Overzealous cleaner ruins £690,000 artwork that she thought was dirty - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;33148863]Nope, that's what makes art so great. It can be anything. It has no restrictions and no set guidelines. It's simply an umbrella term for anything which can invoke certain thoughts or emotions. There would be no point to "art" if it was restricted to only apply to things which "looked good" or whatever, which is entirely subjective anyway. No need to get mad because your understanding of the very definition is "art" is completely warped.[/QUOTE] If anything can be called art, then the word "art" is as pointless as being awarded a medal for being able to breath. If art takes no effort or skill to create, why is the word "artist" in any way a respectable title? I respect artists of the old, people who had skills and painted things with emotions you could feel and messages you could see was intentional... not this we have today, retards throwing crap together and letting gullible idiots "interpret" it into something deep and meaningful worth more than a single dime.

[QUOTE=blerb;33148523]I understand the whole "interpretation/relativity" aspect of art, but what's with the prices? I don't understand that aspect, to be quite honest.[/QUOTE] Who cares? Literally [i]no one[/i] ever buys this stuff and quite often museums, especially modern art museums, work on a "trading" basis where they just swap art between themselves and never actually spend money. Price-tags on art are completely pointless. And to all the morons saying "omg he just made this to get a quick buck": despite the fact the artist in question here died before this piece was valued, most artists don't see any money out of their work anyway. When they give work to a museum it's often for free or at a price that is significantly lower than what you see years later once it has been on display for appreciation. By that point it is pretty much in the museum's ownership; if they sell it to a private bidder or to another museum (this rarely happens anyway), the original artist barely gets a cut of the cash.

[QUOTE=Simski;33148908]If anything can be called art, then the word "art" is as pointless as being awarded a medal for being able to breath. If art takes no effort or skill to create, why is the word "artist" in any way a respectable title? I respect artists of the old, people who has skills and painted things with emotions you could feel and messages you could see was intentional... not this we have today, retards throwing crap together and letting gullible idiots "interpret" it into something deep and meaningful worth more than a single dime.[/QUOTE] Anyone can really call themselves an artist, but not everyone can be a renowned or well-known artist. Art evolves. Not all art is the same. Pretty paintings aren't what art is, but it comes under the definition of art. A lot of modern art tends to think outside the box and push the very definition and concepts of "art". What you call crap thrown together by retards could have several valid interpretations, and anybody could give their own meaning to the piece. If it's been valued so high, then obviously there's somebody out there who has given it meaning, or at least shown some understanding of the work. If you just threw crap together you wouldn't make much - if anything - off it, would you? It'd be art, but nobody's going to pick up your piece without a proper reason.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;33144584]That's what makes it [i]art.[/i] Because there's more to it than face value.[/QUOTE] ahaha oh wow. stop being arrogant.

[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;33149143]ahaha oh wow. stop being arrogant.[/QUOTE] ... lol i'm not sure you understand the definition of arrogant regardless, the best artistic creations have far more to them than just what is at face value.

[QUOTE=Simski;33148908]I respect artists of the old, people who had skills and painted things with emotions you could feel and messages you could see was intentional[/QUOTE] Y'know the vast majority of religious artwork was made under the mindset "I can make a dime on 'is, I can!"

yeh what ray said. most pre-renaissance artists fucking hated the catholic church and the rules they put in place that meant art had to be of a very specific set style and made under very strict guidelines. the only reason they did religious art was to make money while they made their own personal artistic projects on the side if you think that was some sort of golden age of art where there weren't hippies running around putting sticks together then you're a conservative moron

What I like about the artists of old time is that they were extremely skilled at their craft, and their art showed that. That's the kind of art I appreciate.

