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.

Im trying to get my head around this whole concept - if the viewer does not care for and or understand the work, then it still has merit because someone somewhere will like/understand it?

Therefore ALL art, no matter what it is, must have merit through the process of creation alone.

Is that the argument?

In which case, how do you differentiate between the good, the bad and the crap and the sublime? Does the only measure of the quality of a piece then depend upon its longevity or commercial value?

So you saw a student exhibition and came to the conclusion that all modern art is tat.

I can't imagine what you would think after reading my undergraduate geology dissertion: No doubt renounce all science and become a creationist.

Eggy Allen Poe -: I can see where your coming from, but I think that if works of art that were only immediately accessible were considered works of art then we'd be alot poorer. I get tremendous enjoyment from art that I can read about and learn more about. It's exciting to see what ideas, processes and paths lead an artist to a work, even if it's buried in the end aestetic. It's a well worn argument though in art, and many artists would completely agree with you. And I think I actually prefer sensuous immediate work myself too.

Just curious to know what your opinion of tracey emin is if I told you that she doesn't do her own sewing ?

Just wondering...any views on the merits of street art? Crap graffiti or a beautiful, thought provoking addition to the art world (and the world in general)?

And I'm not talking about just Banksy.

if she doesn't even do her own sewing - not a gifted samstress. I don't like her stuff anyway - seems to be trying too hard, and the tent with the names of all the people she slept with...very gimmicky. the 'bed' had much more in the way of effect.

whoever does that needlework has a gifted pair of hands.

I also like to learn more about an artwork, but if what it consists in is an unaltered object, or something that relies wholly or largely on that outside learning for its impact..not really a work of art?

kingofhighvis, not at all, I love much modern art, some of the work I saw was exciting and fantastic.

im tryingto now understand how, if art is for arts sake, how we can be critical of anything, and therefore, how we distinguish the good from the bad?

I think factoring taste,emotional response in everything does have merit

Hattifattner-

I'd actually go alot broader than that, I'd say there's art in things that aren't exactly "created" by an artist. I think there's art in everything and everyone is an artist. But that's just my belief. And there's just as many different beliefs in different periods of art history, different cultures, different individuals etc.

And in terms of ascertaining quality, that's a whole new massive bucket if worms. How do you define quality? Who writes the criteria? Is it something inherent or created? There's many debates on this one.

Now I find all these discussions fascinating and I could chat for hours about them (which is how alot of time is spent at art college). But I can see to alot if people these discussions, theories and the like are baffling, pretentious and distracting from the act if making a beautiful object. Which is maybe where some of the contents of the gulf of misunderstanding lies ?

I certainly can't answer your question though. There's far too many answers!

www.google.co.uk/m/search?site=images&source=mog&hl=en&gl=uk&client=safari&q=conor%20harrington#i=7

Connor Harrington for eg.
www.google.co.uk/m/search?site=images&source=mog&hl=en&gl=uk&client=safari&q=conor%20harrington#i=42

This has become a massive part of mainstream art, more so than in the 70's when the artists started bombing the subway trains. Just wondering what value people place on it?

wow, thats rather excellent fontsnob.

i think graffitti doesn't all have to have merit, in the same way as every fresco is not a Michaelangelo...

Definately art fontnob!

Have you Bern to Berlin? The whole city's a canvas. Tis amazing.

What about this? www.salvationmountain.us/

Been to Berlin!

Damn you autocorrect! (which incidently is the funniest ever website! Google the phrase!)

Don't look at it then!

YABU - define 'modern art'. You are talking around a century of art of various types and mediums. So much variety.

I think there is alot of inverse snobbery around art tbh.

I am totallyin love with Harrington's work at the moment, well, with street art and its off shoots generally to be honest. There is so much amazing stuff going on that is getting some major recognition. The work of JR and Vhills, street art has progressed so far beyond Banksy. It's really interesting to see where art is going at the moment.

Eggy!

See where I get frustrated is that the opinion that something isn't art if it wasn't made entirely by the hand of the artist, or if it's made from an unaltered object (or "found object" in White card lingo) is a really popular one still, but an opinion that hasn't moved with art theory.

It's been over a century since artists started using found objects (look in Duchamp) and the old masters had assistants to paint the majority of their paintings for them. These ideas and practises are not new, are no longer shocking within artistic discourse, and are to a large extent just another language or methodology that an artist has to work with, as much as they could choose to paint or sculpt. But to many it's still shocking.

One way I explain this though is that it must have been extremely shocking the first time mankind made a 2D representational image! But centuries have made it a commonly understood language and activity, so now it is accepted and appreciated by all without any education or White cards. So maybe longer than a century is needed for modern art.

Or thinking about it, I'm quite interested in the train if thought earlier on the thread that the 20th centuary would just be seen as a dumchampian ride up a back alley and back.

But somehow I doubt it. Even if art rebels against dumchampian values for a century, then it would surely have a revival. Ooooh if I had a time machine I'd love to see Neo Dumchampiancism! :-)

Duchampian duchampian duchampian blah! :-D

I also find it odd that people get so het up about art and not literature or film or whatever. If you choose to read popular fiction, then fine but some people prefer Tarkovsky for instance. I don't see anyone getting upset about it - think it is just accepted that 'difficult' literature or film is not for them. Don't see why the same can't apply to visual art.

Also - wondering of those people decrying so called modern art .....how many of you have a print of a minimal object on the wall, or an Ikea reproduction Paul Klee, Kandinksy, Warhol for instance. All deemed 'modern' and all 'out there' at the time of their inception.

Also for those of you who enjoy the minimalist look in their house ( white walls, lean furniture etc), remember minimalism came from art. Art defines and informs so much, it's bizarre to decry it all.

YABU
Art is art. It exists for its own sake, not for your appreciation. Its an expression.
If its so easy then do it!

Fifitot, I like your take on miminalism! Indeed tis everywhere! And also
the influence of dada and surrealism is so incredibly popular and everwhere. (monty python, mighty boosh)

advertising actually nicks alot of contemporary art and makes it popular. Remember the advert that was a complete rip off of Gillian wearing? Or the bouncy balls advert? There's more I know , but I don't watch enough telly recently

By the way, does anyone else know that Duchamp gave up art entirely in later life and became a chess master? :-D I love that fact!

Ps- why have mumsnet deleted ihateclown's post where she swears at me? Hmmm, but not the one where she calls me hateful? Gosh. How odd!

i think there are two things at stake 1) what is good art?
2) what is art..

i think Tracey Emins stuff is art, but not good (and similar to many great artists in employing other hands for execution)
I think a shed that sailed down the Elbe may be good, but it's still a shed and not a piece of art.
The concept of sailing down the Elbe on a shed may be a piece of conceptual art - but the actual object adds little, no?

Duchamp..and his 'objets trouve' ..i think another case where its all about the concept - eg put a urinal upsie down, sign it, call it 'Fountain' - once you know that, how much does seeing the thing do for you?