>"The arts generate vastly more revenue for the economy than than they cost to fund"
This may be true when looked at as a whole, but cuts are selective. The Labour government invested £43 million into a museum for modern art that gets almost no visitors and has never made a profit.
I want more restrictions on arts in general. I'm tired of shitty pretentious stuff being made. I want the artists actually working hard to create new and exciting pieces that are overlooked because they aren't shoving badgers onto walls.
Indeed. No more unmade beds or kebabs on the table and other obvious "milk the system dry" con jobs. Funding should be cut back and directed properly instead of them blowing their load in one go on multi-million pound shite that any art student could cobble together with a hang over the night before or morning of the due date.
Those Saatchi-approved art works' place in museums is *due* to the privatisation of the art world since Thatcher came in, and the associated funding cuts. More cuts will mean more of that crap.
Uhm, and if >>2611 means Tate modern ,the that's the museum no one goes to which is one of London biggest and busiest tourist draws?
>>2610 They way they generate value for the economy occurs in a fashion that precludes the arts becoming some kind of privatised industry.
Books for this thread: Why Are Artists Poor, Privatising Culture, Art Incoprorated.
No, because the money doesn't go straight back to whoever spent it. The galleries spend lots of money making it possible for artists to be showcased, but then it's the artists that see most of the money that might be made as a result, especially in publicly funded places (obviously a private gallery can charge what they want)
It shouldn't be about money at all, though. I'm a capitalist by all means, but thinking of art in terms of profit to be made makes for terrible artwork.
I bet that drunken chav "artist" wouldn't either. Pitch yourself into the tempest, along with all those other useless sponging pillocks and the much needed savings will be made.
Right, so, the answer's "no, I don't have any idea whatsoever", then. Why the fuck should anyone regard your opinion with any worth if you don't even know what you're on about?
I bet you think The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living is 'lol worfless n not art m8' as well. Fucking fascist.
>>2643 Not him, but I like art to include some kind of craft or skill along with the concept. I'd be all for an unmade bed if it demonstrated some kind of handiwork that had been honed over years of practice. I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware she didn't actually construct the bed or any of the items strewn about it. If she really cared, she would have made it all from scratch.
There's nothing wrong with the concept in many modern art pieces, just the execution. If I can't see the physical skill, it just comes across to me as someone taking a quick buck off some gullible, pretentious art buyers.
>I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware she didn't actually construct the bed or any of the items strewn about it. If she really cared, she would have made it all from scratch.
It's her actual, real-life bed - she succumbed to a massive depressive slump and didn't leave it for a week. Then she decided to make a piece about what she felt in that week, and eventually decided that the best way to try and share that emotion was simply to show the place she fled to, her 'safe place'. My Bed
Emin is in the Young British Artists, a group that tends to make art that causes philistines to go 'uurgh m8 that isnt fukkin art art is a painting or wotevver', even though they've never been to a gallery in their life and list their favourite painting as the Mona Lisa because it's the only one they know.
What our esteemed friend doesn't seem to understand is that art is everything. Saying 'Oh, X and Y isn't art, we should stop funding for it' is fucking ridiculous and gets on my wick. Who is he to say that?
It's very presumptuous to assume that someone must be a philistine if they don't like something that you like. It's also not right to declare everything art. You appear to think you know something about art, but if you did you'd know just how difficult it is to define. The dictionary definition is often something like
"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."
Which seems about right to me. Emin's only conscious decision was to get someone to cart her bed to a gallery. Is that enough? Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, it depends who you ask - and that means there is a clear line of distinction to be made, and it would be fascistic of you to attempt to block such a debate, or declare anyone who might dare make such a distinction of not being worthy of making it in the first place. You are the worst kind of artgoer, a one who thinks he understands it all.
>I'm willing to bet £500 you don't know what bollocks Tracy Emin attached to her bed, or what emotions she said she was showcasing, or why I believe anything if it has a good enough write up, without using Google.
>it would be fascistic of you to attempt to block such a debate, or declare anyone who might dare make such a distinction of not being worthy of making it in the first place. You are the worst kind of artgoer, a one who thinks he understands it all.
You've just described my 'paintings-only' opponent.