[QUOTE=Chrille;33149321]What I like about the artists of old time is that they were extremely skilled at their craft, and their art showed that. That's the kind of art I appreciate.[/QUOTE] you see this is a perfectly fine point. what you've said is "i appreciate it and here is my reasoning why that is relative to my own experiences and mine alone". more people need to post like this

[QUOTE=pie_is_good;33122791]I like art shit like this. I think it's hilarious. I dunno if it's intentional, but the dadaists (one of the first modern artists) were all tongue and cheek about it.[/QUOTE] The thing is that ready made art and stuff like that was done in the beginning of the 20th century (Duchamp, Schwitters, etc). In that time it caused an uproar and it actually raised a discussion about art. That was then. Any artist doing that NOW (or anything where you can say "my 6 year old can do that, too") is just repeating stuff. It'd be the same as if some guy painted the Mona Lisa again, the difference being that that actually requires effort, so it can expect at least SOME admiration, but in the scope of art being "new" and refreshing, introducing new ideas, it's completely meaningless. It does not deserve being in an art gallery as it doesn't contribute anything new to the art community; and that's what an art gallery should do, right? Either it has a historical function, or an announcing/introducing function to new art. Modern stuff like this is thus not refreshing art, it's a meaningless repeat of what's been done (and yeah post-modernism yadda yadda, that argument doesn't work anymore)... And anyone appreciating art just because it incorporates craftsmanship is only looking at one aspect. If that's what makes you appreciate art, you can just as well call people working at Subway artists if they make you a nice sandwich. It's like appreciating Shakespeare because he's good at rhyming. But hey, who am I to dictate how people should appreciate art... (just saying there's more to it than just skill, you'd miss the point of tons of artworks of any period/age).

[QUOTE=peaceful guy;33120383]I'm confused I thought all art is is something that looks nice, it has no practical purpose[/QUOTE] Art is something that inspires a strong emotional response. But to be completely honest as most modern art goes the only strong emotional response it inspires in me is AND HOW MUCH DID IT COST AGAIN? So that makes for instance the Shindler's list very strong in the artist's department. But random thrown around paintsplatters? Just take a look at Caravagio, who somewhat shocked by painting things that weren't perfect, that were blemished. To be honest I do infact like quite a lot of modern arts. Digital mediums and other stuff. As long as I feel there's something beneath the art itself, something that's not just oh whatever let me splatter some stuff around here and then come up with a decent name. Cubism, futurism, pointilism. Sure why not. I can sense something out of all that. It starts to grate to grate at dadaism though.

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;33149298]Y'know the vast majority of religious artwork was made under the mindset "I can make a dime on 'is, I can!"[/QUOTE] Well those aren't really the ones I feel the most inspired by, although I do still admire their talent. Like Chrille said, the old artists usually had to be extremely skilled to make a name for themselves, although it's the ones with the ability to put emotion into their work that I remember. I usually don't like modern art ESPECIALLY because of the whole "experimenting with what we call art and thinking out of the box". Art used to be created not just because you want to "push the boundaries of what people think is art and not stick to any rules", art used to be a way for artists simply to create works that would reflect the artists emotions, his views, and his criticism of the world. Now all we have are people that create art with the sole purpose of being different from what we are used to and not following any rules of what is to be considered art, the idea of being different and unique is the only emotion and message behind their work. Basically, modern artists are a bunch of goddamn hipsters.

Well of course that's their goal, it's the only way to get noticed. Some get noticed, most of them don't. Also if everyone tries this, it doesn't work.

Most of Facepunch: "My opinion = Reality" Here's a question for you guys. Is nature art? The movement of an electron around an atomic nucleus, the patterns of lines in a tree's leaves, and the way a lion takes down its prey are all fantastically beautiful things. "Effort" and "skill" do not apply at all in these situations.

