The Iron Ninja:
As a general rule I have no patience for modern art.
If it's not a picture of something I can recognise, like say... A cow. Then I have no interest in it.

Here is some Modern Art you may like by Jean Debuffet:

I think everyone here needs to distinguish between Modern Art (i.e. post 1900) and Modern Conceptual Art.

Artist's still paint and sculpt representational works today, but unfortunately the Modern Art market seems to be obsessed with Conceptualism and very little else gets much media attention. Then, publicly funded institutions such as Tate Modern are run by Curators who also share this narrow taste, when they should be making purchases for the National collection that aren't merely today's hot fashion.

Don't forget Van Gogh didn't sell a painting in his lifetime. So, one of the most famous of artists that now attracts huge numbers to Museums wouldn't have been deemed suitable material to collect at the time he was around. Of course, this means that National Collections both in the UK and US are finding it increasingly difficult to buy a part of the historical cultural record of our times. So, this might help to explain why most of the work the OP saw in Tate Modern was crap.

Now, as a former student of Fine Art, I feel qualified to talk about this - but feel free to ignore my opinion as all art is subjective by nature.

I answered the Poll: Yes - slightly. This is because I accept that there is a lot of what I call novelty art that is abusing the loophole opened up by Marcel Duchamp (which, incidentally he didn't have the guts to sign with his own name when it was first exhibited). I've never like his re-contextualized 'readymade' (i.e. The Urinal) and would instead point everyone to this example of conceptual art which I believe to be not only better, but wittier and the final statement on the whole topic; rendering all 'me-too' artworks riding on the same conceptual 'coat-tails' unoriginal recapitulations of little cultural worth. After all, how many definitive cultural statements do you need?

Artist's Shit 1961 by Piero Manzoni
Merda d'artista

Here is some background on the artwork as well as some pictures of some of the proud owners of this work (one of which is wearing a white curators glove to preserve the value of his 'treasure') in 'Tate etc.' magazine (see: http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue10/excrementalvalue.htm ).

For those too lazy to click the link here is an executive summary:

"Your work is shit" - the Italian artist Piero Manzoni was allegedly told by his father. In response to this slur, he came up with the idea of canning his own excrement as a work of art...It was sold in cans by weight at gold's daily market price (becoming literally worth its weight in gold).

Despite my general distaste for conceptual art (it is it just is it generally isn't any good and there is far too much of it) I would quite like to own a can.

The most recent can to be auctioned, #19, sold on 26th February 2007 in the USA for $80,000.

"It is a joke, a parody of the art market, and a critique of consumerism and the waste it generates." (thanks to the Wikipedia)

Modern art seems to be a case of "I make a random object" then "I make up a really good story as to why my random object is art" arty types go oh yeah thats deep, non arty types go it's a fucking urinal. Arty types go "you just dont get it (even though they dont get it either)" therefore its art.

Art is subjective, but like most of modern culture it's been reduced to a point where it's just taking the piss and no one wants to admit that the joke isn't funny anymore.

So yeah an unmade bed is art, if you have a bullshit story to go with it.

I can respect people's opinion on liking modern art, but I don't share them.

To me, art is something that took a long time to make, and is made with a lot of skill and creative vision.
I went to a modern art exposition a few months ago and I hated it.
12 separate tiny 10x10 paintings with nothing on them, just a tiny blob of paint.

It was worth thousands and thousands of euros, and at that point I just said: "fuck this shit".
I guess I just like my artists to have actual skill to be recognised as an artist.

What makes something art is intention, not always whether there is "beauty", "skill" and other qualities in the execution.

Oh.

BallPtPenTheif:
Modern Art is actually an ongoing medium of dialogue between artists. What I mean is that usually artists are referencing a previous artist and responding or expressing their notion further. Without context or education of previous artistic movements don't expect to "get" modern art.

For example, Rothko's work just looks like simplistically colored walls, but when you understand the lineology of his work and how his placement of color fields is a further abstraction of Mondrian's work then you begin to understand his perspective.

And to anyone that thinks I am over reading into modern art and giving the artists too much benefit of the doubt (my father inlaw thought that was the case), go to any modern art museum and look at the order and placement of each subsequent section of work. Typically, each hall will be followed be a corresponding or responding art movement.

