Me and my big fat stupid squinty loud mouth..

Art is in the eye of the beholder - a personal choice closely aligned with individual taste. Everything has the potential to be art and it's art if it pleases one and fails to reach the masses

Unfortunatley for Boss Eyed Laydee somethings stand out more than others - Boss Eyes and an attitude problem are hardly inconspicuous personal attributes

 

Tracey Emin is pig ugly. Last weeks Times on Saturday had a fasion pull out. With her modelling Vivienne Westwood clothes.......

 

'Tracey Emin Sucks'
is the kind of title the wee coo would give her latest exhibition....

it is unfortunate, but artists who court controversy are almost impossible to criticise without leaving oneself open to the counter argument that our negative reaction is simply proof of their genius..




OOh-AAh - thats a Smiths lyric, by the way - and its an unwise man that dares to cover Morrissey, unless they have the cheekbones......

 

Ahh, I see. Thank you kind sir.

 

I used to go out with a 'performance' artist...trust me it didn't last long...infact it finished just after seeing her 'installation' which involved her licking a huge circle of salt..after the third time she puked up bile while crying..I thought...this isn't the girl for me..

 

first time a woman ever got chucked for licking the salty ring, surely?

 

OMG

// mouth waters

That's an endearing lil habit she had

 

LOL

Thank God I've confined myself to English literary peeps and not proper artists...

But once again, I have to agree with most of John's arguements

 

I went to see her turner prize masterpiece, it was just pathetic that someone so talentless is respected as an artist,your right its a huge publicity stunt,a dirty bed and scribbly writing on tracing paperis nothing but Cr*p

 

I do believe the performance had something to do with sex...in someway or an other..

I couldn't see the connection...

 

Art is in the eye of the beholder or the personal taste argument is a crock.

if that was the case pictures of crying clowns and dogs playing cards as well as avon glass motorcycle after shave bottles would be worth millions.

its a case of no one knows any more, they (the critics) scratch about for some kind of meaning in anything, debassing real meaning of art all the time.

 

My idea of good modern art..

http://www.hayward-gallery.org.uk/hg/sub_hg/nte/1859856

Now walk into a gallery and see something like that and you are physically moved..

 

i like the guy who filled the room with the sinister little clay men.

 

That's it..

Field for British Isle's..

I went to the Hayward to see the Maplethorpe exhbition ( another person I haven't got any time for )

and that was showing to...man it blew me away

 

yeh thats pretty cool!

 

I actually detest the idea of a light being switched on and off repeatedly and being recognised as a piece of art. But that's my opinion.

> Art is in the eye of the beholder or the personal taste argument is a crock.

if that was the case pictures of crying clowns and dogs playing cards as well as avon glass motorcycle after shave bottles would be worth millions <

A piece of art doesn't have to be worth millions to be breathtaking. And it may only be breathtaking to one person out of millions. But to that person it's art.

You can't define people's perception of art. People have been trying for years. You can, however, call a pickled cow cut in half, crap. Doesn't mean it's not art. Is all.

 

I thought the pickled cow was cool..but I didn't see it as art..I saw it the same way as the KLF burning a million quid..

 

LOL!

 

What TTG said.

Art is communication, so it only takes one person to recieve the intended communication loud and clear for it to stand.

Come to think of it, it could still be considered an act of communication even if nobody understood it at all. Providing it was intended as such.

 

Yeah but my point is...

Do we understand it...or are we trying to understand for the sake of the artist..and are modern artist just really creating twaddle for their fellow artist's to moozy over

 

Probably true for that last statement John...

 

I guess the problem is that if someone licks the salty ring for you, there's no way of knowing if

(a) they're just doing some random act that they know could be mistaken for art for the express purpose of scamming you. In which case its not really art, its a con

or

(b) they're just an incredibly pretentious idiot and they really mean something by it, in which case its art. Bad, bad, bad art.

 

Hmmm..

The girl with the salty ring..( she's called Julie..but I could quite well imagine she's calling her self Jooles..and lives in in the right end Hackney)

Her thing..which i decoded from all the 'art noise' was that she wanted to put the viewier into an enviroment that was uncomfortable..she also said she was re-living a semi-rape experience...now this was all well and good..until her sister said she's never had a semi-rape experience..and then she asked me what a semi-rape experience was?..


..I couldn't answer her..

 

> Do we understand it...or are we trying to understand for the sake of the artist..and are modern artist just really creating twaddle for their fellow artist's to moozy over <

I don't think we do understand it. But then, years ago, nobody understood Andy Warhol's Golden Marilyn (saw it for real in MOMA New York - fab and funky)

The thing is we can't do a dang thing about it. People's perception of art differs hugely.

This kind of art does not rely on an audience to survive. Perfoming arts such as theatre productions collapse after a bad review.

Modern art does not. It's enduring and the bigger the hype the more people want to come and judge for themselves whether it's art or not.

What if modern artists are ahead of their time in the same way Van Gogh was ahead of his...or will generations in years to come point and laugh at the idea of an unmade, semen stained bed being classed as art?

Who knows..

 

point and laugh.