“Good topic steveo.... and how do we determine who is good and bad as one of these new geniusses? For instance, would Damien Hirst's 'Sausages In Urine' be better than yours or mine? I also think it's a massive con and the prices they charge for these rotting masterpieces. We're in the wrong game.”

“Has anyone who says, "I could do that/better" actually done it? It does make me raise an eyebrow when someone makes that comment. I think, "Maybe you could, but you haven't and you probably won't." That's one big difference between artists on the public eye and people who detract from them. Your piece of art will never be judged favourably or otherwise if it's never produced.

I don't know how you go about putting a price on art on any form though. If you like something, fine. If not, someone else will.

*please note I am using the word "you" in its general sense, not specifically addressing anyone.”

“jenoh,
If I were to make my version of this Rothko rubbish (which, for those who haven't seen it, just looks like a bad painting of a window frame) art critics would be calling it the work of a child and a total waste of paint, saying the technique was wrong yada yada, but is it the case that I'm just not from their inner circle and therefore am not allowed to be part of the megabucks club.
Lucien Freud, another artist who they fawn over, his painting are nothing special, yet they sell for millions, to me they look amateurish and only vaguely resemble who they're supposed to be. His painting of Kate Moss is an abomination.
It's a case of the emperors new clothes methinks.”

“Ha. As in, who? Your wit, as usual, has the edge of a sword.”

“Steveodore,

I`m with you on this. I like my pictures to look like painted photographs. I also think that anyone who pays millions for these drab splashes on canvass must have more money than sense.”

“steveodore - that's sort of my point. You say "if" you were to do the same thing. But if you haven't then how do you know how it would be judged?

I agree with you in some respects in that an awful lot of it leaves me cold and I hate the question "Well what do YOU think it means?" when a layperson asks what something is supposed to be.

Have you been to see Leonardo's sketches in Ferens?

GCtheDJ - I was trying to avoid inadvertently insulting anyone and starting an argument. I'm flattered that you think I'm so witty, but believe me, if I want to be cutting I'll let you know. There may be some kind of sign. A flare or summat. Maybe I'll do an art installation exploring all the facets of snark.”

“I'm with you on this steveodore.

jenoh - is anyone saying that they can do better? We are saying that it isn't art and we wouldn't want to produce or own anything like it.


A couple of years ago - maybe more - there was a TV show where people competed to produce modern art for Saatchi and the winner at the end of all the rounds won a place in an exhibition - abroad somewhere.

We saw them producing their works, and it was a farce. To be honest, they didn't have a clue what they were doing and very few ideas and when the judges discussed the pieces they saw things in them - or not - which the artists had never put in.

Someone brought along an illuminated sign from a shop. All they did was buy it from the shopkeeper. The winner was a girl who found a tree that had grown through some mesh fencing. She had the fence/tree trunk section cut out and Saatchi loved it. He gave her the place in the exhibition and she hadn't got a clue what to do for it.

Remember something else that might or might not have been on that programme. An 'artist' planted some bulbs in France and when the flowers came out claimed that was his piece of work. This other artist from the UK went over and stole them and left him a note. He emailed her to protest, she replied and so it went on and she stuck the emails on the wall of an art gallery and claimed this was her masterpiece.

There is also something about claiming tax relief but not sure of the details.”

“Thanks for the replies, I know art is in the eye of the beholder as they say, but I know very few people who regard Modern Art as art. I think a lot of the people who claim to "get it" are pseudo intellectuals who are frightened of being laughed at if they admit to thinking it's manure.
Can I just add that some art done in modern times is fantastic, I love some of Antony Gormley's work, the Angel of the North is breathtaking when driving north on the A1.”

“G69 - no one on here has made the claim they could do better but steveodore did say "If I were to make my version... art critics [would dismiss it]" and he may be right, but as your examples show, how do we know what will be judged as a child's scrawl and what will be a masterpiece?

I think it has to come down to personal taste. I'm sure you know that the work of the Impressionists was dismissed at the time by the establishment because it didn't follow the arbitrary rules previously set down. Now those paintings ate considered to be masterpieces (and worth a fortune).

