Tate Modern - WHY??!?!!?!!?/1/!?11!!!!

[squidgyegg]

I went to the Tate Modern Gallery yesterday with a few bosom buddies of mine, and saw three basketballs plunged in a tank of jelly stuff, and someone said it was art!!!! I know these are age old questions, but they've never been answered properly to me:

Q1) What makes it art?
Q2) Why can's just anyone do it?

Heed my call! This can't be art, i mean, bloody hell, "unmade bed"????!!!!! I studied art for 2 years for my GCSE and i never splatted a car in crap and said it was art, i wish i had now, i might have got an A rather than a C.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

</tempestuous rage>

Someone's got to feel as angry and ripped of as i do about it, eh?

[Private Bob]

I know how you feel. I've never been to the Tate Modern itself but I've seen pictures of the 'art' there and believe me, I use the term loosley. It's just not nice, there's no inspiration, no meaning and certainley no talent to it. Why people rave about it is beyond me...

[woobi]

Modern art is just art for people that can't actually do art.

I'm doing an art higher and I haven't yet crapped on a slice of bread then pinned it to a wall. Stuff like this is what give's artists a bad name.

I hate modern artists. They're lazy. Just take the unmade bed thing. They probably just said,
Hmmm, I can't be bothered to make my bed today...I know, I'll call it art and sell it to some gallery.

[sack the chimp]

Its all about getting emotion across by visual means. The unmade bed was an attempt to gt across the emotions Tracy Emin felt when she stayed in that bed - spent around 48 hours contemplating suicide having been raped. I can even begin to imagine what a dark period that must have been for her, but I think the idea is you look at the bed and try and imagine it.

I went to the Sensations exhibition at the Tate (normal) when I was doing my A-level art, back in the height of the brit-art movement. I've got to say, I didn't understand the majority of it, with the exception of Damien Hirst's famous Tiger shark in a tank of formaldehyde. The title is "The Physical Impossibilty of Death in the Mind of Someone Living". I dead that, then looked into the eyes of the shark, and was just struck with this really deep feeling, exactly what I think he was trying to get across.

Also, a piece I think called Dead Dad, by an atist who's name escapes me. It was a silicon model of a middle aged man, lying on his back naked, at about 3/4 scale. It certainly shocked (most of the exhibition was designed to), and I'm sure if I'd given it a bit more thought (and actually read the description) I could have understood what it was about.

Maybe some of it is just crap, but I really think you have to open your mind a little and you'll find there is actually a lot of thought (and skill) involved, and it can be pretty moving. I do think you should read the descriptions though, if you're going to have any idea.

[Oli]

There was a bit of blue plastic in a frame last time i went there, I was also ranting.

[Youlikeyams?]

Oh dear, my lunch has splattered all over the microwave. I'll call the Tate.


Modern Art sucks.

[Paradigm^]

I'm gonna be the first one to step over the line then, it seems.

Modern art these days is conceptual, not technical. It doesn't take skill to make a dot on a page, anyone could do it - it's the fact that that artist was the one that did it. It's about reading into things more than saying "this is just a load of basketballs in a fishtank". To get those basketballs suspended perfectly in that tank would have taken a bit of effort - plus it's a case of the artist having the idea in the first place.

It's about understanding the meaning behind things. In the room just round the corner there are the optical illusions, which make you question your own vision (and then look at it from the side to see how it's made); there's also the room full of objects that have been fucked up (e.g. the iron with tacks glued to the bottom - challenging common perceptions); and the one I remember the most is the pink thing that looks very sexually provocative without actually referring to anything at all. It's an experiment into what the human mind reads into even abstract things.

You can either walk past these things and go "wtf is that lol crap", or you can go up to them, read the little captions beside them and have a think about what's being expressed. You might actually get something out of the experience that way.

[edit:] FUCK YOU SACK, FUCK YOU IN THE EYES!

:p

[squidgyegg]

There was one funny piece, now the red missed has cleared a bit, it was a video of a clown throwing a tantrum, jumping up and down and shouting "NO". I thought what's this about and read the description on the wall and some guy had thought that the fact that a character dressed in clothing generally known as threatless acting in a threatening behaviour was supposed to make it seem really violent. What was this artist trying to put across? It just seems stupid and surreal to me.

What goes on inside these artist's minds? I suppose they think differently to me.

