to think a lot of "art" is in fact self indulgent tat?

[HattiFattner]

I went to an exhibit of students work this weekend.

Some of it was extraordinary and showed amazing talent.

Most of it was a load of tat. Not just that, but over thought, pretentious and had a royal element of intellectual self gratification about it....

I came away thinking that the "artists" were suffering from a bad case of the Emperors New Clothes - "Oh i took a neoclassical genre and use it to create an installation about teenaged angst in the 21st century and really you must be an intellectual to understand the use of light and space and ...."

• no love, you made a bowl. With a bunny in it.

And of course if you said that to their face "She just doesnt understand it..."

I would like a really Simon Cowell moment with some of them and to be able to call them out. But their argument is "Its "art" because I say it is."

Hey, on that basis I live in an "installation" called "Domestic Chaos"

Or maybe "Untitled IV" which makes it sound alltogether more worthy.

People buy her stuff because she's famous and controversial ( in that her work is often ridiculed ) - they are buying into a 'lifestyle' - just like people will spend an extra £50,000 to live in the right post code - it's all pretentious snobbery and that's fine - I'm sure Tracey's laughing all the way to the bank.

Her work will be worth the same when sold on though. It's all to do with market values.

But if you could produce the same even though people might sneer knowing that it would make you a good living why don't you? An extra 50k for a good postcode? What a silly comparison

are you a taxi driver primal?

My name is Gwendoline and I do not like or understand 'art'.

I can look at a painting of a river or a house etc and think, that's lovely. But fannying about throwing paint at a canvas or piling white bricks in a heap or a bloody great crack in the floor (WTF?). Meh. I'd rather read a book. It's all silly. And the Tate Modern bored the arse off me.

people buy ANY art because they have the money to spend!

yes, 'famous' pieces are way out of many price leagues, it's self indulgent, self perpetuating and very elitist.

that's what make it 'tick'

You could say the same about opera, ballet, pop music- in fact anything creative that we don't really need. There is something in the human psyche that loves creating things and enjoys watching them be created.

"I can look at a painting of a river or a house etc and think, that's lovely" So you do like some art then? Realistic paintings are art too aren't they?....

I am now graduating from one of the most talked about arts uni's in Britain with a global reputation.

After studying alongside the future artists of this nation, I can honestly say...

WHAT A LOAD OF SELF INDULGENT TOSH!
THE BIGGEST LOAD OF PRETENTIOUS CRAP!

"OOOH LETS ALL WALK AROUND IN PAINT COVERED OVERALLS WHILE GOING TO THE LOCAL SAINSBURY'S SO EVERYONE KNOWS WE ARE BUYING VALUABLE ART SUPPLIES FOR OUR WORK, OR LETS GO DOWN THE PUB DRESSED LIKE LADY GAGA REJECTS AGAIN, WHICH OPTION SHOWS US TO BE THE SERIOUS ARTISTS THAT WE ARE?"

I am scarred for life.

I agree ennui its a bonus if people like it but not neccessary at all

That's kind of why I put art in commas, I think.... Realistic paintings, good. Splodges, bad :)

I appreciate that I am liable to get myself tied in knots here, because I don't know what I am talking about!

Lol at taxi driver - they're the sort of people who buy crap art cos it's 'what them posh ones buy' -

YANBU and you arent alone. so much of it is paff imo. Loads of arty people in my family (FIL and my brothers SIL make a living out of it) and its a usual conversation we have.. "dids you see XXX", "yes its total bollocks isnt it"

Some of it is good... I loved the symbolism of the sunflower seeds in the tate, but alot of it is a big joke by the artists on the rich elite IMO

I think modern art can be very breathtaking, I still remember the exhbition on weather they had at the tate modern a few years ago and how amazing I found it. But I do find that it is only 10% of modern art that inspires any feeling in me.

And not all art of old is particularly brilliant either, I find myself bored enough to turn to sand at some exhbitions of 'old masters'.

"far better for her pile some garden implements in a corner and cover them in bubble-wrap to make a statement about the chemical urbanisation of a rural imperative which a child of 4 could have easily tackled."

I think I saw this at last years final student exhibition

There are those who glide around just enjoying the whole self indulgent feel of the art world but not all! Most parents would change their tune if little jonny threw some paint at a canvas and was lauded worldwide and paid accordingly. My brother has been a film maker for years and has always been a bit unusual in his approach and my parents have raised their eyebrows a few times as they didn't really appreciate it until now when very recently he has been spotted by a high profile commercial multi national and they are taking him here there and everywhere and paying him handsomely. Most artists are skint but producing lovely work and in my work i meet many and they are lovely

no one has to like anything. people put stuff out there and you can chose to engage or not. there were ALOT of sheets and darkened rooms at the degrees show i went to. i preferred the trend for caravans and recreating your grannies bedroom and least you could have a good poke around

YANBU. I remember Art at school - taking plaster casts of cogs and hanging them on bits of wire. I just liked the shapes, but when it came to writing it up as a project I made up some bolleaux about the solidity of metal engineering parts combining with the fragile texture of plaster as a way of exploring the demise of the UK's industrial heritage.

They lapped it up

I went to a masters art exhibition for a friend who was a fine artist. i thought his stuff was quite good. Then I looked at everything else. Then I realised his stuff was fantastic.

A good rule of thumb is, can the person actually produce "traditional" art? Can they draw a person that looks like a person? Do they understand about perspective and light and shade and all teh stuff that means they can actually do a bloody good painting of a bowl of fruit or a horse?

If the answer is YES and they know the rules then they have earned the right to bend and break them IYSWIM.

If the answer is NO and they cannot draw or sculpt or anything for toffee but have put a shit in a box and proclaim it as a triumph of expression then I say Bollocks. Sorry.

I like patterns too.

"Realistic paintings, good. Splodges, bad"

Oh I dunno, I'm a total philistine but I love this www.glyphs.com/art/kandinsky/comp7640.jpg and virtually everything else he ever painted.

It's not that modern art in itself leaves me cold, but so much of it seems like the actual piece is the the secondary consideration behind the purported "meaning", like an afterthought boshed out once the real work of being up one's own arse was done.

I have not one clue what the meaning behind the pic in my link is, but the colours and shapes do it for me, and it feels like the actual final product was the point of painting it. I'd say the same about Picasso, despite not liking his work one little bit.

Bear in mind though, what i know about art could fit on a Tracey Emin pinky toenail clipping just one week after the last trim.

i think british people take pride in being philistines. other countries are less cynical and are richer culturally

I quite like modern art BTW. It's the patterns

In the situation in the OP, a student exhibition, it is fair to say that a lot of it probably is shit. Just because someone has done a course in something doesn't mean that they are a rare talent or even really good IYSWIM.