Art doesn't need to have a point. People who try to find meaning in a page of randomly arranged shapes are in fact twats and give modern art a bad image. The question you have to ask yourself is "is it pleasing to look at?" If the answer is yes, then it was probably more worthwhile than another portrait.

The Iron Ninja:

I have... no words... they should have... sent... a poet...

"That is because it is a "vague concept that defies expression"."

i give you that today it is and seems to be created for soul purpose of trying desperatly to prove it, but I think norman rockwell had a great many non-vague concepts that he expressed very well. The four freedoms fly in the face of it with vivid color.

"Your point of view is trying to force all that anyone see in art into one small confined box."

No Im not. Im not forcing anyone to do anything or see anything. Im simply saying what I think good art is. Some people like peanut butter and mayo on bread. I dont. I think its silly and dumb.

"I am an artist and to make any sort of art takes the exact opposite state of mind"

Minbd if we see some of your stuff?

"Art is free and unconfined." free only to define itself within boundries.

"What is art to some is not art to others, and that is ok."

We agree here

eggo, is that a 10k piece of art or something?

BTW, Im using Norman Rockwell as an example for a reason. He was probably, imo, onetof the greatest artists of his time and was ignored by the artistic elites for being nothing more than a commercial artist. I think any one of his works is worth the entire modern art movement.

Maybe if he sucked up to gertrude stein like picasso did he would have been rich too.

Maybe your points should have points?

I once saw a plane made entirely out of knives that wouldnt make it anywhere near a real plane a great commentary on plane security. in the same room there was also a blank canvas. underneath it said the "artist" only painted in white

"I once saw a plane made entirely out of knives that wouldnt make it anywhere near a real plane a great commentary on plane security. in the same room there was also a blank canvas. underneath it said the "artist" only painted in white"

Thats it though. I think a point on airplane security is better served being created with words. Unless of course there is some kind of skill being demonstrated.

The joke pieces are just that.

Marbas:

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.

somehow missed this.

If it looks like a duck and walks like duck...

The Iron Ninja:
...

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!"

Actually, it could represent all of those things, and I'm sure if you showed it to an artist or someone with an degree in art, they would find some sort of interpretation for you.

As for us nerds though, whenever we see a picture like that, all we can think is:

"Hey, kid, ATTACK ITS WEAK POINT FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE!"

Tom, if you'll grant me that aesthetic impact and technical skill are both relevant to a fair definition of art, I'll revise my opinion from "aesthetic beauty" to "purposeful and powerful aesthetic impact" then, to include the (fair) example of a Picasso or similar works of high technique and potent emotional impact, albeit not beautiful...

I consider myself as someone who immensely enjoys art (Renoir especially, but Luis Royo is also on my short list). However, if a man wearing a turtle-neck and a beret just splatters paint on a canvas and tells me I'm not looking into his "painting" deep enough, I still think its an excuse for a lack of actual painting ability.

Pollock threw paint at the canvas thinking, "This *splat* is *splat* so fucking *splat* easy!"

Archon:
"purposeful and powerful aesthetic impact"

An eloquent summation of the artistic endeavor.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Art doesn't need to have a point. People who try to find meaning in a page of randomly arranged shapes are in fact twats and give modern art a bad image. The question you have to ask yourself is "is it pleasing to look at?" If the answer is yes, then it was probably more worthwhile than another portrait.

I can agree here. No, it's not a very 'deep' way to approach art. But it's how I like it, I look at a piece, and say, do I like the way this looks? Is it interesting? Pleasing to the eye, that's all I'm looking for personally. I don't think it's a great disservice to the artist to not agonise over something looking for whatever obscure meaning they've attempted to stick on to it, they'll have plenty enough people doing that anyway, don't see why -everyone- has to.

Uszi:

The Iron Ninja:
...

Giant Enemy Crab!

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!"

Actually, it could represent all of those things, and I'm sure if you showed it to an artist or someone with an degree in art, they would find some sort of interpretation for you.

It's the same as a piece of poetry. If you read a poem, you might get one view of what it means that entirely differs from that of the poet, and sometimes you put meaning into places where it was never intended to be.

Art can only be art if it has an expression of meaning to it, which is almost ambiguous with beauty, in some form

Recently, humans have learned that there can be a lot of expression in the menial, ordinary, or chaotic.

Where art meets commercialism is where this problem emerges, because people are putting outrageous prices on things which require little effort to make or even envision.

If modern art, say, sold for a few dollars, I doubt this would be a problem or even a moral question to anybody.

Me? I blame the art subculture. People who spend an hour every morning aligning the angle between the spikes in their hair to the golden ratio (exaggeration) know that art and expression is important, but for me, their subject matter is usually a bit too thoughtless to qualify for my time, and the time of a lot of other people, let alone their money.

Banksy, on the other hand, rocks socks

The Iron Ninja:

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.

Actually, both your alternatives are Impressionist paintings as described by the artists responsible for them (who you didn't credit).

Impressionism is Modern Art, although to be doing it now is not exactly avante-garde and is usually described as 'Stuckist'.

I like one by Jan Blencowe best (who is a member of the American Impressionists Society), who did the two cows under a tree.

The third one is by Simon Birtall (see: http://www.birtall.co.uk/freelance-illustrator-artist.htm for how he classifies himself).

The essential point I was trying to make is that there is still representational contempory modern art being made, although it may well not be to your taste as concept is often more important than aesthetics.

Ok, here's another point:

If the artists making the 'Modern Art' (e.g. Tracey Emin, who left an unmade bed with some used tampons and was shortlisted for the Turner Prize) are capable of making points using the medium of art, then why do they not just paint a painting or write a poem? Surely that would gain them more respect and a wider audience, allowing them to promote that point with more strength and allowing them to let more people know of the issue they are raising. If the art did not make a point, but still had meaning, there would surely be a more conventional way of actualising that meaning. It would also mean less menstrual blood being left in art galleries.

I'm not a big lover of modern art.

Infact thinking about it, the Art Nouveau movement is about as modern as I get. I'm a big fan of Steinlen and Mucha.

If anyone says Modern Art to me, I instantly think of chrome and sharp edges.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
The question you have to ask yourself is "is it pleasing to look at?" If the answer is yes, then it was probably more worthwhile than another portrait.

That is most certainly correct. However, the number of pieces of modern art that actually look anywhere near pleasing to look at are in the minority.

Johnn Johnston:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
The question you have to ask yourself is "is it pleasing to look at?" If the answer is yes, then it was probably more worthwhile than another portrait.

That is most certainly correct. However, the number of pieces of modern art that actually look anywhere near pleasing to look at are in the minority.

Agreed fully. Some of them are just plain revolting (which may be the modern artist's goal), and some of them look like blobs of molten metal....Alright, some of them *are* blobs of molten metal......