Turner Prize

  Earthsea 15:56 21 Oct 2007

click here click here

Is it art or is it something else?

I try to stay open minded, but most (not all) of the entries are complete rubbish, in my opinion. Does it only serve to distance us mere mortals from those with a 'greater' understanding of art?

And why's it named after one of my favourite artists?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 16:01 21 Oct 2007

It depends if you consider art to be something pretty to liven up your walls or something to stimulate thought and argument.


  Forum Editor 16:07 21 Oct 2007

You have a point, and personally I think that many of these 'artists' are taking the shortest route between no money and some money, leaving out the bit that involves studying or working on a technique, but.....

Much the same kind of question was asked about about the impressionists when they began working, and was certainly asked about people like Picasso.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if you like what you see amongst the Turner prize candidates, it's art, I suppose.

  anchor 16:29 21 Oct 2007

It reminds me of the Hans Christian Anderson story of the Emperors new clothes.

Because the cognoscenti say it is "art", the rest of us must be ignorant philistines if we think it`s rubbish.

Remember the Elephant dung art that won the £20,000 Turner prize in 1998.

Joseph Turner must be "turning" in his grave to have his name associated with that.

  mrwoowoo 19:32 21 Oct 2007

Let's get one thing straight.Art is not a pile of bricks on the floor or a sheep cut in half.Nor is it a Sombrero,poncho or other mexican apparel chucked on the floor.
To qualify as art it should be something that you yourself would love to have the talent to be able to do.I could never produce a painting such as van gough's the scream,which immediately shows the torment and terror of the subject in the picture.To replicate those emotions in a painting takes a lot of talent.Take the laughing cavalier by Frans Hals as an example of something the "average" person could never hope to replicate.The main point being that you can compare the portrait to real life to see how realistic it is.What on earth can you compare a crack in the floor to?
I can cut a sheep in half,put a crack in the floor,lay a pile of bricks,but i'm no artist.
When i see a near photo realistic portrait,i go WOW! When i see a realistic landscape or an emotion provocing impresion i go wow.Now i know some say that half a sheep etc are thought provoking,but just because some con artist says this is art,and people who know nothing about it, but like to pretend they do agree,it dosen't make it art.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 19:37 21 Oct 2007

Art is something that should produce an emotion which kind of blows the 'Art is not a pile of bricks on the floor or a sheep cut in half.Nor is it a Sombrero,poncho or other mexican apparel chucked on the floor' theory. Nor does art have to represent real life.

'When i see a near photo realistic portrait,i go WOW!'..I go..another true to life copy and dull.


  Forum Editor 20:17 21 Oct 2007

'Scream' wasn't painted by Van Gogh, but is a series of paintings by Edvard Munch.

I agree with you that a cow or a sheep cut in half isn't art, in my view it's an insult to the intelligence to say that, and I think that some of the artists who produce such works are quietly laughing behind the backs of the people who pay vast sums for them.

  citadel 20:34 21 Oct 2007

I like the one last year when a cleaner threw out a clear plstic refuse bag full of rubbish, it turned out to be an exhibit. when it was reported to the artist he said "I don't know how I will be able to replace it"

  Totally-braindead 20:36 21 Oct 2007

I know nothing about art but I do know what I like. A crack in the floor, a pile of old tyres or a pile of bricks or a chopped up sheep is to me not art. It doesn't stimulate me at all. I don't find myself admiring the so called art or find it in any way stimulating the only thing that goes through my mind is "someone gets a load of money for making that crap, why?"
Sorry Gandalf I appreciate what you are saying, but these are not art to me as they do nothing for me at all. To me its a load of rubbish.

  mrwoowoo 21:04 21 Oct 2007

Oops.Getting my sunflowers and screams a bit mixed up there.

  mrwoowoo 21:36 21 Oct 2007

A true to life copy,as you put it, is still undoubtedly talented. Also you can compare it to real life to gauge it's worth.
A lot of impressionistic paintings,whilst not reflecting real life,are indeed thought provoking and artistic.The point is that even you could tip a bag of rubbish on the floor and persuade some cretin that it is art.Could you produce a masterpiece to rival the Mona Lisa,laughing cavalier or the lute player by Orazio Gentileschi,No you cannot.
Can you tip rubbish on the floor..yes you can,then you can tell people it represents whatever you want.
The reason they believe you is because it stands for nothing at all.
Some people seem to sufer these fools very gladly,except the biggest fools are those that believe them.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Fujitsu Lifebook P727 laptop review

Best of the Grad Shows 2017: University of the West of England (UWE)

Best value Mac: Which is the best £1249 Mac to buy

Les meilleures GoPro 2017