok I'm not an art person or whatever but don't you think some of the pieces that are worth millions can be abit silly? I've never really looked into the whole 'meaning' into them in depth maybe that's what I'm messing but yeah.

For example that Unmade bed thing by Tracey Enim, wow I do that everyday.

And somone got like millionz for throwing some sticks into the air... Anybody could do it.

Am I missing the 'message'?

Show Hide

That bed was a representation of a really bad period in her life when she spent weeks in it really depressed. She almost makes her whole life into 'art' as she represents her raw feelings and emotions into 'installation' art.
It is not so much the bed but what it represents. At that time it was considered groundbreaking and shocking to the every day person. Whether it is worth a lot of money I am not sure but she is the only person to have done this and nobody else will be able to because it can only be done once. Your bed is therefore your own 'art' - that bed represents you as a unique human being. Damien Hirst on the other hand I believe just sets out to shock - he is not a true artist, in my opinion. His diamond skull was purely and simply a money making exercise as he bought virtually the whole world supply of these type of diamonds thus making sure that the prices of these diamonds rocketed.

If you see a piece of modern art I believe you have to think what's behind the image, get to know a bit about the person and sometimes you will figure it out. Sometimes not.

[Dan2nd]

I understand how modern art is supposed to have meaning but most of the time it has to be explained to me. I was just about to post saying how that bed thing was a load of crap but then I read Catzsy's post and sorta understood it..

I went to the Tate Modern once with school we were sent off to 'draw' our favourite modern art thingys... I came accross a plain looking clock on the wall I couldn't understand how it was modern art, what it was supposed to mean and stuff... anyway looking around there were other pieces such as a weird looking chair, a glass box full of metal wire etc etc and decided to draw the clock.. I took my drawing of this clock back to my teacher to be told that it wasn't art it was actually 'just a clock'.

[Bevvie]

I dislike conceptual art. lol

[Marucho]

Yeah I agree. 'Art' nowadays is a lot of crap if you ask me. Whereas if for example you drew a landscape and it actually looked impossible real, THAT is art. It takes talent. Not a leaky can of paint being thrown around.

[Catzsy]

Yeah I agree. 'Art' nowadays is a lot of crap if you ask me. Whereas if for example you drew a landscape and it actually looked impossible real, THAT is art. It takes talent. Not a leaky can of paint being thrown around.

Well what do you think of Banksy? He is a grafitti artist. I think he is amazing, thought provoking and very clever.

http://www.banksyunmasked.co.uk/

[LoveToStack]

Well what do you think of Banksy? He is a grafitti artist. I think he is amazing, thought provoking and very clever.

http://www.banksyunmasked.co.uk/

I know this is offtopic with the general theme of this thread but since you bring him up. It annoys me that people recognise his work as "thought provoking and very clever" yet shun 'normal' graffiti. I'm not talking about some scribble on a wall from some 'youth team' but proper good pieces are amazing if you stop and look at them, even if they don't contain one man's personal political opinion.

[FlyingJesus]

As an artist I view art as something purely aesthetic, something which I'm sure most other artists wouldn't agree with. Fair play sometimes you might want to express yourself, but if you do that you should then keep it to yourself because it ought to be personal. If there's supposed to be a message and that message isn't immediately apparent without you needing to be told what it is then it simply isn't done well enough, so it's failed as an art form in my view. As for Banksy, I have no respect for the man at all. His "work" is no more profound than that of any political cartoonist in a cheap magazine or newspaper and I strongly believe that all interest in him is purely hype

[Catzsy]

I know this is offtopic with the general theme of this thread but since you bring him up. It annoys me that people recognise his work as "thought provoking and very clever" yet shun 'normal' graffiti. I'm not talking about some scribble on a wall from some 'youth team' but proper good pieces are amazing if you stop and look at them, even if they don't contain one man's personal political opinion.

No I agree with you totally. Good graffiti is good graffiti. Its art in the environment.

As an artist I view art as something purely aesthetic, something which I'm sure most other artists wouldn't agree with. Fair play sometimes you might want to express yourself, but if you do that you should then keep it to yourself because it ought to be personal. If there's supposed to be a message and that message isn't immediately apparent without you needing to be told what it is then it simply isn't done well enough, so it's failed as an art form in my view. As for Banksy, I have no respect for the man at all. His "work" is no more profound than that of any political cartoonist in a cheap magazine or newspaper and I strongly believe that all interest in him is purely hype

Couldn't disagree with you more which is a change. I prefer not to be led by the hand in a piece of art - I want it to be challenging and not just all laid out. To put art into a categorised box like this is to limit it. As far as Banksy is concerned - his social messages go out to the masses and I don't think
he can be written off so lightly.