Banksy - if only we had a fraction of his style.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Easy E**

I would argue that through most of history, the majority of people did not care about Art. Only wealthy elites with time and money on their hands cared much about it.

Arguably, in the modern age more people CAN care about Art than ever before.

**Mr Morden**

Easy E wrote:
I would argue that through most of history, the majority of people did not care about Art. Only wealthy elites with time and money on their hands cared much about it.

Arguably, in the modern age more people CAN care about Art than ever before.

Hmm - I would argue that alot of historical art was part of religion or comissioned as part of a religious display so alot of people did in fact see and care about it

**Luke_Prowler**

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not art.

**Mr Morden**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not art.

Just because some overhyped critics and artists say its art does not make it good art for a given person, the only person who can judge that is the person viewing (or whatever it).

However the skill and /or talent (or lack of) needed to create a piece of work can be more objectively viewed and measured.

**Luke_Prowler**

Mr Morden wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not art.

Just because some overhyped critics and artists say its art does not make it good art for a given person, the only person who can judge that is the person viewing (or whatever it).

However the skill and /or talent (or lack of) needed to create a piece of work can be more objectively viewed and measured.

But it's still art

at the end of the day, slamming an entire movement just for it's worse examples tends to come form people with an agenda and while I personally have no love for the examples brought up here I've also seen these arguments else decrying something as "not art" or "no skill involved" and I can frankly say I know that's not that case and such mentalities are their own form of elitism (just one that's spawned from anti-intellectualism)

**Frazzled**

Art reached it's height with Dogs Playing Poker...: )

**Kilkrazy**

If I understand the point correctly, Abstract Art is necessarily conceptual since it deals with unreal forms which the artist has to imagine, then create out of abstract ideas (concepts.)

Conceptual Art, OTOH is about the idea rather than the execution of the idea. This is what allows modern conceptual artists to "get away with" very easy stuff.

That said, a lot of modern stuff, especially YBA (HIrst, etc) and Koons, has done takes a lot of skill and work to produce.

Hirst thought of the idea of sawing a pregnant cow in half and preserving it in two separated glass boxes filled with formaldehyde. It's wasn't actually a doddle to go ahead and create the final piece, however much you may or may not like it.

**SolarCross**

Such is the degeneracy of modern art I bet that pic is now worth more as a result of that stunt.

**Aszubaruzah Surn**

Overread wrote:
I think its possible to come to a conclusion, its just that the world we live in today is so open when it comes to art that some dislike to deny anything as an artistic failure. Plus once you put money into the equation sanity goes out the window (too many critics and rich people rely on the income from bad art that they will justify it like mad to ensure that their stashed art remains high value).

I think its also perpetuated by the fact that art is a very badly taught subject at many schools. Few art teachers take or have th time in the system to actually teach students the mechanics of how to even draw, let alone moving onto the concepts of composition. The result is that several generations have grown up with the idea that art is like magic - you have to be born with it to achieve it and its a skill no one can learn (oddly people don't believe that you have to be born an electrician though)

The "modern art problem" applies mainly to the teaching side. Like if you can't afford a good private tutoring or good art school, you can forget about learning how to draw/paint at school.

People always want skilled work for free, it's nothing new. It's the artists that give it away for free or next-to-nothing that are the main problem.

IMO the main problem is that people in general don't buy art. They don't buy paintings, don't buy prints, don't donate on Patreon, Ko-fi, etc. just look for freebies on art sites.

If you look at most expensive paintings ever, there isn't some specific tendency among rich people to buy conceptual art. And then there are still figurative painters whose work go for millions.

All these rich people are still much better for art than the masses.

Easy E wrote:
What about the person writing wargame rules?

If wargame rules were art, most of people in this thread would be simulationists XD .

Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion "art" is something that requires skill to make. That is the literal definition of the word "art" (the word comes from the Latin word "artem", which means skill).
I don't mind abstract art all, but a lot modern art just doesn't require any skill whatsoever (except perhaps the skill to say a lot of nonsense about nothing). Modern art has just degraded into capitalism. What has become important is the ability to sell something, rather than the ability to make something that is actually nice or thought-inspiring to look at.
Nowadays modern art can be absolutely anything as long as the so-called artist has attached a nice sales pitch to it. As long as it has a nice sales pitch you can be sure some pretentious billionaire with more money than brains will buy it, even if it is just a dustbin or a bed he could have bought pretty much everywhere. And that is sad, in my opinion. It has really degraded the value and meaning of art. A lot of people nowadays do not care about art anymore, and I think that is in no small part due to post-modern art movements.

Art of the deal.

**Rosebuddy**

SolarCross wrote:
Such is the degeneracy of modern art I bet that pic is now worth more as a result of that stunt.

Degenerate art, huh.

More than one kind of people understand what you mean, you know.

**Azreal13**

Yodhrin wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
if the purpose of art is to evoke emotion then the only thing I feel when I look at stuff like this is soul-deep disgust at the fact some talentless hack can shart out such vacant, nihilistic garbage and be regarded as a visionary genius while genuine artists can create stunning, evocative works that require serious skill to achieve only to be dismissed and denigrated.

So it worked then?

Given that's not typically what the "artist" is trying to evoke, no. But hey, maybe there are some artists out there who've so fully bought into smelling their own postmodernist farts that they would consider making something that causes people disgust at the idea such utterly worthless dreck would be considered valuable, meaningful art as successful art...

There are undoubtedly art and artists who exist solely to provoke a reaction. The nature of the reaction is secondary. Now, if you've a specific piece in mind where the artist is on record as stating that they're trying for a specific reaction and they didn't illicit that response from you, then you're somewhat justified in saying the piece failed.

However, and certainly within contemporary circles, getting a rise out of someone is, if not the sole aim, certainly commonly on the list of objectives. In fact, producing something crap which subsequently sells for a fortune to provoke outrage sounds exactly like something a contemporary artist would do.

**Aszubaruzah Surn**

I feel that abstract art is massively underrated nowadays because most famous pieces are those who appeal to the super-rich.

Like it's perfectly possible to make abstract art with rich colours, even joyous, that would be even uplifting to see, when there's nothing real represented.

It's just that for people who can afford any luxury imaginable, art as something uplifting probably has much less value than to people who struggle with day to day existence.