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

I went to a "modern art" exhibition once. There was some sports bag on the ground and there were around five regular balloons inside and a few in front of it. I kicked one of the balloons and there was a small sign under it. It said something like "A bag full of new ideas" and the creators name. There was also a price for it. [I]Thousand euros.[/I]

At least she was dedicated to her job!

[quote]Overzealous cleaner ruins £690,000 artwork that she thought was dirty[/quote] Are you fucking kidding me how dumb do you have to be to try to clean an incredibly expensi [img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y155/cricket50/artwruied.jpg[/img] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx49-leiRE[/media]

Looks like shit to me.

Whether you like it or not, it's still art, and it affects people differently from individual to individual. If you want to judge art based on complexity, technicality, visual appearance, history, etc. then go ahead by all means. Art is subjective and should be criticized as such. But the fact that a piece of art got destroyed by a cleaner is a horrible thing, regardless of your opinion on the piece.

[QUOTE=Upgrade123;33137842]Whether you like it or not, it's still art, and it affects people differently from individual to individual. If you want to judge art based on complexity, technicality, visual appearance, history, etc. then go ahead by all means. Art is subjective and should be criticized as such. But the fact that a piece of art got destroyed by a cleaner is a horrible thing, regardless of your opinion on the piece.[/QUOTE] This text is art; sdknak3r020-2-=q][ I prefer defining art as something that takes immense skill or thought/imagination to create. Hanging up clothing on a washing line, is not art. Painting the Eiffel tower to scale is art.

[QUOTE=peaceful guy;33120081]well thats alot better than some "art" like this: [img]http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/imgs/artists/emin-tracey/tracey-emin-my-bed.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] My room is art now?

[QUOTE=Sickle;33137996]This text is art; sdknak3r020-2-=q][ I prefer defining art as something that takes immense skill or thought/imagination to create. Hanging up clothing on a washing line, is not art. Painting the Eiffel tower to scale is art.[/QUOTE] You've a very bourgeois view of art.

art is subject; my subjective view is that art with no effort is stupid to have a part of the creator in it, then the creator needs to put a part of themselves in it

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;33119975]maybe if significant part of "modern art pieces" didn't look like somebody smeared a piece of shit around, it wouldn't happen[/QUOTE] Well this is Germany we're talking about. They have been known to smear shit around in porn.

I wont deny the fact that it's art, I just don't think modern art should be put in museums just because it's art.

[QUOTE=Sickle;33137996]This text is art; sdknak3r020-2-=q][ I prefer defining art as something that takes immense skill or thought/imagination to create. Hanging up clothing on a washing line, is not art. Painting the Eiffel tower to scale is art.[/QUOTE] Actually, I really like that formation of letters. I think it'd look great printed out.

Well, how the hell did I get into the Mass Debate section?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33120215]Quality of art isn't based on how aesthetically pleasing it is[/QUOTE] why did this get disagrees oh right facepunch

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;33138205]You've a very bourgeois view of art.[/QUOTE] And you have a very Marxist view of society. Only one of these views is outdated.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33140197]And you have a very Marxist view of society. Only one of these views is outdated.[/QUOTE] Marxism is a method of thought within socioeconomics and absolutely nothing in his post referenced such a thing. Here's something to consider for everyone in the whole art debate. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCp7bL-AWvw[/media] It's got all the trappings of a classical piece of music, has a score, and is presented in the way any other such "symphony" would be. But it's just a hundred differently-timed metronomes ticking at once. You can't say it's not music. But it's certainly not supposed to sound pleasing, and it obviously doesn't follow any established conventions of musical theory. It might be a parody of music. It might be a parody of what lengths people will go to define art. It's purpose might be to provoke commentary about what music, itself, is. Maybe the composer wanted to be edgy and counter-culture. Maybe he actually thought it sounded good. Maybe it's an attempt to realistically, musically portray the way that individual, predictable, orderly events can still combine to make utter chaos. But no matter what, it's thought provoking; it evokes feelings. Modern art is not about the finished product, at least in my opinion. It's about the human process that goes into everything we make, and the way we each individually interpret that process.

A hundred metronomes ticking at the same time sounds like shit. It is in absolutely no way rhythmically timed and the only feeling it invokes is annoyance.

[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;33144227]A hundred metronomes ticking at the same time sounds like shit. It is in absolutely no way rhythmically timed and the only feeling it invokes is annoyance.[/QUOTE] I'm sure Ligeti was trying to make a beautiful soundscape when he made this song and somehow just failed miserably at it. There's really no other reason a person would write a piece of music, ever.

[QUOTE=hula whoop;33121725]exactly, the main reason (I think) people don't like modern art is because they're pissed off that they didn't come up with it first. I'll admit a lot of it is really dumb, but some of it is pretty neat (the sculptures anyways). People who buy shit like this: [img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/394557439_9d9e7da3e5.jpg[/img] for $1.8 million dollars *cough*nationalgalleryofcanada*cough* are idiots.[/QUOTE] Voice of fire was worth every penny, I think. Why? Because of this, wonderful audioguide that I listened to at the National Gallery. [url]http://media.gallery.ca/agcanadian/Ag716e.mp3[/url] The thing is huge, 2.5 by 4.5 meters. Bigger image so it's easier to see what they are talking about. [IMG]http://popartmachine.com/artwork/2017-NGC_.30502/0/Barnett-Newman-Voice-of-Fire-1967-painting-artwork-print.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Sector 7;33144317]I'm sure Ligeti was trying to make a beautiful soundscape when he made this song and somehow just failed miserably at it. There's really no other reason a person would write a piece of music, ever.[/QUOTE] I can beat a fire extinguisher against an empty garbage can while naked and screaming and covered in shit and that would hold some kind of deep emotional meaning apparently.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;33139991]why did this get disagrees oh right facepunch[/QUOTE] Schindler's List wasn't very aesthetically pleasing but I'd consider it to be art It was art perhaps because of how aesthetically unpleasing it was Facepunch is dumb

