What does everyone think about modern art? There has been so much about it (for and against modern and post-modern art) in the media lately, I just wanted to know some other people's opinions.
Do YOU think that Emin's unmade bed is art, just because she calls it art, or do you think that she is a bit of a skank who just had the confidence to expose raw elements of her life to the public, and in turn contributing to turning art into a commodity or brand, just by offering a little slice of her reality.
Surely art is about presenting the beautiful aspects of life, in order to lift us to a higher plane, away from the grind and chaos of the reality we live in? Perhaps the sole intention of art today is just simply to shock - and that's it. Or, is there beauty in the chaotic art of today? But what's so beautiful about seeing the inside of half a cow?
I do like some modern art, mainly in the way that most of it presents the thing-in-itself, and draws our attention to the object, but surely the creative and imaginative mind is more interesting, with all it's philosophical enquiry?
What do you think?

I think art should be about skill - any one can not make their bed! If I am going to pay to see something or pay for something for my wall it better be GOOD in terms of skill level. My dad is a much better artist than most modern artists and he makes stuff that require creativity and skill, patience and ability. I really hate those rothko ones, I mean, they're just colour swatches!

Personally I prefer modern art to old art (hmm maybe traditional is the better word?) :p I've been to traditional galleries and ended up getting quite bored of lots of very similar paintings. Yes they're technical masterpieces but they can all start to look the same. At least modern art is all quite different and interesting to look at. In my opinion art can be about ideas aswell as being about skill.

An "unmade bed" or other contemporary art installations or pieces don't just happen. Contemporary artists and critics (like other professionals trained in the humanities or arts) are schooled in a whole body of critical and aesthetic theory and a range of artistic and curatorial practices. Of course these fields have their own vocabulary and professional credentials and can be all but incomprehensible to outsiders, but no more or less then any other professional sphere. Because Modern Art, appreciated in white cube galleries since MoMa in the early 20thC, is deemed to take interpretative effort (i.e. inside knowledge and the social and cultural cache of education) it usually attracts derision, and critics point to older artistic schools of art - Impressionism, Dutch Masters etc etc - as better in quality and easy to understand. Of course, in reality, these own periods have their own detailed scholarship and insider knowledge. The "beauty" of art is never a stable and intrinsic quality. Horses for courses.

hmm, I don't mind people faffing about with household items, arranging them in a heap and then saying that it evokes something or other. I do have a problem with them all laughing behind our backs cos they managed to con everyone into thinking it was worth anything. Tracey emin's unmade bed went for £150,000!!! I mean, they must all be laughing away thinking how hilarious it is. - I think I put modern artists in the same boat as people who produce house music.

They probably only bought it so they can use the term "art" to justify the reason why they're staring at dirty knickers all day long.

yes, my step father in law has a slightly concerning obsession with the female bottom - and expresses this through massive amounts of 'artwork' around the house. I would rather he put one photo of beyonce's bum up on the wall for all to see, rather than pretending its the artist he admires haha.

i don't expect anyone to pay for what i've done - its a load of tosh (up) :p

[quote]Quote From chrisrolinski:


"An "unmade bed" or other contemporary art installations or pieces don't just happen."

- I think they DO just happen. That's the point of an awful lot of it; to be a part of the reality that it reflects, but this time it IS an object in itself, which means we no longer consider the object that the art may be trying to represent anymore, but the art itself becomes the object that we as observers reflect on. It's the technical "arty" jargon that they use AFTER it has been made that might be 'incomprehensible to outsiders'.

I think that people look back to more traditional forms of art because each generation, one step at a time (going back), were closer to an idealistic way of life; a quest for truth and beauty (showing life to be worthwhile among all the chaos), whereas the art of today seems to surround us with a mirror of our individual and numerous alienation from culture and society.

Yes - I just like a pretty picture or two, I don't really want to get up in the morning and look at the men's urinal I have just paid £2 million for

======= Date Modified 08 Dec 2009 13:09:08 =======
Firstly, just to get semantics out the way, modern art actually refers to art completed in the early part of the 20th century, such as that by Picasso and Dali. The art you're referring to is contemporary art.



I agree that some contemporary art seems... well... pointless. I don't personally like much of the new art produced such as Emin's bed, but that by no means deems it unworthy of calling it art. Art is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. It's about the personal interpretation you place on the object or painting, or whatever. While we may not appreciate the significance of this particular piece, it does have significance to others. In addition to this, art is often defined in the process in which it is made, but not in the final article. There are several intricacies to "making art" which many people overlook whilst seeking for the beauty of the piece they are looking at. It's often not about the finished piece, but about the reasons behind the piece, the emotions of the artist, the processes of developing the piece and the interpretation of what this means by both the onlooker and the artist, as well as the emotions it evokes as a result of this. I have seen artwork which has made me cry, but has made others feel nothing.



Finally, art is about debate. It's about forcing people to question it's existence and it forces people to take sides. In discussing Emin's bed, we are partaking in her art, because in some way it has affected you to such a degree that you have been willing to post a reply to this thread.



I don't want to risk turning my reply into an essay so I'll stop there. I'm no expert on art, but have an intense passion for it, and so what I say here just reflects my views. Feel free to comment.:-)

Obvious question, but what is 'beauty'? It seems pretty easy to define what is not beautiful. A urinal is not beautiful. Emin's bed was not beautiful. But what is? An aristocratic white woman reclining on a couch with her pubic hair airbrushed out? Ruddy-cheeked (white) peasants frolicking in the countryside, revelling in their simple lot? (White) cherubs making goo-goo eyes at Jesus?