art is rubbish

[mharky]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4539916.stm

The bronze is worth £5000, but after it was formed into that amazng shape it it worth £3m.

Are they having a laugh, it doesn't even look like anything. Yeah it's big, yeah it's smooth, but that is about it...

And apparently it's a national treasure... I've never heard of it, and I dont really care that it's been stolen and might be melted back down. Maybe somone could then shape it to look like something, like a lion perhaps.

[PeterG]

If you squint it looks like a badger trying to hump a log.

[Shea]

Or someone getting sick in a wheelbarrow being pushed along...

[[my username]]

i agree that you could probably make something more worthwhile than that from a big lump of metal

[bob h]

To be quite honest, i'm more worried about the merc than the lump of metal!

[samsonite]

philistines

[Guest]

ah mharky you've hit the nail on the head there.

Fundamentally art is about prevoking a reaction to the viewer of the piece. For everyone the experience of that reaction is different. When you see Moores Sculpture you view it as a big, and smooth piece of metal -and your reaction is that you think it is rubbish -which i might add is a serious reaction! As a piece of art it intends to prevoke a reaction and in you it does -fair cop gov.

Mind you when i look at moores work i see the juxtapositional representation of sereallity, brought together with the flowing curves of the female form.

[Supersaint]

Mind you when i look at moores work i see the juxtapositional representation of sereallity, brought together with the flowing curves of the female form.

what the nope? guest's had too many shandy's me thinks.

[Kitch]

I don't see what this has to do with the situation in the West Bank and Gaza.

[SJ]

maybe art doesn't have a practical purpose in the obvious sense...maybe people create art because they want to make a point, but maybe they do it because they enjoy making it and looking at it - why question the "point"? It's not like we orienteer for a higher purpose when it comes down to it

[Kitch]

As a piece of art it intends to prevoke a reaction and in you it does -fair cop gov

Pish. Mharky's reaction is primarily related to the value attached to 5,000 quids worth of bronze.

Art is merely a comodity, measured by its financial value.
Art which is successful and becomes classified as "good" (whatever that means) attracts a high value. When it attracts such a high value the reaction is more often related to that high value than the intrisic qualities of the art. At which point the artist has failed.
Paradoxically then successful art is a failure.

[SJ]

Art is merely a comodity, measured by its financial value.

I reckon when someone looks at art and reacts to it, it is usually a personal thing and not based on how much it in worth in financial terms (do most of us actually know how much things are worth?!)

a bit like a film...we don't enjoy it because Empire mag says it is good - but it might encourage us to go to see it and make up our own minds

[samsonite]

depending on what is classed as successful.

that link i posted to banksy's art could be classed as successful, but is worth no money.

something like jack vettriano's work is viewed by millions as unsuccessful. its boring. but millions would say it is successful, and use the reason that it sells millions to explain the success.

the idea that people think that art is merely a commodity makes me feel a bit sad.

[Kitch]

It is not merey a commodity but it is treated as such.
This being so it is develued as art because the assignment of a monetary value (treatment as a commodity) distracts from neutral consideration.

Poor art is cheap and accessible but being poor art it fails to affect people.
Great art is expensive and inaccessible and again fails to affect people (because they do not have access to it - it cannot be part of their life).

So art fails to be appreciated by the majority of the population, either because it is rubbish or because it is good.
Sad.

[SJ]

access to expensive pieces of art is often through visits to galleries...in cities or even online...

i reckon bendover's photos have been both accessible and appreciated by lots of users of this website. i've no idea how much it sells for but is that all "success" is measured by?