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. :mad:

You could go to Tate Modern have a crap in the foyer and they would call it art.....

You're talking about it. If it were so irrelevant (not art) you would not be.

Define art.



M

This...........for a start..............

http://baldpunk.com/wp-content/uploa...ine_chapel.jpg

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.

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? :cuckoo:

Hole in the ground that people get hurt falling into to, yes, that must be art:Whatever_

No wonder they all walk around scratching their heads and pondering..
Modern s***e, the toffs seem to love it.

It should challenge.

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

Wait for it......


Well fcuk me - we've gone full circle :lol1:

Don't be obtuse.

They are just taking the piss these days and taking advantage of the "learned" prats who are silly enough to be taken in by it!

Les

Emperor's new clothes syndrome i think!

Absolutely. I reckon they should stop all arts council funding and then we'd see how many of these *art* works saw the light of day. I mean, why should the tax payer fund b*llux like this? If no-one wants to buy it commercially then why do it?

Dave

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?

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

It appears that TDW swings from one extreme to another and has the cheek to call others obtuse.:)

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!

Doesn't the lottery (tax for idiots) funding pay for some of this?

Are you saying that the way you dress is influenced by piles of bricks and dirty unmade beds then?

Les

No I'm talking about dull conformity, utilitarianism etc; the logic of the philistine, that or at least commodity art.

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.

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.

Sorry, but they are all porcelain ;)

Could Steve Hawkins explain art? And if not does that mean that God created art?

The paintings of the Sistine Chapel 'define' art for me

Oh I see. You mean you're talking b*llux ....? :thumb: Why didn't you just say so?

Dave

Easy ladies.......

http://www.cindycraig.net/images/Pin...se%20Fight.jpg

wonder if a pic of my arse 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

Now that's art...or is it;)