The Kintyre Forum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19879650

Can anyone explain to me why this so-called "painting" merits being hung in an art gallery and is regarded as worthwhile for the public to look at? If we disregard the vandalism, which actually adds a bit of interest to it, it looks like someone has taken a couple of minutes with a couple of paint rollers and randomly covered the canvas with a red paint, then started to add a second coat of a different colour and didn't finish the job. Seriously, is this art? The late Fyfe Robertson produced a very interesting documentary in the 1970s in his inimitable way, in which he coined a new word for what he called "phoney art", which he then abbreviated to "phart". This is an example of "phart"!

It seems that this particular artist can sell this stuff for tens of millions of pounds. Really?! This looks like it has been done by a two year old!

Unbelievable.

That was precisely my reaction when I saw it on the news. I wouldn`t give `em tuppence for it!

Apparently if you do not appreciate art it is because you do not understand it.
Whales made out of manure, nuclear subs made out of old tyres and that clatty bints unmade bed are beyond me.
Ever heard of the emperers new clothes.

This is why I ask if anyone can explain why this thing merits being hung in an art gallery, as it is beyond my feeble intellect.

I think one of the more bizarrely memorable and grossly offensive ones is "Piss Christ". Check it out!

To my mind, if one has to go through a convoluted intellectual process in order to understand or appreciate some nebulous "message" in a work of art, then that work of art has failed in its purpose.

Totally agree Emdee and as an "artist" I’m talking from experience.

I totally gave up pondering your points of view years ago when I heard about some “idiot” exhibiting her soiled bed, ashtrays on the floor and personal filth providing an insight into her personal health and a total inaptitude of keeping herself clean..., while at the same time receiving a first prize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracey_Emin

But then again, she’s not really such an idiot ! On the contrary..., she took advantage of all the idiots who spend British tax-payer’s money on exhibiting such debris-drivel. She laughed all the way to the bank as she visualised all the numbskull public paying an entry fee to see the garbage and more so, the director of the Tate Gallery who accepted displaying the trash.

Of course..., you and I have a problem Emdee ! When I was still an tiny apprentice, I distinctly remember several MPs handing in their MBEs following the Queen's decoration of the long-haired Beetles. Today, those MPs are only remembered for their stupidity.
Is it possible that in about 20 years time..., the general public will think the same of us ?

sometimes when im a wee bit depressed, I make a wee trip to the gallery of modern art in Glasgow. Get a really good laugh and leave feeling much better.I always think that the people that create some of this stuff are blocked when trying to create, then think to themselves " Ill weld all these old drainpipes together and call it something esoteric" make a fortune I will.

I agree that a lot of modern art is not of good quality, but that applies to most things in culture and in life. However it is worth bearing in mind that a lot of the works that get publicity are the contentious and controversial ones, rather than the ones that are of high quality.

I am not a huge fan of abstract painting in general but in this particular case I have been to the Tate and seen the paintings in question and I can honestly say that photographs don't do them justice at all. When seen in a gallery context these works have what I can only describe as a very powerful, almost otherworldly aura and certainly don't look or feel like they could have been knocked up by just anyone. Rothko is rightly critically revered and I would recommend a visit to the Tate Modern to anyone, even if just to experience the building itself.

Not a fan of Tracey Emin though

Wtf and this is good i suppose!

You can't blame Rothko. He just painted what he felt. He hasn't forced any one to like or buy his paintings. Blame the tit who paid a couple of mil for one.

Thinking about it, we did a very similar artwork trying out Matchpots on the wall last year!

Here's another example of "modern art" that is both offensive and does not appear to have much artistic merit:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... nsive.html

This looks like it's been made with giant Lego.

EMDEE wrote:Here's another example of "modern art" that is both offensive and does not appear to have much artistic merit:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... nsive.html

This looks like it's been made with giant Lego.

That would make a good avatar for a certain member on here, only because of the number of eyes it has

Pete.

odds wrote:

EMDEE wrote:Here's another example of "modern art" that is both offensive and does not appear to have much artistic merit:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... nsive.html

This looks like it's been made with giant Lego.

That would make a good avatar for a certain member on here, only because of the number of eyes it has

Pete.

Im watching you Mr Howarth.