I am agreeing with you all here, I just think the perception that some people have that art is always elitist, a closed shop and somehow "not for them" is a worry. There is much that can be done on both sides to address it and I do think that some Modern Art and the attitude surrounding it (again on both sides) is not always helpful.”

“When you look at a classic piece, say the Mona Lisa, you appreciate that it's taken some doing. I'll agree that the Angel Of The North is a breathtaking piece too. Whereas a cow in formaldehide or a tree in mesh just doesn't cut it somehow.

Congratulations steveodore. A subject which we're probably all together on.”

“jenoh,
You say that the Impressionists were dismissed at the time, but at least you could see what they were painting ,Renoir, Van Gogh and Money all painted everyday scenes and items, some not to everybody's taste maybe, but you tell what they are trying to achieve. Can you imagine what the critics who called these great artists would make of Rothko or Jackson Pollack, they would either laugh or maybe say " oh yes , I see it. Kerching".”

“     "Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art."”

“I like the surrealist stuff like Dali, but it's because there is still some amazing talent that can be seen and appreciated in the majority of his work, even if it's something you don't fully get or understand. When I first saw 'Metamorphosis of Narcissus' in 1981 I just simply had to own a copy of it.

Whereas three bricks and a tennis ball (or whatever) just leaves me scratching my head.”

“Its a pseude thing isn't it ? If you don't get it you're not an intellectual according to the little world of critics and artists - a self-perpetuating myth.
Having said that I do like Banksy's stuff, and Dali and some Picasso.”

“dj,
Just had a look at that picture you mentioned and I'm sorry but that's not for me. It does however remind me slightly of "The Garden Of Earthly Delights" by Hieronymus Bosch painted over four hundred years before Dali.

In regard to the bricks and the head scratching, did somebody throw them at you?”

“At least artists like Dali could paint/draw 'properly' if they wanted to. Has anyone seen his Christ of St John on the Cross? I saw it in Glasgow while visiting relatives in Scotland and it is amazing. Doubt that today's conceptual artists could do anything like that.”

“steveodore, why would anyone do something like that to a good egg like myself? Didn't understand that at all. ;~*

ghostwriter, I agree with you completely (as I would as per usual).”

“Had a look at that Earthy Delights and although I value the opinion I don't see it myself steveo. Perhaps i shall now also need a copy of this pic.”

“Point about Dali and Picasso is that although the subject may not be to everyone's taste you can see the craftsmanship behind it and appreciate the skill that has gone into it. Some modern art looks as though it was done by a five year old.”

“dj,
My point about the Bosch painting was more the style, sort of surrealist but in the 15th century.

Although I would not personally throw anything at you, I can imagine a few on here might be tempted :)”

“Ah, but the pain would be wonderful. Yes I see a resemblance actually now that I've had time to peruse the said piece. Very good too isn't it and this (ouch) illustrates the point too that it may not be to everyone's liking, but to not admire it would seem foolhardy. Whereas a dead pig with it's trotter giving a v sign borders on mentality in my opinion and cannot surely be regarded as a work of art.”

“just passing a picture on my well called Orange and Yellow 1956 and have discovered it is indeed by Mark Rothko. How spooky. I child could have done it! (I bought it!!)”

“Philistines ... unlike my cultured self ;)”

“bt,
I'm sorry, but you can't class a random hole in your ceiling or a large poo stain on a rug as Modern Art, not unless you're Tracy Emin ;)”

“Its work in progress ...the rug was particularly worthy to be in Ferens as it was not only visual, but the aroma engaged the senses. As part of my exhibition 'hull mum' it is entitled 'border desperation' the perfect brown circle represents the equilibrium between nature and its forces...

The kitchen ceiling was domestic Hiroshima highlighting the 'fall out' between man and wife over DIY.

Tracy Emin ... watch your back...”

“jz

I'm sure she'll take it on the chin”

“An artist can take something you see every day and show you something you have never seen before.
Alternatively, he can take something nobody has ever seen and present it so you recognise it: sometimes as yourself.
A photograph will show you a person but a portrait will show the personality.
All art was modern but some has become timeless.
There! I now confirm my booking in Pseud's Corner.”

“Yes, an artist can do that. Whereas a modern artist can paint a picture of you and you need to stand on your head to see any resemblance (and even then it only looks like a tree). Ahem.”