It's art, not drawings and if you don't educate yourself about it then expect to always be on the outside of the ever growing dialogue.

He already said it better. Yaay.

Decoy Doctorpus:
On an unrelated note. You can donate sperm for the following modern art project.

And to think, it used to be a sign of the end of times when a baby was born with an extra finger.

Ok, just to address an issue that has come up a few times in this thread - I have no problem with modern art if it has a meaning behind it, but that meaning shouldn't require you to find out how the artist was feeling at the time for it to be able to be enjoyed or for it to make any sense.

Eggo:
I think it's so comically ironic that such a massive portion of the Western population think they are clever, unique, and original for blasting modern art even though they don't (or can't) understand modern art.

Tell me about it...

It's like highschool allover again where the jocks shit on the smart kids turning real social value over on its own head.

I don't know how people think that they understand something better by not being educated about it or its context. That's the way most people are though, they empower their own ignorance to feel less ignorant.

Johnn Johnston:
Ok, just to address an issue that has come up a few times in this thread - I have no problem with modern art if it has a meaning behind it, but that meaning shouldn't require you to find out how the artist was feeling at the time for it to be able to be enjoyed or for it to make any sense.

Most modern aren't doesn't require you to be able to read the contents of the artist's brain. Context and cronology though, that's a different story. It's not like people are going out of their way to research this stuff just to "get it". In truth, it's the other way around. There are a group of people with this contextual information in their heads as general knowledge and the artist (being of similar mind) is appealing to himself and them.

I have only taken two art appreciation classes. Historical art in Highschool and Modern Art in College and I understand enough background behind most modern art. It doesn't take a PHD.

It really depends, because a lot of it in order to understand it you must understand what the artist is trying to go for. Art is simply something made by man.

The argument against the definition of anything as art has been made for centuries now. It is pointless and endless. Art is in the eye of beholder, just like beauty. It is undefinable. So don't try because it will never work. In past decades they argued that "Impressionism" was not art. Same with "Cubism". And every other kind of art that has ever been made.

It is all art as long as people say it is. Example - Fountain is a 1917 work by Marcel Duchamp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) Everyone said it was not art. But is is now a widely regarded piece of art that rebelled against the very conceptions of what art could be defined as. See my point?

Uncompetative:

The Iron Ninja:
As a general rule I have no patience for modern art.
If it's not a picture of something I can recognise, like say... A cow. Then I have no interest in it.

Here is some Modern Art you may like by Jean Debuffet:

That is terrible. A truly ugly sight.
I don't like it when art has to be like that. Reminds me of Art in college (High School for all you Americans) when I tried drawing light and colourful pictures, then my coffee fueled art teacher would come in, suggest I cover the entire thing in brown or yellowish brown (or if I was really lucky, reddish brown) so that all of the classes artwork looked exactly the same.
Just a wall of brown that we all got the same marks for.

I much prefer stuff like this.

It's pretty simple, but at least they look like proper cows, I wouldn't be ashamed to hang it on a wall somewhere.

For some reason I've always liked Abstract paintings. Something about them just strikes a chord in me, conceptualism though is a different matter altogether. It's a much more hit and miss affair, but I think writing it off as a garbage is a bit premature.

Modern art is about statements, and good artists will give you something to contemplate that relates directly to the statement they are trying to make.

There is bad modern art, but it typically does not wind up in museums.

EDIT:
If you have an appreciation for art, you see the value in say, the abstract cow over the two now abstract ones up above. The abstract one draws your eye, you ask more questions of it. Unless you're very interested in art, then you pass the other two pieces with hardly a glance, and then if you're very interested in art you examine the artists brush strokes, how he framed his cows relative to their surroundings and the space on the canvas, etc. As you can see, most of you don't ask those questions, so probably no one here finds the second two cows very interesting.

Hell! The second two cows wouldn't even BE in this thread if not for the abstract one!

Taxi Driver:
Modern and abstract art is horrible; if it doesn't look like something it's not good, because mimicking something is far greater than creating something original. My printer seems to be the greatest artist I have ever met.