[sack the chimp]

[edit:] FUCK YOU SACK, FUCK YOU IN THE EYES!

:p

You snooze, you lose :p

[GorillaBearBear]

I, agreeing with Sack and Sarchasm here.

I went to an Art gallery last year that had a modern art section. On e picture there (I think it might have been a hirst, I can't remember) that was just a blue circle inside a very slightly lighter blue cirlce. No, it doesn't represent anything base. Modern Art is grounded about as deeply as you can be in Abstract thoughts. For example while most of my friends thought the above piece was worthless, I was moved by the way the two similar colours faded together as you moved closer. I took it to mean something about how you will always have to, in some way, conform to societies expectations. It moved me quite a lot actually.

Last time I went to the Tate Modern I saw some really interesting pieces. As well as the conceptual stuff, there was the merely abstract (a couple of Picasso works) and several that were aesthetic pieces, which is the other thing you have to realise about some modern art - It's often not about meaning or representation but about aesthetics, either challenging aesthetic ideals or conforming to them in a simple and pleasing way that's nice to look at. Like when I went to the Tate Modern I saw a huge canvas that was just 50 odd shades of blue, going from dark to light as you went right to left. Meaningful, no, but beautiful it was.

Basically, Sack and Chasm are right and you're all philistines :p

[squidgyegg]

Are they going to start doing a GCSE in Modern Art? I could do that.

[Erasmus]

The problem I have with modern art is that they say it is justified by the thought that went into making it. It isn't. For instance I saw a piece of canvas in a gallary that had had paint randomly sprayed across it. Now, the fact that some artist spend a while making it does not detract from the fact that it could quite easily have been done by a 3 year old with a squeezy-bottle of paint.

You can take any random splodge of colour, or a lump of clay, or just an un-made bed and as long as you can write a reasonably convincing caption to go with it it becomes art.

[GorillaBearBear]

Are you seriously telling me you saw what sounds like it was a painting by Jackson Pollock, and you're saying it was shit?

I despair

[Mittwoch]

I'm a bit torn on modern art.

When I went to the Tate, they had a room dedicated to one peice: It was about the war in the east. It was basically a lot of cardboard boxes taped together to form a kind of table, with cardboard cut-outs of soldiers round the edge. On the 'table' was a multitude of food packets for things like cereal, coffee, etc. But oiver the name of the foodstuff on each box was a strip of paper, with something written on it - good things like liberty and peace. The bigger the item, the bigger the virtue attached to it. Then, in places were large cardboard fungi with things written on them like governmentarianism, war, things like that. They were the mold spoiling the food that the soldiers were dining on. All of these were held on by loads of parcel tape, which I think symbolised poilitics - it's keeping it all together, the bad stuff and the good.
You see, not all this stuff is bad. Most of it takes a hell of a lot of work and thought and can be taken as art like Picasso or Monet is. Though there are some that really are a waste of space - 'Nine Tables' by an 'artist' I can't remember, for instance. 9 blocks of concrete, supposedly with table frames imprinted on them. The caption mentioned no reason, just the method. How can you perceive that as a meaningful creation? That concrete could have been used to fill in cracks on pavements so people don't trip over. Honestly.
And now my train of thought has derailed so I'm just going to leave this post in a very contradictory state.

[Cjw]

It's a mixed bag..whilst some of it can be poor, some of it is actually really quite funky.

I visited the guggenheim in bilbao 2001. I was in the frame of mind to think that it was all crap, but was plesently surprised.

One installation if i remember rightly, was a set of tvs stuck inside a strangly shaped room. All the tvs were set to flicker at certain points, thus creating a bizzare kind of strobe chain in the room. Headache inducing maybe, but it was certainly intresting.

[3v1l |\/|1NiOn]

I'm sure when I've been pissed off I have sneezed and wiped my nose on a tissue.

Just because some emotion was occuring when it happened, doesn't mean its art.

[Aladdin Sane]

I also have trouble figuring out what I feel about modern art, although I feel that the term is too generic. On the one hand you get the pieces that are effective at conveying things through abstract means, and these are the pieces of modern art I like. On the other hand you get things like a few spots of paint splattered onto a canvas, and try as I might, I have difficulty deciphering what that is supposed to portray.

I think I might also hold a grudge against modern art since I visted an art gallery a while back, and since I was walking around looking at what was on display, I wasn't paying attention to where I was walking and I almost fell down a hole in the floor, which was one of the exhibits. Why they couldn't have fenced it off for safety purposes is beyond me.

