This made me smile - and if you read the comments posted below the article, it sparked a rich 'what is art' debate.... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/h...of-modern-art-at-the-tate-modern-9092451.html Art lovers were horrified when two parents let their children clamber all over a multi-million pound sculpture at Tate Modern. A visitor took a photograph of the family of four after she saw the children crawling on the installation, by American artist Donald Judd. please log in to view this image Stephanie Theodore, a gallery owner from New York, posted the picture on Twitter, with the words: “Holy crap. Horrible kids, horrible parents.” Today she told the Standard the parents had been encouraging their two daughters to play on the sculpture — and refused to back down when she confronted them. She said: “I was shocked. I said to the parents I didn’t think their kids should be playing on a $10 million artwork. The woman turned around and told me I didn’t know anything about kids and she was sorry if I ever had any.” Ms Theodore alerted staff but the family had moved on. She said: “I don’t know who they are but I just know you don’t put your kid on a sculpture. “It wasn’t just the kids, the parents were encouraging them … It isn’t about monetary value, it is a museum, not a playground.” please log in to view this image This is off topic, and perhaps a bit tenuous but how about 'QPR expressed as art'!
Just about sums up a lot of people's attitudes in the art world. They don't live in the real world. I visited a gallery once and the "modern art" was hilarious!! This ain't worth 10 quid FFS!!
Tony should buy and display it at Loftus Road - the right colour scheme, only $10 million (or Jordan Rhodes?) - could be named, "our journey to higher echelons".
It looks like something you'd get in Ikea or Habitat. I must say the Tate Modern is full of such crap and only the pretentious pillocks who talk it up seem to be fuelling the gravy train with the likes of Charles Saatchi spending telephone numbers on the stuff...
I quite like it, and if someone has $10m and wants to spend it on this, it's worth what it's worth to them. And a fraction of the cost of Gareth Bale. I also like the fact that kids crawled all over it, nice and interactive. Tate Modern is a brilliant place, though I prefer Tate Britain and the National Gallery.
Charles Saatchi, though a complete ****, is the index of modern Britain, Made his money doing something completely insubstantial and spends it on equally insubstantial stuff. Yet.....he makes money on both ends. If anyone, no matter how pretentious and pillocky, gets pleasure from this stuff, why deny them the pleasure?
I'm a bit conflicted here - Donald Judd is a very significant contributor to the 20th century canon of modern and minimalist art - but this piece (and others) does lend itself to a bit of climbing. I'd be very surprised if the artist would have been terribly bothered if a couple of kids climbed over his work - his sculptures were mostly made fron steel or plywood or plexiglass - the real problem is with the commodification of art. When the first comment on any piece of art is about the cost, it sets the tone for how we receive it, we try to categorise it in monetary terms rather than hi wit was intended, as a considered piece of creative work. The usual "I could gave done that" (you didn't) or "I don't understand it" (I never studied Serbo-Croat, I don't expect to be able to read a book written in that language) is irrelevant - as is the cost. £10m - so ****ing what, it's a good climbing frame though... I think the artist might have been amused.
If one of those top artists were to frame a roll of used toilet paper, some ****s would pay to see it
Artists don't set the prices - speculators and dealers do that - if a bog roll in a frame is considered 'worth' something, what does that say about the people who didn't stick that bog roll in a frame? Missed the boat or didn't have the original creative thought? Interesting how some creative individuals are considered worthy and others creators dismissed. Musicians are generally positively received, but painters, sculptors and photographers are considered lesser because what they do is more accessible - the classic "I could do that" response.
Lets face there is a lot of **** art out there. This reminds of a piece in Byron bay which basically is a dead tree with its roots tidy up and varnished laying on it side. Every one climb all over it and it is now fenced off making look even uglier than it already was. I am sure there are a lot of people look at that tree and thing it really does represent the meaning of life and the struggle of the local aboriginals. Then there are people like me who think climb over the piece of crap it's an eye sore. As for art that represent QPR the most probably the scream. There are many times the club has made me feel that way.
I once saw some modern art which was..............the empty room!! It was the centre piece of the exhibition and being raved about. Utterly pretentious crap. I really appreciate something that has taken some skill and talent, but, although I realise that these things are all subjective, some of this stuff can be seen at my local tip!