Because by ignoring basic aesthetic conventions, you obfuscate your point and make your work pointlessly esoteric, such that specialized training is required to comprehend it.
This is not just a massively HI-larious monument to self-importance, but also serves to further isolate the artistic community from the public they once inspired and enthralled, forcing them to become even more hopelessly insular.

But it's cool to go against those fucking plebeians so go team retard!

Uszi:
Hell! The second two cows wouldn't even BE in this thread if not for the abstract one!

Don't be so sure about that.
I've been planning on posting pictures of cows since the very start of my time here on the escapist.
And on that note, here is some art I could really get behind (In a totally not weird way)

I love it.
It's not trying to say anything like
"What is the crab? Is it the representation of our sorrow? our anger? Our wasteful ways?"
Instead it's just
"Croaw! I'm a giant crab and I'm gonna eat'cher!"

falcontwin:
Modern art seems to be a case of "I make a random object" then "I make up a really good story as to why my random object is art" arty types go oh yeah thats deep, non arty types go it's a fucking urinal. Arty types go "you just dont get it (even though they dont get it either)" therefore its art.

You are referring to Duchamp's Fountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

The point you are making is the very issue intended to be in contention by the piece. One point for Duchamp.

More of a fan of Robert Williams myself. I like his view on modern "art"

takes a minute for him to get to it but a nice interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmqrIp5Jtlo

BallPtPenTheif:

falcontwin:
Modern art seems to be a case of "I make a random object" then "I make up a really good story as to why my random object is art" arty types go oh yeah thats deep, non arty types go it's a fucking urinal. Arty types go "you just dont get it (even though they dont get it either)" therefore its art.

You are referring to Duchamp's Fountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

The point you are making is the very issue intended to be in contention by the piece. One point for Duchamp.

BallPtPenTheif:

falcontwin:
Modern art seems to be a case of "I make a random object" then "I make up a really good story as to why my random object is art" arty types go oh yeah thats deep, non arty types go it's a fucking urinal. Arty types go "you just dont get it (even though they dont get it either)" therefore its art.

You are referring to Duchamp's Fountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

The point you are making is the very issue intended to be in contention by the piece. One point for Duchamp.

I mentioned that piece as well. +2 for Duchamp. :)

So according to that wiki article the whole point of him grabbing a urinal and actin like it was art was to provoke people and that somehow makes it art? wtvr

I like art that takes skill. If any douchbag can do it, it isnt art TO ME. Its some douchebag talking the walk.

But like someone said, its subjective. Some people like peanut butter on pizza. Some people like to eat their own escriment.

Better more pointed poll would be does Modern Art take Skill?

killerap85:
So according to that wiki article the whole point of him grabbing a urinal and actin like it was art was to provoke people and that somehow makes it art? wtvr

I like art that takes skill. If any douchbag can do it, it isnt art TO ME. Its some douchebag talking the walk.

But the thing is, not any douchebag can make good modern art. It just looks like it.

killerap85:
So according to that wiki article the whole point of him grabbing a urinal and actin like it was art was to provoke people and that somehow makes it art? wtvr

I like art that takes skill. If any douchbag can do it, it isnt art TO ME. Its some douchebag talking the walk.

But like someone said, its subjective. Some people like peanut butter on pizza. Some people like to eat their own escriment.

Better more pointed poll would be does Modern Art take Skill?

If you think "skill" has anything to do with art than you are ignorant about this entire discussion. Do you know how many random creativeless people can paint lifelike cats? A shit load. But painting a lifelike cat is neither culuturally significant or new.

And what "art is" to you is entirely irrelevant. Nobody is writing an art critique book based on your myopic view and you yourself have no cultural significance with your viewpoint. For example, when documentary film making first started, people made the very same point that you are making now. "What the hell, it's just some guy operating a train. I could have filmed that."

But as it always was, you and everbody else didn't do it. Could have, would have, should have... everybody was too busy watching Different Strokes and The Super Bowl to make anything notable that ever made another person think.

Most people will never create anything significant that will spur as much discussion or debate as The Fountain.

killerap85:
So according to that wiki article the whole point of him grabbing a urinal and actin like it was art was to provoke people and that somehow makes it art? wtvr

I like art that takes skill. If any douchbag can do it, it isnt art TO ME. Its some douchebag talking the walk.