[Paradigm^]

The trouble with a lot of you is that you expect to walk in and see something technically beautiful. Art these days is about challenging perceptions and getting people to see things from a different light. Like I said, anyone could paint a circle within a circle, or put splodges of paint on a page - but it's down to who actually does it and has the idea first. I heard about a piece of art with a room full of helium balloons and detailed instructions to keep them pumped up, and how many there should be at all times etc. As soon as you stepped in, the static made your hair stand up :D

It is so much more about the concept rather than the creation. Yes, you or me could do splodges on a bit of paper. But would you have thought of it yourself? I think not, and that's what it's about. Pushing the boundaries.

[Cynic]

The trouble with a lot of you is that you expect to walk in and see something technically beautiful. Art these days is about challenging perceptions and getting people to see things from a different light. Like I said, anyone could paint a circle within a circle, or put splodges of paint on a page - but it's down to who actually does it and has the idea first. I heard about a piece of art with a room full of helium balloons and detailed instructions to keep them pumped up, and how many there should be at all times etc. As soon as you stepped in, the static made your hair stand up :D

It is so much more about the concept rather than the creation. Yes, you or me could do splodges on a bit of paper. But would you have thought of it yourself? I think not, and that's what it's about. Pushing the boundaries.

I agree with Sar here.


SOme of its lazy crap that even I could do but some others are great pieces of work.

They used to have a giant metal spider in the main entrance hall. Is that big red thing still there or has it been replaced?

[sack the chimp]

I tell you what, we'll chuck out all this meaningless tripe, these splodges of paint etc and put some nice tasteful stuff in shall we?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/sack_teh_chimp/r865.jpg

[jimeh]

I thought this year the enterance hall piece was awesome- you had different wartime sounds of crying, dying people and guns and all that shiz, thrown at you from all directions. The idea was to create a feeling of fear and anxiety. That's what made the Tate for me :D

[firetrap]

I believe you people are completely missing the point and concept. And that's exactly what modern art is, conceptual. I myself make conceptual and pop art in my free time and sometimes you find that the only way to truly express your emotions is through simplicity. In one of my pieces I felt anger, so I used the items I had around me to express this. Modern art isn't often premeditated and planned out. That's what you people have to consider. You go to an art gallery and see a piece by Van Gogh and you admire the use of brushstrokes and tones of colour. You go to a modern art gallery and you admire the use of the mind. I don't know if I'm making sense or not, but that's how I see it. So if you think it's so piss easy, make a piece now to express your disgust at modern art. Go on. :P

[joeluck]

I believe you people are completely missing the point and concept. And that's exactly what modern art is, conceptual. I myself make conceptual and pop art in my free time and sometimes you find that the only way to truly express your emotions is through simplicity. In one of my pieces I felt anger, so I used the items I had around me to express this. Modern art isn't often premeditated and planned out. That's what you people have to consider. You go to an art gallery and see a piece by Van Gogh and you admire the use of brushstrokes and tones of colour. You go to a modern art gallery and you admire the use of the mind. I don't know if I'm making sense or not, but that's how I see it. So if you think it's so piss easy, make a piece now to express your disgust at modern art. Go on. :P

alright ill go shit in a multicoloured jug

[3v1l |\/|1NiOn]

So if you think it's so piss easy, make a piece now to express your disgust at modern art. Go on. :P

Modern art - taking a shit on real art (http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/3860/modermart4wo.jpg) - Warning - dog poo.



Do I win the prize?

[firetrap]

:| quite possibly.

[Paradigm^]

Have you done anything new and thought-provoking? No. Have you pushed the boundaries? No. Do people look at your work and understand the message, going away with a different look at things? No.

You've just jumped on a bandwagon and are waving your fist angrily in the air without really having thought about or understood things from all sides in an open-minded manner. The country is being overrun with immigrants who have nothing to offer and do nothing but sponge off the State! Fight the Euro because it will make us lose our Britishness dammit! The elderly are always abused in hospitals!

See what you're doing? No, you do not win the prize at all.

