Contemporary artists & photography | Online Art Magazine | ArtReview
Is Modern Art a load of Rubbish?
One day in early January 2010, whilst on his lunch break, a guy was having an argument with a friend about modern art. His friend, having studied art at university, was vigorously defending it with the usual arguments of the art being representative and an emotional interpretation of the artists’ innermost feelings and experiences.
The guy disagreed.
He saw the vast majority of modern art as ‘crap on a canvas’ (or words to that effect). He held the stance that todays modern art could have been produced by absolutely anybody with no tangible artistic talent. The only reason this art work sold, he felt, was because the artist had become a ‘known entity’ on the art scene and was able to project some anal significance to the mess they had created and labeled it as ‘art’.
The conversation turned into a heated debate and so the guy decided to set himself a challenge. He would see if, with absolutely no artistic talent at all, he could create a piece of modern art and sell it for a profit; his hypothesis being that “most of todays modern artists are tallentless and absolutely anyone can create modern art and sell it”.
The Faux Artist was born.
The challenge would have the following guidelines:
1) The modern art must be sold for a profit i.e. more than it cost to make
2) The modern art can not be knowingly sold to friends or family of the Faux Artist
3) No-one else can help the Faux Artist in the creation of the modern art
4) There is no restriction on the type or number of mediums utilized in the art work, however must satisfy point 1
5) Any reasonable channels can be used to try and sell the art work
6) At no point must the Faux Artist lie to enhance his artistic profile
…that would just be down right dishonest, now wouldn’t it!
With these rules in place, let the experiment commence!
www.FauxArtist.co.uk
-The Faux Artist-
The guy disagreed.
He saw the vast majority of modern art as ‘crap on a canvas’ (or words to that effect). He held the stance that todays modern art could have been produced by absolutely anybody with no tangible artistic talent. The only reason this art work sold, he felt, was because the artist had become a ‘known entity’ on the art scene and was able to project some anal significance to the mess they had created and labeled it as ‘art’.
The conversation turned into a heated debate and so the guy decided to set himself a challenge. He would see if, with absolutely no artistic talent at all, he could create a piece of modern art and sell it for a profit; his hypothesis being that “most of todays modern artists are tallentless and absolutely anyone can create modern art and sell it”.
The Faux Artist was born.
The challenge would have the following guidelines:
1) The modern art must be sold for a profit i.e. more than it cost to make
2) The modern art can not be knowingly sold to friends or family of the Faux Artist
3) No-one else can help the Faux Artist in the creation of the modern art
4) There is no restriction on the type or number of mediums utilized in the art work, however must satisfy point 1
5) Any reasonable channels can be used to try and sell the art work
6) At no point must the Faux Artist lie to enhance his artistic profile
…that would just be down right dishonest, now wouldn’t it!
With these rules in place, let the experiment commence!
www.FauxArtist.co.uk
-The Faux Artist-
Tags: Art, Artist, Experiment, Faux, Modern
Views: 200
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by mike hinc on -
Avid fan that I am, dear CAP......... and read it I will, what the world craves are bite sized answers. Like Shredded Wheat for those who've been to Tate Modern and feel themselves possessed of an aesthetic bent. But try this for size - if post modernism came replete with the news that there are no meta-narratives, why are we still asking meta-questions?
-
Permalink Reply by Germán Britch on -
Referred to link posted by CAP (very interesting.) but contemporary art isn't sight forward?
-
Permalink Reply by CAP on -
@ Mike:
And if it didn't?
Arguments for pluralism and against post-structuralist and so-called postmodernist views are taken up in Chapters 7 and 8.
As for that overbite - I'd see an orthodontist or go back to Gombrich.