But like someone said, its subjective. Some people like peanut butter on pizza. Some people like to eat their own escriment.

Better more pointed poll would be does Modern Art take Skill?

Your missing the entire point. But that is ok. Ignorance sometimes truly is bliss.

Clue me in. Whats the point teach?

killerap85:
Clue me in. Whats the point teach?

Art isn't basketball, it's not like watching a slam dunk where we stand in awe wishing we could jump that high.

Guitar solos are not "who can hit the fret board the fastest" guitarolypmics freak shows.. Painting isn't about "cool pictures".. ink printing isn't about ads for toothpaste... film isn't about explosions... plays don't have to follow the aristatilian model... books aren't about a "good story"... and videogames are no longer about "high scores".

True mediums of art have multiple points of expression, intention, and even observation. Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean that there is nothing there to get. For example, I don't get Jazz music but I am aware that I am missing out on something (still trying to get my ears adjusted I guess).

BallPtPenTheif:

killerap85:
Clue me in. Whats the point teach?

Art isn't basketball, it's not like watching a slam dunk where we stand in awe wishing we could jump that high.

Guitar solos are not "who can hit the fret board the fastest" guitarolypmics freak shows.. Painting isn't about "cool pictures".. ink printing isn't about ads for toothpaste... film isn't about explosions... plays don't have to follow the aristatilian model... books aren't about a "good story"... and videogames are no longer about "high scores".

True mediums of art have multiple points of expression, intention, and even observation. Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean that there is nothing there to get. For example, I don't get Jazz music but I am aware that I am missing out on something (still trying to get my ears adjusted I guess).

+++++

An idea itself is not art(as I would call it). Ideas can be represented in art but I think a blurring of the line has occered and been occering for some time to the point that people now seem to think that an idea itself is art.

I can fold piece of paper and make a "center fold", just cause Im the first to do it doesnt make it art in any real since. Its just a very plain and orinary concept.

I can pick ice up with a thread and one hand. Doesnt make it art.

Columbus didnt make the egg art. He made an example of it.

A mobius strip is not art.

"Guitar solos are not "who can hit the fret board the fastest" guitarolypmics freak shows"

Easy for you to say, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATub40Npxik vs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aeSbPbyJO8

"Painting isn't about "cool pictures".."

No, sometimes its about pretending to paint well while dribling paint on a canvas in a drunken stupor http://www.abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_grnfthrs_fldr/g004_pllck4.html vs http://lh3.ggpht.com/the.forechecker/R6olgPfkVHI/AAAAAAAAAZM/O2pbR-gF-Ec/Norman+Rockwell+-+Save+Freedom+of+Speech.JPG

I could go on but I think you get the point.

And the video games thing? Im AGAINST taking the games out of my video games.

Again killerap85, you are completely missing the point.

Funny I was thinking the same thing about you

"Art isn't basketball, it's not like watching a slam dunk where we stand in awe wishing we could jump that high."

Ahh, but a SKILLED basketball player can make the game into an art. Jordon anyone?

I want art that awes me and inspires me

You speak about art like it is some vague concpet that defies expression and exists only in some mysterious thing.

I think art is something that is clearly and skillfully defined. I think a great artist is someone skilled in clearly and distinctly defining all of these abstract concepts most modern artist are simply to lazy to bother with.

I think a great gamer can make a game do things that others could hardly dream of.

Taxi Driver:

Perhaps normal people are able to understand it.

From the general public's sentiments on the topic I'd say no.

Taxi Driver:

What is wrong with an obscure "point?"

Nothing. You can be as bizarre, singular, and self-referentially complex as you want. It's a free country.

I'm just being descriptive.

killerap85:

You speak about art like it is some vague concept that defies expression and exists only in some mysterious thing.

I think art is something that is clearly and skillfully defined. I think a great artist is someone skilled in clearly and distinctly defining all of these abstract concepts most modern artist are simply to lazy to bother with.

That is because it is a "vague concept that defies expression". Just like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. Your point of view is trying to force all that anyone see in art into one small confined box. I am an artist and to make any sort of art takes the exact opposite state of mind. Art is free and unconfined. What is art to some is not art to others, and that is ok.