Is This Really Art

Maybe 'feel' should be substituted for 'think' - even if it's disgust.

mishap I agree. Because if art made you think, then I'd have to accept that TE's unmade bed is art. Because I have given it some thought!

We have a friend who never finished school. He loves visiting art galleries and will go to see just a few paintings at a time. And he says "I don't know why it makes me feel good, but it does".

It's really difficult to say what art is.You can't say because it makes you think[although it may do] but so would a book, a play or even a debate.You can't even say it's because it makes you feel good[even though some art has this effect.] So what is it?I suppose the only definition really is to say it's something that serves no useful purpose[as opposed to crafts] but that 'it speaks to you' . In that case, Tracy's bed is not art, to me.

but it may 'speak' to someone else.

Indeed. Because thankfully we are all individuals, free to think and feel for ourselves and not be bound by what someone else decrees is worthwhile or in "good taste".

Well said maggie in fact the Impressionists had to face cries of 'rubbish' at the time they painted.Sometimes it takes a while to filter through, and fashions come and go, but nowadays it's accepted that photography and installation art are part of the art scene.

Do you remember the pile of bricks at the Tate years ago?

Yes! I saw it and have to admit that it appalled me far more than TE's bed ever did.

I do think her bed is art. If someone had taken a photo of it, it would have been considered art. If someone had painted it, it would have been considered art. It isn't a statue, it's an 'installation'. I often go to art galleries and outdoor art shows, often installations by final year art students are dotted around place like Hatfield and some are downright odd. But I would never say that they weren't art. 99.9% of what I see I would never give house - or garden - room to, but other people would.

I think the unmade bed is art, although I wouldn't want it in my house. To me, it is a comment on the nude women in so much classical art, lying on a bed like the Rokeby Venus. These nudes are not real women, and show women as the usually male artists perceive them, whereas in TE's bed, the women has inhabited the bed but left it, although the evidence of her life is there. I can see it's not to all tastes, but I find it a witty and thought provoking piece.

One of my DD1's friends at Glasgow School of Art persuaded one of the local libraries to let her set up an installation amongst a section of books. It involved sorting them out in different ways each week - week 1 by colour of dust jacket, week 2 by first name of author, week 3 by second letter of book title, week 4 by first letter of first sentence etc, etc. She'd left leaflets there explaining the project and a comments book for library users. Most of the comments consisted of complaints about not being able to find the b....y book they wanted, and entreaties to the staff to stop her messing about.

So do I, vegasmags. And the tent too - Everyone I Have Ever Slept With.

Most people just have a little black book! I peeked inside an ex- boyfriend's once, I thought they were a myth. (Was a bit miffed to find that I wasn't in it, this was ten years on!)

Whilst I agree art is subjective, If I can do it myself, say assemble inanimate objects or paint a blank canvas blue or red, I don't regard it as art, When I go to gallery I want to be amazed by the genius of the artist that's why I've gone. The last time I viewed an installation work I was in Paris and it comprised of what looked like old tights suspended from a ceiling with tennis balls in the legs. I've also seen some of the dafter exhibitions at the Tate over the years, such as a pile of bricks! I don't feel like this about all modern art, but I do think some of it takes the piss!

Perhaps we can all be artists?

Though I know what you mean TerriBull have seen plenty of art that I could have done better myself [some even, that a chimp could do better.]

But you didn't. And what someone else DID create, somehow struck a chord in someone else. We must all have seen reproductions or originals in other people's houses that we have hated. But the owners saw it differently. BiL and SiL commissioned a lovely work of art, and MiL, who is an artist, hates it. I find that very funny and wonder if it is professional jealousy. They live overlooking the sea, and the painting is a large canvas using thick strokes of metallic paint in lines and ripples in golds and browns that catch and reflect the light as it comes into the room. It looks exactly like the tide going out over the sands, in different shades depending on what light hits it. I think it's beautiful and can't understand her objections, but try to. Out of the gathered family that saw it, 7 loved it, one hated it. She said 'anyone could do that'. Well, I couldn't have. And she didn't.

Yes, I agree, we should have a go ourselves, in fact this thread is making me want to!

Many years ago as DD and I walked round an art exhibition that to us looked like a lot of wobbly Perspex bookcases, we discovered that these works of art had an accompanying leaflet that explained what it all meant.

DD commented that if the work of art needed a sheet of paper to explain it then it was the sheet of paper that was the work of art not the wobbly Perspex bookshelves.

I have applied her criteria to a number of works of art I have seen since and found it a very sound judgement.

They should certainly always be kept on view by the side of the piece of art. How often have we looked at a piece of art and wondered 'what on earth were they thinking of?'.

My problem with Tracy Emin is that I don't like anything that she draws either; I sort of feel that a true artist should be someone that can draw but then moves on beyond that capability [eg Picasso]. Then again it's all so subjective. I saw a painting at a gallery at the National Stud last week; a sort of 'head of a horse done in a Jackson Pollock sort of way'. Not my sort of painting at all [although I love Jackson Pollock] but I really liked it. The S.O. prefered a painting of a chicken. Good abstract art is so much more difficult to do than non abstract art, as the artist has to tap into something that isn't quantifiable [if that's the right word ].

She did a drawing of some birds that I thought was lovely.

They are nice; I hadn't seen them before.

The one she does of a bird that is her self-portrait as one, really does look like her!