Tate Modern 'White Boxes'

[corydoras]

A Worm On One End........:

The only definition I can think of that has any meaning is art that stands the test of time.  

That means we can't have any new art, only old stuff.

[A Worm OOE]

Not at all. We just dont know if its Great yet.

I was looking at the aims of the Turner Prize recently. It was set up to encourage young (under 50!!) artists. The reson they named it after Turner was because when he was young most people did not like his work. It took him time to establish himself as a Great Artist.

[Snatcher]

Have to agree. Went to the Baltic art gallery on the Gateshead quayside on Saturday and had a look at their latest offerings. Modern art!!!!! biggest load of twaddle I have ever seen.

 

I do actually appreciate a good painting or sculpture but not this overated modern art crap

[Newt]

From that first linked article, I love this part

quote:

---

Whiteread's immediate successor was US artist Bruce Nauman, who created a piece with a cacophony of sounds but nothing to see.

---

[ben88]

I think its Bull, i could tip a load of boxes over and stack them, am i an artist no.

 

when ever i tip boxes over i get told to tidy my room.

[Ken L]

What you all fail to realise is that the art lies in sculpting a REALY TINY figurine and then postioning it amongst some spilt salt.

[ben88]

Or pooing the bed and diplaying it, or having some lights on a timer...........

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

Really, if we all want to be honest, all art is pretty worthless and usually not that complicated.

 

You can take modern tate examples like the above, but why stop with that.

 

Take the Mona Lisa - a picture that really most good counterfeit painters could reproduce in a few days to a near exact standard I'd of thought - not priceless then by any standards you'd suspect, BUT it is. The concept of the painting is not even that complicated, and it can even be proven the artist buggered it up a number of times with modern x-ray techniqures.

 

People talk about it - not because it's any good, or inspiring or moving, BUT because they do AND because someone a hundred plus years ago decided we would - AS the tate and other gallery type places do today.

[Peter Waller]

Art is art, in the eye of the beholder.

 

One man's junk is another man's treasure, or art.

 

Art is the result of an instinctive, or intellectual placing of one object in relation to another. The result should, hopefully, create an emotional response within the creator and the beholder. An unthinking pile of junk is not art, it is just a pile of junk.

 

Being unable to appreciate the asthetic values of a created, artistic object means one of two things. Either the artist is incapable, or the beholder is incapable, and just maybe both are!!

 

I have told this story before on AN, but it is relevant. I once photographed Spike Milligan, whoopee! He'd just got his first million. I forget his exact words but basically it was, 'and they call me mad'!

 

If any of you go to Amsterdam then visit the Van Gogh Museum, that is a place of high art.

[corydoras]

ben88:

I think its Bull, i could tip a load of boxes over and stack them, am i an artist no.

 

when ever i tip boxes over i get told to tidy my room.

It appears that you can only appreciate what the artworld call 'representational art'. This does not mean that abstract art is of any less value. All the millions of Dali and Picasso fans can't be wrong.

 

[ 13. October 2005, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: corydoras ]