[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;33144411]I can beat a fire extinguisher against an empty garbage can while naked and screaming and covered in shit and that would hold some kind of deep emotional meaning apparently.[/QUOTE] what's it like being a neanderthal? do you honestly think that all art - one of the oldest forms of conscious human creation - simply fits somewhere on a sliding scale between "beautiful" and "ugly?" do you honestly think a renowned composer would create, perform, and release a ridiculous piece of music without trying to convey any kind of message at all? Did you read my post and just choose to understand none of it? [i]he might have created the piece parodying the exact thing you're talking about.[/i] That's what makes it [i]art.[/i] Because there's more to it than face value. I'm sure choosing to be cynical and ignorant is very satisfying though.

[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;33144411]I can beat a fire extinguisher against an empty garbage can while naked and screaming and covered in shit and that would hold some kind of deep emotional meaning apparently.[/QUOTE] would it? please tell us what deep emotional meaning you'd get from that, or what you'd expect us to get from that. you're clearly not understanding this at all so i'll break it the fuck down for you: [B]art is a subjective and relative experience. just because you do not get any particular emotional response from an abstract piece does not mean that the artist doesn't and does not mean that someone, somewhere in the world, doesn't either.[/B] i don't get any emotional response from listening to slayer. i find slayer boring and monotonous and it says nothing to me about my own life. therefore.... is slayer not art? [I]i can grow my hair and make horrible noise come out of a guitar at stupid tempo and scream down a mic and that would hold some kid of deep emotional meaning apparently[/I] see, with a tiny bit of effort I can make myself sound just as retarded as you. and here's where you say "WOAH these situations are totally different." but mate they're not. as i've tried to drum into your skull; experience of art is relative. enjoyment of some very popular art is as alien to some as enjoyment of this pile of sticks is to you. people are different. deal with it. Also, I haven't seen anyone post this which amazes me: [quote=Wiki]Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.[/quote] I'm not saying Wikipedia is any sort of oracle of knowledge that cannot be disputed, but this quote sums things up well. Facepunch is a bloody confusing place. On the one hand, the userbase is made up of "liberal" (not sure most of Facepunch understands what liberalism is though), Atheist users who smash conservatism at every opportunity. But then most users, when it comes to subjects like art (and music), hold incredibly conservative views that border on being pre-renaissance. Hm... that's actually quite a funny parallel; aggressively Athiest Facepunch mirrors the archaic Catholic Church's view on art. How ironic.

[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;33144411]I can beat a fire extinguisher against an empty garbage can while naked and screaming and covered in shit and that would hold some kind of deep emotional meaning apparently.[/QUOTE] This is the whole problem that people are having with modern art in this thread summed up nicely; you seem to not understand how meaning works. Meaning is not linked to what a work of art physically is; meaning is whatever the artist or the observer chooses to give it. And that's why modern art often seems meaningless to people. If you see a photo of a simple and abstract work of art then of course you're not going to get a good idea of what the artist's intended meaning was. That does not mean that it has no meaning.

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=Zeke129;33144421]Schindler's List wasn't very aesthetically pleasing but I'd consider it to be art It was art perhaps because of how aesthetically unpleasing it was Facepunch is dumb[/QUOTE] I don't think you can compare Schindler's List to modern art. Movies in general has a story to tell, people who can act, and elaborate themes to not break the immersion for the viewer. It's something that takes careful planning to create, not just a pile of garbage you throw together and call your own. The reason most people don't like modern art isn't just because it's aesthetically unpleasing, but also because it lacks effort and general artistic skill.

[QUOTE=Simski;33148699]I don't think you can compare Schindler's List to modern art. Movies in general has a story to tell, people who can act, and elaborate themes to not break the immersion for the viewer. It's something that takes careful planning to create, not just a pile of garbage you throw together and call your own. The reason most people don't like modern art isn't just because it's aesthetically unpleasing, but also because it lacks effort and general artistic skill.[/QUOTE] Art doesn't necessarily require effort or skill. Look back at the above definition of art. [quote]Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.[/quote] It seems everybody here is misunderstanding what art actually is. Which is typical.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;33148776]Art doesn't require effort or skill. Look back at the above definition of art. It seems everybody here is misunderstanding what art actually is. Which is typical.[/QUOTE] If art can be anything, including a pile of garbage that took absolutely no effort to create at all, then the word "art" has no meaning and should just seize to exist.

[QUOTE=Simski;33148804]If art can be anything, including a piece of garbage that took absolutely no effort to create at all, then the word "art" is absolutely worthless and should seize to exist.[/QUOTE] 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 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 so mad because your understanding of the very definition is "art" is completely warped.

[QUOTE=Simski;33148804]seize[/QUOTE] Oop, I suddenly stopped listening to any point you were making.