[QUOTE=Simski;33152490] I usually don't like modern art ESPECIALLY because of the whole "experimenting with what we call art and thinking out of the box". Art used to be created not just because you want to "push the boundaries of what people think is art and not stick to any rules", art used to be a way for artists simply to create works that would reflect the artists emotions, his views, and his criticism of the world. [/QUOTE] that's ridiculous, ever thought that maybe maybe artists are driven towards experimentation because they're looking new ways to express themselves, because the old ways don't work for them personally? not all artists feel the need to follow the outline that has been set out as what art has to be. it's a much more freeing and liberating experience for artist's to forget about that stuff and make art however they see fit. If you look at art history, the avant garde movements and the period when mainstream art began to shift from mostly political, religious, and historical commentary to personal expression coincide with eachother and it's not hard to see why.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33120215]Quality of art isn't based on how aesthetically pleasing it is (everyone who disagreed doesn't believe classic gritty and aesthetically unpleasing films such as Schindler's List are art)[/QUOTE] Something that ca be valued by everyone differently is worth nothing in the end. [editline]7th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=vagrant;33163716]that's ridiculous, ever thought that maybe maybe artists are driven towards experimentation because they're looking new ways to express themselves, because the old ways don't work for them personally? not all artists feel the need to follow the outline that has been set out as what art has to be. it's a much more freeing and liberating experience for artist's to forget about that stuff and make art however they see fit. If you look at art history, the avant garde movements and the period when mainstream art began to shift from mostly political, religious, and historical commentary to personal expression coincide with eachother and it's not hard to see why.[/QUOTE] If you have a second look, you see that they were masters of their respective tools, painting, woodworks, you name it. And they put EFFORT into it. Days and days of thought,design and execution. And that it took them their LIFES to develop an own style. Thinking that a bunch of planks is a style is something you make up with friends while drunk. [editline]7th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MisterMooth;33149119]Anyone can really call themselves an artist, but not everyone can be a renowned or well-known artist. Art evolves. Not all art is the same. Pretty paintings aren't what art is, but it comes under the definition of art. A lot of modern art tends to think outside the box and push the very definition and concepts of "art". What you call crap thrown together by retards could have several valid interpretations, and anybody could give their own meaning to the piece. If it's been valued so high, then obviously there's somebody out there who has given it meaning, or at least shown some understanding of the work. If you just threw crap together you wouldn't make much - if anything - off it, would you? It'd be art, but nobody's going to pick up your piece without a proper reason.[/QUOTE] The problem with this is that if we follow your thinking, the reason and value doesn't come from the works itself and only exists for its on purpose. If I can call it crap thrown together by retards and if I, by pllacing crap next to the "art" can not make out the difference because it IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME(a bunch of planks), there is no base of judging and a VALUE NEEDS A SOLID BASE, A ZERO, A POINT TO CAMPARE IT TO, else it has no value at all.

Art to me is the craft and the final product. When someone says a piece of art it to me means a piece or representation of human craft and ingenuity. A masterfully made watch running on complex mechanisms all perfectly tuned to me is art. A cathedral both awe inspiring in both it's design and engineering to me is art. Paint you vomited onto a canvas is not art to me because your only craft is that of over inflating your own piece's importance. While you could say the craft and mastery of modern art is less about the physical craft and more about the thought behind it you stop being an artist and start being a philosopher. An artist is a craftsman, not a prop comic of philosophy.

Marchel Duchamp made the first conceptual artpiece, called the fountain [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg/437px-Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg[/img] Duchamp was already an established artist in other fields. The idea behind this was that the Artist had signed an object. The fountain itself wasn't modified at all. The question was raised; was it art if the artist made it? This is what modern art evolved from, but modern art is a bit like people who just got in the business on a banana peel.

I mean, modern artists like Andy Warhol may have made some shit that you just don't get, like that cheeseburger eating thing. But he has a good vision for the future when he stated that "in the future, everyone will have 15 minutes of fame". Exactly what he said happened. To me, it sounds like he's aware that he got famous for not hours and hours of effort, but just by funny ideas etc. And now with youtube and everything, anyone can literally be famous. Modern art is clearly conveying a message. It's not supposed to be "deep". If a piece of modern art can be explained, and if the viewer get the explanation, THEN it's valid. Just doing things for the heck of it and hoping to score cash doesn't mean anything in it self.

What I like about all basically all other artstyles aside from modern art, is style. They create a style of their own, their own sets of rules that only they need to follow, the very thing that allows you to tell that "this is the work of X artist". Modern art doesn't have that as much, they don't make any rules for what they create, and therefor there is no visible style. They create things that could have been created by anyone, with the mindset that "it's unique because I'm the first one to do it". Rules are important in art, not to determine "what is art", but to determine what makes your art different from the rest. There are plenty of people who have no rules for what they create and therefor having no rules will make your art no different from theirs, you need your own unique set of rules for your art to be unique.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;33164544]The fountain itself wasn't modified at all.[/QUOTE] Ohoho, you clearly don't know [I]anything[/I] about this piece of art if you think it's a fountain. The "fountain" he refers to is not included in the piece, as it is in fact a urinal.

