Tate Modern - more stupidity
11 October 2010, 06:31 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tate Modern - more stupidity
Some Chinese artist has had 1600 Chinese 'slaves' make and hand paint hundreds of thousands of porcelain sunflower seeds that he has now had poured all over the floor of the Tate modern as an 'installation' for people to walk over.
What a load of tosh, that is not art and never will be. Add to that the fact he appears to have had nothing to do with the piece except conceive it and given the idea is just stupid he appears to have zero talent.
No wonder art gets scoffed at by so many.
What a load of tosh, that is not art and never will be. Add to that the fact he appears to have had nothing to do with the piece except conceive it and given the idea is just stupid he appears to have zero talent.
No wonder art gets scoffed at by so many.
11 October 2010, 08:18 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
The Ulster Museum has went all "art" since it reopened, tis fucking ****e, i don't understand nor want to understand "art". I went to see dead stuffed animals, dinosaur bones and Egytian mummies.
11 October 2010, 08:20 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is a typical example of whats wrong with the tate modern
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-artwork.html
£300k for 6 months worth? Local road workers could dig that for £500 cash in one afternoon - how the heck did they justify the cost of £300,000? 
Hole in the ground that people get hurt falling into to, yes, that must be art
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-artwork.html
The installation cost about £300,000 and took more than six months to complete
Three women have been hurt by falling into Tate Modern's latest installation - a crack in the floor.
Trending Topics
12 October 2010, 06:52 AM
#10
Then the work which started this thread would appear to be art, because it certainly seems to challenge the posters here. It's also not a particularly useful definition: a Rubik's cube is challenging, but it's probably not art. Although it might be.
As for the Sistine Chapel, it's an example, not a definition.
M
12 October 2010, 08:24 AM
#11
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait for it......
Well **** me - we've gone full circle 
The crack is said to represent the division problem of integrating immigrants into European society.
12 October 2010, 09:12 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 October 2010, 09:36 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
12 October 2010, 09:47 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree to some extent but what is the alternative? We all dress in Mao suits and live in identical grey tower blocks...a philistine utopia?
12 October 2010, 10:03 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
If that's your excuse for keeping it it's a very very poor excuse. Out here in the real world no-one give a monkeys about the stuff that the arts council funds, which is the only real test, IMHO of course ....
Dave
12 October 2010, 10:05 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What has Arts Council funding got to do with commercial fashion or architecture? Are you saying that it has paid for council owned tower blocks to be majestic towers of blazing colour that people for miles around travel to admire? Like this ... http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/a...0_1124956a.jpg ...? Absolutely stunning isn't it?
If that's your excuse for keeping it it's a very very poor excuse. Out here in the real world no-one give a monkeys about the stuff that the arts council funds, which is the only real test, IMHO of course ....
Dave
If that's your excuse for keeping it it's a very very poor excuse. Out here in the real world no-one give a monkeys about the stuff that the arts council funds, which is the only real test, IMHO of course ....
Dave
Prior to the Arts Quango - artists had philanthropic sponsors who liked their work or indeed the artist themselves which seems fair enough.
It does seem that you can take a sh*t on a floor in the Arts Quango will applaud you and offer you money - take a sh*t outside the Tate on the pavement and you will get arrested - go figure!
Last edited by The Zohan; 12 October 2010 at 10:27 AM.
12 October 2010, 10:46 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 October 2010, 10:58 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 October 2010, 11:10 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't define it, but I can say that when I see a piece of work that I know I could do then how is it art? For instance if I chose to have some people make 100,000 porcelain sunflower seeds and handpaint them to the standard of the work mentioned in my opening post I could and I could scatter them on the floor. Thing is if I did that no one would take a blind bit of notice until some arts council deems it to be art.
However I could never in a million years paint as well as Michaelangelo and his paintings don't need an arts council to tell us they are art. That is because the latter is talent and the former is not.
However I could never in a million years paint as well as Michaelangelo and his paintings don't need an arts council to tell us they are art. That is because the latter is talent and the former is not.
12 October 2010, 11:29 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it looks great and quite fancy walking over it, and scooping up some stones. I'd also want to steel one!
Some great art pieces are tosh, this is one I want to see.
1600 people involved in making it, everyone is talking about it.
Some great art pieces are tosh, this is one I want to see.
1600 people involved in making it, everyone is talking about it.
12 October 2010, 11:49 AM
#26
Then the work which started this thread would appear to be art, because it certainly seems to challenge the posters here. It's also not a particularly useful definition: a Rubik's cube is challenging, but it's probably not art. Although it might be.
As for the Sistine Chapel, it's an example, not a definition.
M
As for the Sistine Chapel, it's an example, not a definition.
M
Why didn't you just say so?
12 October 2010, 12:14 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
wonder if a pic of my **** crack would be considered art?
tbh all this 'contempory art' is complete pish, any fool can turn a light on and off. As far as the concrete crack, not that easy to do tbh, but it aint art thats for sure.
is any of it public funded or is it all private funding? i knwo the turner prize is private funded
tbh all this 'contempory art' is complete pish, any fool can turn a light on and off. As far as the concrete crack, not that easy to do tbh, but it aint art thats for sure.
is any of it public funded or is it all private funding? i knwo the turner prize is private funded