Opinions on art and the \"art world\"

Due to the recent up-roar about the U.K government planning to cut the spending on the arts altogether I thought it would be worthwhile asking what everybody here thought. So art, is it just a waste of time and money or is it a vital part of who we are? I, personaly, am on th brink of leaving art school altogether because of the narrow-mindedness of the whole affair. Anyways, has modern art been a big mistake and just an excuse for people to fill galleries and behave pretentously about it all or is it somthing valueble to the people?

My feelings on this are mixed after seeing Damien Hirst's work, it is powerful but surely the butterflies are better being in the enviroment and contributing to the natural cycle of life?
So, let the opinons pour...

Personally, I love art, but it depends on the type I guess. (Reading back on that, it seems a very silly statement)

I loathe 'modern' art. I don't even know why. Probably because my father designs buildings/interiors inspired by 'modern art' and I loathe the look.

I would rather the government cut spending on the arts than on education though. I'm infuriated at the u-turn on university fees.

I love art in all forms, but when it comes to recent modern art, I'm quite annoyed... It ends up that you can take anything, or nothing, and just declare it as art... :huh:
I don't think that the government should cut the money for arts, but make a better choice where that money goes. I think here about getting children off the streets and similar stuff that would have a good cause.
regarding about the value of such art, I think it is different from artist to artist.
The feeling that it may be worthless comes, in my opinion, from the fact that nothing remarkable really emerged in this time that would be on par with the works of for example da Vinci or Botticelli.

Hmm..There was actually a very interesting piece of art that made the news yesterday night.

An artist had hand-painted 100 million sunflower seeds made out of porcelain and made it into an exhibition which was meant for people to be able to walk on, feel, hear etc..But access was soon banned because the porcelain created a dust when people walked on it.

Full story here: www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/...t-to-the-public.html

I like the idea behind that piece..Because it's sensory and unusual..Though I do agree in general with Magnolia's views of \"It ends up that you can take anything, or nothing, and just declare it as art..\"..I remember when I was doing work experience and there was 'art' on the walls - but it was just a series of 3 coloured squares with lines of dark paint drizzled over them.

Can't really believe people would pay for that.

I'm a huge fan of art (both my mum and I have created various pieces between us over the years), but I do not think \"modern art\" is art at all. A canvas with merely a few lines or blobs of paint, is not artistic.

iHauntTheSepulchre wrote:

I'm a huge fan of art (both my mum and I have created various pieces between us over the years), but I do not think \"modern art\" is art at all. A canvas with merely a few lines or blobs of paint, is not artistic.

Just to get a few concepts straight, Modern Art refers to artistic works produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s. More recent artistic production is often called Contemporary art or Postmodern art.

So to say that Modern Art is not art, it is like saying that Picasso, van Gogh, Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat and Toulouse Lautrec are not artists ........................ And we can hardly disagree that they are great artists in their own way. :kiss:

I like art, but when the government (here in Denmark) gives money to art and art museum, while they shut down schools and hospitals, it might be difficult to go to art exhibitions without being just a little angry at the system