[QUOTE=Simski;33166948]What I like about all basically all other artstyles aside from modern art, is style. They create a style of their own, their own sets of rules that only they need to follow, the very thing that allows you to tell that "this is the work of X artist". Modern art doesn't have that as much, they don't make any rules for what they create, and therefor there is no visible style. They create things that could have been created by anyone, with the mindset that "it's unique because I'm the first one to do it". Rules are important in art, not to determine "what is art", but to determine what makes your art different from the rest. There are plenty of people who have no rules for what they create and therefor having no rules will make your art no different from theirs, you need your own unique set of rules for your art to be unique.[/QUOTE] wtf are you rambling on about rules don't create style and artists don't work with rules. you seem to be substituting the word "technique" for "rule" and i have no idea why artists change style and merge styles all the time. are they breaking their "rules"? no of course not. they don't have rules. i'm not saying you have to be a chef to tell chicken from chicken shit, as the old saying goes, but it sounds like you're trying to describe how a gourmet chef works without ever having cooked up some beans from a tin yourself

does anyone have an before and after?

nice rebuttal simski thanks for sharing

[QUOTE=Simski;33166948]What I like about all basically all other artstyles aside from modern art, is style. They create a style of their own, their own sets of rules that only they need to follow, the very thing that allows you to tell that "this is the work of X artist". Modern art doesn't have that as much, they don't make any rules for what they create, and therefor there is no visible style. They create things that could have been created by anyone, with the mindset that "it's unique because I'm the first one to do it". Rules are important in art, not to determine "what is art", but to determine what makes your art different from the rest. There are plenty of people who have no rules for what they create and therefor having no rules will make your art no different from theirs, you need your own unique set of rules for your art to be unique.[/QUOTE] this is just a plain uninformed opinion. Modern art is an extremely wide range of styles. modern art to today's art is easily the period (in western art at least) that places the largest emphasis on personal style. where the fuck did this whole idea come from, that all modern artists are just trying to do things first and take credit for their originality? I'm sure there's plenty of hacks who do that, but what exactly makes you think that Kippenberger took that approach? he had his own reasons for making that sculpture, just like he did with all his other pieces (of a wide breadth of styles) and what makes you an expert on him now? "unique because I'm the first one to do it"? more like "this is the type of art I have chosen to make because it reflects what I want to see in my art". your second paragraph is complete nonsense. we need rules in art so we can neatly judge and critique it apparently... no

[QUOTE=booster;33121762]I took a shit on Star Wars Ep1 The Phantom Menace for PC. Art.[/QUOTE] Shit on shit: Brought to you by the Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

Well after having gone through an art education for 3 years, I've encountered quite a lot of art. I have however under this time, never come across a piece of modern art that in any way have even reminded me slightly of the works of old artists. I have never seen a piece of modern art that wasn't just the retarded inbred grandchild of abstract art, there is never a real message, never real emotion, never any real consistency, nothing fucking personal what so fucking ever about it. It's abstract art with a superficial namechange and more pretentiousness. It's untalented and pretentious fucktards taking worthless junk and assembling it into meaningless piles of shit that gullible retards can admire, all whilst spitting in the face of every great artist that has ever lived by making the word "art" have absolutely no fucking meaning at all. There's not a lot of people I hate in the world as much as modern artists. Not because I'm jealous at them, but because I'm seriously fucking pissed at what they're doing to something I used to admire. [editline]8th November 2011[/editline] I'm gonna clear the fuck out of this thread. I'm not going to be able to convince you that your opinion is retarded, and you will not be able to convince me that my opinion is retarded. So if I stay here arguing with you we'll just be a couple of retards caught in a shitstorm that could go on forever. I think that modern art is absolute fucking shit, deal with it. I'm moving on now.

From the same artist [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/F_03.jpg/220px-F_03.jpg[/img] \/:v:\/