Modern art suffers primarily from it's lack of accessibility to the general public; people know how to appreciate a Constable because of the realism and it's easy references to the world, and impressionist work must be approached from a very different angle to be appreciated. Impressionist paintings, like the majority of modern art, is written in a different language and you must learn that language, learn to appraoch the art work from that new direction, before you can see the art in it.

Cultural education as a whole, not just art education, is important to society, but providing the education is difficult.

I'm a bit uncultured when it comes to art.

My philosophy is if I like it, I like it, then if I don't, I don't

/me wishes she studied more art when she was at school though

Yeah but several thousands of pounds for a blob a 4 yeaar old could do? thats not art, thats ripping people off!!!

My living room could win the Turner Prize at the moment!!!

I like art. And i'm quite keen on the newish art....ok not the stuff that has won recently the Turner Prize, but things like Wassily Kandinski (my spellings is rubbish ) And Jackson Pollock.

Pollock's work mainly consists of him throwing paint onto a canvas, or that's how a lot of people view it, but you can see the emotions he was feeling at the time which really intrigues me how you can tell by just a piece of art how someone is feeling, i really respect people who can express themselves in that way, it's something that i could never do

Dont really know much about art. I love Salvador Dali and have several books with his paintings in. I think he was amazing!!

I like art, lots, I didnt realise how much until I blagged my way on to a trip to Paris with the Art department (I wanted to go to Disneyland ) I absolutely loved the Musee D'orsay but the pompidou(sp?) centre which was mostly modern art, REALLY bored me. imho art should mean something and stuff like sawing a horse in half and putting it in a glass case or some of the stuff in the pompidou centre meant nothing.

My uncle paints, portraits and lots of stuff and I appreciate that because theres talent involved but personally I just dont see the talent in alot of modern art.

---

by Dangermouse
Yeah but several thousands of pounds for a blob a 4 yeaar old could do? thats not art, thats ripping people off!!!

---

i see where you're coming from and i would have agreed with you about 7 years ago, but now i bcan sorta understand it a bit more and appreciate it. once you meet the artists they take you into their world and it seems to make more sense.

Primary definition of art (n) from Dictionary.com:
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

This is a very broad definition and loosely equates to 'art as artifice'

Secondary Definition:
2a. 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.

Well, that's not much more help either. Who is to say what 'affects the sense of beauty'?

There are various other definitions which I can't be bothered to reproduce and comment upon. The point is that if someone thinks that something is art then it can be said to be art. No-one is obliged to think it is good art, or feel that it affects their own sense of beauty.

---

by Eve:
imho art should mean something and stuff like sawing a horse in half and putting it in a glass case or some of the stuff in the pompidou centre meant nothing.

---

Well, no, you found no meaning in the art which isn't the same thing. I'm not sure it's possible to create art without meaning. It is only art because someone has said it is, so someone must have found meaning in it, or intended meaning in its creation.

In my opinion there is two kinds of modern art
1) modern art that shows at least a hint that the artist has talent
or
2) pretentious, talentless, over-ratted crap. This encompasses all but 5% of modern art.

Personally, I care little for meaning or motervation. I don't care what mood or state of mind the artist was in, it's a picture (or scultpture). Yes the mood effect the actual creation, but once it's finished who gives one? I see art as beauty, as something I can stare at and be impressed by, I know this isn't what 'true art' is, but it's how I personally judge it. Most modern art requires little talent or thought, or at least shows no signs of either, whether they were present or not.

I looked around the Tate Modern a few months ago. I honestly don't remeber anything impressing me at all...

---

by KieranFrost

I looked around the Tate Modern a few months ago. I honestly don't remeber anything impressing me at all...

---

you're joknig, what about dali's work, there some picasso i think and andy warhol. thing is art is about expression, ok a lot of art work shows talent and looks amazing and you like it coz its impressive and looks realistic and lots of time and effort has gone into it. thing is jsut coz you can't see that it looks realistic doesn't mean its not still great to look at.

---

by SPIKE
there some picasso

---

I think very little of Picasso personally, but I do like Dali, I used one of his pictures as a template for design in my art course ar GCSE. But I don't remember seeing his work there But Dali falls into that rare 5%

---

by SPIKE
ok a lot of art work shows talent and looks amazing and you like it coz its impressive and looks realistic and lots of time and effort has gone into it

---

Call me stupid (I can so see you doing that in your next post), but isn't that what it's meant to do???

Your right, why show talent, effort or beauty when you can do modern art instead

Oh, I do remember one piece that impressed me, a gnome made out of cigerettes

i see your point and stuff and tis ok to jsut like stuff that looks impressive, but try and think of other simple things. is there nothing basic and simple, maybe a normal everyday object you admire a lot jsut coz its simple shape and colour, i like post boxes myself. so you can still admire stuff thats not got a lot in it.

That is true, but would you coount a post box as art without feeling pretentious?

whoever designed the post box, and if they put a lot of feeling into it and love then yeah i guess i'd call it art.

I prefer performance art, probably because I have been acting since I was two.

I don't like Oil paintings, I prefer watercolour, though i'm not really educated about art as I don't take much interest in it

---

by KieranFrost
Call me stupid (I can so see you doing that in your next post), but isn't that what it's meant to do???

---

Only if that's what the artist meant it to do. Of course, you'd probably disagree, but then you'd be imposing your own rather narrow definition of what you consider to be art on it.

---

Your right, why show talent,

---

Although it's not quite what you mean, there's certainly a talent in getting someone to take notice of and buy your work. In actually creating the work, well that's a subjective judgment.

---

effort

---

What makes you think that because the end result is apparently simple, there was no effort put into it?

I have a friend who has an art degree. Last year she had some works in a local exhibition, the majority of which were very basic, almost scribbled, black ink on white paper drawings. Actually doing the drawings may have been simple, but the amount of effort involved in the concept, arranging them for exhibition, actually deciding to use that technique when she was easily capable of producing something more sophisticated, was huge.

The overall effect was impressive, and she (somewhat unexpectedly) sold a few. I suspect you would have hated them.