-
Permalink Reply by mike hinc on
-
Pero cuando usted dice el " sight forward", usted significa el " mirada al future" como con el " prospice" ¿en latín? ¿O qué? (Perdone por favor mi Babelfish Spanglish)
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce Rimell on -
"Surely can my definition [of art] is just as valid as your definition"
Absolutely, it can indeed be as valid. My issue was that in your hypothesis, it didn't appear to be defined. If it was defined, following your personal interpretation based on whatever assumptions you (like we all) make, the hypothesis would be workable as having some kind of outcome. At the moment though, to me it appears as a framework with no content. That's my issue at this stage. The project itself, with a workable hypothesis, I feel, has the potential to be very interesting.
CAP is right in that I'm not saying art cannot be defined. Every interpretation of art or a given work of art is to a certain extent personal.
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce Rimell on
-
"if post modernism came replete with the news that there are no meta-narratives, why are we still asking meta-questions?"
If we are still asking meta-questions, two implications might be possible: we could say that we are either out of date in our methods of approach, or that this particular aspect of POMO fails in its observation of human nature. In the former, we treat POMO like as something proscriptive which artists, thinkers et al must follow. In the latter, POMO is treated as descriptive, in which case if human nature falls outside the description it might be held not to be valid, or only valid in a certain domain.
Which of those implications are chosen is probably personal: POMO was ever a recursive beast.
-
Permalink Reply by CAP on
-
mike hinc said:Pero cuando usted dice el " sight forward", usted significa el " mirada al future" como con el " prospice" ¿en latín? ¿O qué? (Perdone por favor mi Babelfish Spanglish)
Gino Latino!
-
Permalink Reply by mike hinc on
-
"this particular aspect of POMO fails in its observation of human nature. "
Human nature? I'm sorry....I'm trying not to laugh. Who mentioned Gombrich? Try Margaret Mead.
Gino Latino? What?
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce Rimell on
-
"I'm sorry....I'm trying not to laugh."
Oh dear, we're here again aren't we Mike? You are hilariously predictable: I am openly amused.
-
Permalink Reply by mike hinc on
-
How could you be closed amused? It's hard to visualize.
You're amused? Ha! Ha! I suppose that's only "Human nature" ??? Tut, tut tut..........it's like a secular religion and one can't really argue against irrational belief. It also ends the possibility of discussion.
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce Rimell on
-
Delightful! First denigration and now mischaracterising a stranger's intention: I almost have a full house. All that remains is for the word 'fatuous' to find its way here and I call Bingo. If there is a fifth time we share in a discussion, do consider the idea of a free exchange of ideas without the evident contempt and the aforementioned behaviours which, as you say 'end the possibility of discussion'. I remain openly amused until then.
Faux, I remain very interested in your project: you've certainly stimulated some debate, my slight derailment here aside. I would be interested to hear some of your responses to the above (but not obviously this silly bit)
-
Permalink Reply by mike hinc on
-
Bruce...."denigration and mischaracterising" ????
Faux asked a question and I gave him my answer - sorry if you didn't like it but there was no "denigration and mischaracterising" - be sure of that. Marty, CAP and I tossed around a few ideas, had a little fun and threw a few thoughts out. It was serious, but all good natured and light hearted but maybe you didn't get that? One candidate for the scrap heap however was your recurring fantasy of a universal Human Nature. If you base your argument such on a fallacy you can expect it to be questioned. Please understand - ideas are mutable and subject to change when they cannot be verified and substantiated. Your dogged clinging to this vacuous placebo precludes any "free exchange of ideas" and smells to me like Faith. I can't argue with that - no one can - and so I tried to back out of the discussion with some good grace.
And now you misrepresent the discussion, revel in your confusion and worse yet bleed all over the carpet. You wonder why you sense contempt?
Latest Activity
Said Dokins shared their blog post on del.icio.us
Said Dokins shared their blog post on del.icio.us
Said Dokins shared their blog post on StumbleUpon
Said Dokins shared their blog post on Digg
© 2012 Created by Art Review Media.
Subscribe | Advertise | Distributors | About us | Links | Badges | Jobs | Contact Us | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
