kingcon
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 135
How is that art!?
- Thread starter kingcon
- Start date
kingcon
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 135
- Thread starter
- #4
Its just the fact that in the bottom image , they haven’t even made their own original font, if that’s classed as art then technically I could copy and paste this forum, print it out 50times the size and hay presto its art!
GekuL
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 405
Isn't one of the pieces called what-is-art? Well it seems to have made you think about the question. 
I don't think resembling something real makes the art any more significant btw, music is abstract when you think about it. Although almost all modern art seems like bullshit to me, it means something to someone and that's all it has to do. I just let them get on with it
I don't think resembling something real makes the art any more significant btw, music is abstract when you think about it. Although almost all modern art seems like bullshit to me, it means something to someone and that's all it has to do. I just let them get on with it
GekuL said:Isn't one of the pieces called what-is-art? Well it seems to have made you think about the question.
Haha I hate dipshits who say "Yeah but it's made you talk/think/ask about it" when I say "What's the fucknig point in that?" They may as well say afterwards "Oh could you excuse me for one moment whilst I shove this picture of myself up my own bottom?"
Jonaldo
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,173
Saying something has made you think is a bit silly really.
Even if you decide to not to take any notice of this comment you've probably actively made a decision to do that and thus thought about it.
If I fart in a small enlosed area, most people would be thinking about it..
Everything you look at or hear you think about. Someone asking me 'What is art?' makes me think 'not that' and so ends my thinking about it. Not art. In fact I probably think about the fart more than his extremely deep and philosophical question.
Even if you decide to not to take any notice of this comment you've probably actively made a decision to do that and thus thought about it.
If I fart in a small enlosed area, most people would be thinking about it..
Everything you look at or hear you think about. Someone asking me 'What is art?' makes me think 'not that' and so ends my thinking about it. Not art. In fact I probably think about the fart more than his extremely deep and philosophical question.
GekuL
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 405
Bullitt said:
I wasn't referring to modern art in general, but a story which includes a piece called "is it art?" prompts someone to start a thread about the very same question. As long as you have a reading age above 5 the point wouldn't need to be explained, surely? You then say, "no, it isn't actually", maybe using your finger under the words to help you keep your place.
There are people that like to waste their time and money thinking about such things remember. I am not one of them, but I'm not going to tell people what they should or shouldn't spend their time doing, even if I do think it's bollocks.
You can also say "what's the fucknig point in this thread"? Obviously the idea was for everyone to say how much they hate modern art. I haven't lost my parents to any freak modern art accidents like it seem's some of you have, so I don't waste my time criticising them. I don't go out of my way to say how shit some music is either. I don't start threads saying how much I hate liver. Why do people waste their time on things they obviously care so little about?
I honestly don't know why I'm wasting my time, I think it's something to do with my hatred of the Daily Mail for some reason.
Hold on there skip it wasn't specifically aimed at you, unless you look at "art" with other people and say that sort of thing ("made you think" bit). These same people probably wear black polo neck sweaters, and berets and hang out in jazz cafés driking mocha-choca-lotta-something "coffee"
It just sounds pretentious as fuck when people say that. Art to me is aesthetically pleasing, nice to look at etc. Would Mona Lisa be any less "art" if it were a photo? After all he only painted it because they were too stupid to invent cameras.
It just sounds pretentious as fuck when people say that. Art to me is aesthetically pleasing, nice to look at etc. Would Mona Lisa be any less "art" if it were a photo? After all he only painted it because they were too stupid to invent cameras.
Tom
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 17,389
Well to me, art falls under two categories:
1) takes skill and time to do it
2) promotes an idea
I prefer 1), as I can appreciate a nice painting, or a beautiful sculpture. Things like 2), Tracey Emin's work for example, are just plain old toss to me. I just don't see the point.
1) takes skill and time to do it
2) promotes an idea
I prefer 1), as I can appreciate a nice painting, or a beautiful sculpture. Things like 2), Tracey Emin's work for example, are just plain old toss to me. I just don't see the point.
Summo
Loyal Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 355
I quite like Stephen Rumney's stuff.
Personally I'm glad art like this is in the world. It'd be pretty dull if art was only nice pictures of flowers and fruit. Incidentally, there's a video piece at the Tate Modern which shows a bowl of fruit all nice and lit like an old Dutch painting, then you slowly see the effect of months of rot shown over the course of four minutes. It's quite fascinating.
Am I alone here?
PS. The pictures on that site make for nice wallpapers, too.
Personally I'm glad art like this is in the world. It'd be pretty dull if art was only nice pictures of flowers and fruit. Incidentally, there's a video piece at the Tate Modern which shows a bowl of fruit all nice and lit like an old Dutch painting, then you slowly see the effect of months of rot shown over the course of four minutes. It's quite fascinating.
Am I alone here?
PS. The pictures on that site make for nice wallpapers, too.
Doh_boy
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,007
My problem with modern/conceptual art is usually that I find it boring and vapid. This is compounded by the artists who explain that I'm obviously far too stupid to understand them.
As for video arty thingumys, I tend to avoid them since they're usually boring as sin. I used to goto a lot of galleries and shows in manc (cornerhouse/portico usually) and have seen a few. The worst had to be the film of a allied fighter/bomber dropping bombs on things. It was from the underneath camera. Lots of grainy footage of farms and nothing with a random puff of smoke every so often. I vaugely understand the concept and what it's supposed to mean but it doesn't stop it from being boring as sin.
As for video arty thingumys, I tend to avoid them since they're usually boring as sin. I used to goto a lot of galleries and shows in manc (cornerhouse/portico usually) and have seen a few. The worst had to be the film of a allied fighter/bomber dropping bombs on things. It was from the underneath camera. Lots of grainy footage of farms and nothing with a random puff of smoke every so often. I vaugely understand the concept and what it's supposed to mean but it doesn't stop it from being boring as sin.