Modern art should not be supported...

... at least not with public money.

It is utter nonsense and those who say they like it
in reality are just striking a pose to appear cool.

Ergo, it is a waste of money and it serves no purpose
other than give something to do to some untalented
weed smokers.

Discuss.

No art should be supported with public money. If people like it, they can pay for it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No art should be supported with public money. If people like it, they can pay for it.

There is nothing more important than supporting art with public money. If people don't like it, they don't have to look at it.

Originally posted by Seitse
... at least not with public money.

It is utter nonsense and those who say they like it
in reality are just striking a pose to appear cool.

Ergo, it is a waste of money and it serves no purpose
other than give something to do to some untalented
weed smokers.

Discuss.

Have you ever considered that it is not the art that is deficient, but, rather, that it is you who is deficient?

The worst part about snobbish attitudes is that they
usually come from the least refined minds in a desperate
attempt to compensate for their shortcomings.

Originally posted by Seitse
The worst part about snobbish attitudes is that they
usually come from the least refined minds in a desperate
attempt to compensate for their shortcomings.

😴

Originally posted by Seitse
... at least not with public money.

It is utter nonsense and those who say they like it
in reality are just striking a pose to appear cool.

Ergo, it is a waste of money and it serves no purpose
other than give something to do to some untalented
weed smokers.

Discuss.

It is probably only on this issue that you and I will be in mutual agreement. As someone who can draw pretty damned well (and paint (albeit in acrylics) when I can be bothered) I say "modern art" is the domain of the talentless and pretentious.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Impressionism if done correctly is anything but talentless - these guys are able to capture the essential features of a scene with whatever ambient lighting (which changes) is present in one sitting - and produce images that though not hyper-detailed are still pretty damned accurate (in the geometric/spatial/chromatic sense).

Works produced by Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollock (and those who imitate them) on the other hand I say are talentless and pretentious, there is nothing about their `art' that couldn't be emulated by a chimp, and any aesthetic value to be found is as dubiously subjective as the aesthetic value to be found in a half eaten pizza.

Originally posted by Agerg
It is probably only on this issue that you and I will be in mutual agreement. As someone who can draw pretty damned well (and paint (albeit in acrylics) when I can be bothered) I say "modern art" is the domain of the talentless and pretentious.

I am forever at a loss to understand why so many seem to have such a burning desire to condemn 'modern' art. Because it doesn't appeal to you, why do you then denigrate the art form itself? I don't like 'modern jazz', but that doesn't cause me to turn around and say that it "is the domain of the talentless and pretentious." I am fully prepared, rather, to admit that I am deficient as a listener and that I don't know enough about the art form to properly judge it. The most I can say is that I don't understand it and that it doesn't appeal to me.

Originally posted by rwingett
I am forever at a loss to understand why so many seem to have such a burning desire to condemn 'modern' art. Because it doesn't appeal to you, why do you then denigrate the art form itself? I don't like 'modern jazz', but that doesn't cause me to turn around and say that it "is the domain of the talentless and pretentious." I am fully prepared, rather, to a . The most I can say is that I don't understand it and that it doesn't appeal to me.

Let's suppose someone invents a new type of music - call it, say, "Bango"; further, lets say it is generally formed by a group of people banging bricks with wooden spoons, there need be no rhythm, no adherence to tempo, no attempt to capture any melody - just random brick banging.

Now I don't know about you but I would be quite happy to denigrate this new `artform' with as much zeal as I denigrate those who randomly and thoughtlessly throw paint onto a canvas or try to peddle some arbitrary configuration of mundane objects as a profound statement of the way things are in the world.
There is much music that doesn't appeal to me but I can at least acknowledge the skill and talent that underlies their work - with the stuff that Tracy Emin, Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko (et al) produce I have nothing but contempt.

Originally posted by rwingett
😴

Ladies think the same of you. Hence, exhibit 'A'.

Originally posted by Agerg
It is probably only on this issue that you and I will be in mutual agreement. As someone who can draw pretty damned well (and paint (albeit in acrylics) when I can be bothered) I say "modern art" is the domain of the talentless and pretentious.

Kiss me, you fool.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I would continue with schools, of course.

Why do we need schools for? What we need is
training camps for children where they can become
knowledgeable in assembling things, so by the
time they're 8 they can start at the sweatshops.