>It's her actual, real-life bed - she succumbed to a massive depressive slump and didn't leave it for a week. Then she decided to make a piece about what she felt in that week, and eventually decided that the best way to try and share that emotion was simply to show the place she fled to, her 'safe place'. My Bed
John Everett Millais spent 11 hours a day, 6 days a week for 5 months sat beside a riverbank in Surrey sketching and painting the landscape for this painting to achieve one of the most beautiful depictions of nature ever in art history, the painting itself depicts an event in arguably Shakespeare's greatest play. Because I, along with a great many of the British public think Ophelia by Millais is sublime whilst Emin's Bed is a piece of shit by a talentless charlatan I am a philistine.
Why don't all these very wealthy YBA's like Emin and Hirst dip into their pockets to save the Sunderland Modern Art Musuem or whatever, I don't see why the public should have to pay for that shit, they have no interest in seeing it after all. Modern art is just a load of vapid crap that is just a high status commodity for the super rich.
Arguing over dictonary definitions is the act of a sad and desperate man on the losing side of a debate.
It doesn't matter if it scrapes in to qualify as art by your definition. What matters is if it is crap and sloppy, which it is. It's the kind of thing an art student could and (likely has in the past) handed in at the last minute for a likely already extended deadline.
Well said old chap. If the cuts lead to fewer Goldsmith twats hawking shite, then I am all for it.
From Pound's 'Mauberley':
Mr. Nixon
In the cream gilded cabin of his steam yacht
Mr. Nixon advised me kindly, to advance with fewer
Dangers of delay. "Consider
Carefully the reviewer.
"I was as poor as you are;
"When I began I got, of course,
"Advance on royalties, fifty at first", said Mr. Nixon,
"Follow me, and take a column,
"Even if you have to work free.
"Butter reviewers. From fifty to three hundred
"I rose in eighteen months;
"The hardest nut I had to crack
"Was Dr. Dundas.
"I never mentioned a man but with the view
"Of selling my own works.
"The tip's a good one, as for literature
"It gives no man a sinecure."
And no one knows, at sight a masterpiece.
And give up verse, my boy,
There's nothing in it."
My bass and guitar are leaning on my amp, and the back of my guitar is open. If I call it "The experience of the death of creativity by amplification" and have a BA in art, does that mean I can shove it into a museum and get shittons of money?
I really do not give a shit what emin was going thouigh when she decided to wheel her bed into some gallery, and shove condoms all over it. I think it's because she's a cheap tart who wasn't getting any.
The worst problem with twats like you being in charge of the arts is that it stops actual progress. My artist ex called me last night, and she said some dumb piece she saw was "interactive" and "interesting". It was a fucking see through box that you could go into. Why not put Braid or Bioshock on a console into the museum, put on god mode and get people to have an actual interactive artistic experience? There are budding forms of digital art and you pricks are doing nothing about it, instead, you give money to dicks like Hurst and Emin so they can buy crap, shove it together and take up all the public's view on what current art is.
>>What our esteemed friend doesn't seem to understand is that art is everything. Saying 'Oh, X and Y isn't art, we should stop funding for it' is fucking ridiculous and gets on my wick. Who is he to say that?
Who are the pricks that choose to put shit in galleries? Because they wouldn't know real art if it bit them on the arse. Because those pricks say that games are not art. They say that graphic design isn't art. They say that comics aren't art. I want a 20 foot tall reproduction of the nightly news. I want the more talented people from deviantart to be featured in their local galleries. I want the public to experience artistic games, or at the very least, see sections of the game and really see why it's artistic.
About interactivity : there are a bunch of pretencious pricks that try to make their pieces interactive. Too late love, games already beat you to it. We have people creating worlds, and no one seems to give a shit. Make use of these things instead of some twat shoving a dead shark in formaldehyde, because it takes no craft or effort to do that (other than getting a builder or something to shove the shark in there and working to buy the shark).
Also, if he had sculpted the shark from something himself, then it would count as art. Because he had to make the shark. And he could use whatever artistic skills he had to make that shark even better than a real shark for the purpose of expressing himself.
You fuckers love Picasso and bring up the guernica every fucking arguement like this. So why aren't there any comics in museums?
Picture extremely related. It's what actual art looks like.
>My bass and guitar are leaning on my amp, and the back of my guitar is open. If I call it "The experience of the death of creativity by amplification" and have a BA in art, does that mean I can shove it into a museum and get shittons of money?
Culturally we punch far, far above our weight as a nation, it's a big employer, a disproportionately large chunk of our economy, and it's well known that it does generate far more than it costs. If anything we should increase funding in the arts.
Not that it matters though... this thread slid into the same tired bullshit over whether or not anyone gives a shit about tracey emin.
The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.