[Erasmus]

Please don't get me wrong.
Modern art is sometimes good.
Abstract is good, abstract is interesting.
The crux of the matter seems to be - does the artist's intention change the art itself? Some of these peices of art are only art in the most nebulous sense. They ellicit an emotional responce, yes. But is that all there is to art? I don't think so. Most of the art seems to be esoteric to the point of no return. The only way to understand what the artist is trying to transmit is to read the caption. Art should not be so cryptic that the meaning is hidden until it is pointed out. You should not have to have had years of training in art to appreciate modern art, and similarly you should not have to have the meaning pointed out to you.

[3v1l |\/|1NiOn]

I think I do understand all sides of the argument.

And I am expressing an opinion and siding with one side.

I dont find any modern art thought provoking so why should my piece provoke thought? Can I argue my side without being seen as 'jumping on the bandwagon,' or isn't that a possibility.

[sack the chimp]

There is a bit of both in it. The art world is fickle, pretentious and very cliquey. Al lot of it depends who's doing something, and how good they chat is.

If Tracy Emin woke up, had a shit on a piece of paper and made some bullshit up about it it would probably sell for a lot of money. But it wouldn't win the Turner Prize.

[3v1l |\/|1NiOn]

I remember one year the turner prize was won by a scrumpled piece of paper, or was that just the media bullshitting.

If it was really won, that isn't exactly pushing the boundries of what is artistically possible, and it did certainly change my opinions on seeing it, but not for the better. Nor does it have a message or ANYTHING. It is just a scrumpled piece of paper!

[Erasmus]

http://tinypic.com/dbm4ya.jpg
I drew that by burning a piece of wood and rubbing the charcoal onto the paper. It took all of 5 minutes. No thought went into it, yet if I put it next to another piece of paper saying the emotional response it is meant to ellicit I could concievably pass it off as "art".

[3v1l |\/|1NiOn]

Did you burn the wood in ANGER?


If so, you could sell that.

[Jimmeh]

Consider it, nowadays we have digital photography that can capture a moment. Why bother drawing it? The entire beginings of the cubist movement was due to the invention of photography, they had to find something new to do because showing things as they are has been done and done again.

All of the pieces of art there have an insane amount of backing to them. If you read the amount of preliminary work the artists do you'd be supprised. I appreciate that some of you prefer things which are technically great but that is entirely subjective and will vary between people.

[Erasmus]

Did you burn the wood in ANGER?


If so, you could sell that.
Hmmmm... you have a point.
Does anyone have the number of a good art-critic?

[Mozzer]

http://tinypic.com/dbm4ya.jpg
I drew that by burning a piece of wood and rubbing the charcoal onto the paper. It took all of 5 minutes. No thought went into it, yet if I put it next to another piece of paper saying the emotional response it is meant to ellicit I could concievably pass it off as "art".
I don't care how long that took or what emotional crap it has to do with anything. I think that looks rather good.

Now as for modern art such as a room with a light flashing on and off... hmm.

I can understand that some of it is worthwhile, but some of it is utter poop.

[Mr_Moo]

To avoid headaches, I've come to accept anything as being 'art' regardless of intention. Attempting to differentiate between what is art and what isn't is just another example of our inate elitist tendencies at work.

As long as it invokes some form of thought or emotion, then it's art, in my book. This goes for things that wheren't really intended to do either in the first place, I'd cite nature as being a fine example of this.

I find it amusing that people can go to art school and come out 4 years later with a set idea of what is and isn't art and the corresponding degree to prove it, seems like a mild form of indoctrination passed down over the years by the same institutions over and over again.

I'm probably wrong though, right?

[killsteel]

http://tinypic.com/dbm4ya.jpg
I drew that by burning a piece of wood and rubbing the charcoal onto the paper. It took all of 5 minutes. No thought went into it, yet if I put it next to another piece of paper saying the emotional response it is meant to ellicit I could concievably pass it off as "art".

Well, actually I rather like it. It seems pretty much like art to me...

[Broche]

Modern art can be very thought-provoking. I think you have to actually walk through a modern art gallery with an open mind towards it before you write it off as meaningless, as there will always be at least one piece which makes you think or strikes you in some way.
Of course, as with any form of art, your tastes and ideas will make this different for different people, but I'm sure everyone can find something meaningfull in modern art.

Edit: also, I agree with mr_moo in that art can be accidental. An example I found amasing was when, on holiday last month, I was in this massive arena. All around people were taking pictures with flashes on, so there were camera flashes going off all over the seating at random, but looking out at it it was really beautiful.