Is this Art?
 

Continuing on from the Writing on Canvas thread, I started thinking about Tracey Emin's 'Bed' piece - a reconstruction of her own bed that was bought for the Saatchi collection in the 90s. It created a lot of debate in Britain as to whether it really qualified as art at all.

anything intended to be experienced as ART qualifies as ART, but that in no way reflects upon whether it is GOOD or BAD, or just plain inane and insipid like that piece you posted.

I call that BAD ART


actually, i call it a CON. that artist conned the public and conned the art world and conned that saatchi fuck into paying good money for a fucking bed.

How was it a con?

i think it looks fucking cool, actually.

except that it's not very original

Bed is a far more conservative piece than Duchamp's, which questioned what could be permitted as art. Emin came along after that battle had largely already been won. Her piece is 'allowed' because of the earlier acceptance of his work, and that of Warhol, etc.) but uses it to return to a far more romantic view of the artist-as-social-outsider.

As such I always think that Bed has more in common with Van Gogh's (admittedly superior) Chair.

a reconstruction of her bed.
says nothing, speaks nothing, means nothing.

cheap easy art

a con

duchamp at the LEAST, tunred the urnial upside down o people would see it as they had never seen it before. that bed is just a bed. it takes absolutely no skill to trecreate one's own bed ina gallery.

van gogh's painting of a yellow chair however, is imbued with his touch, with his eye. the bed, is just a bed.

just as adorno predicted

Yeah we all have Marcel Duchamp to blame.

But he was a bit of a dude.

now THAT is a pair of ugly thighs

But, it could be argued, both Van Gogh's Chair and Emin's Bed remain significant largely because of people's interest in the artists' personal/public image and the ways in which that image corresponds with a certain notion of the 'tortured artist'.

although i agree with rob for the most part,

the fact that its provocing such a strong reaction from him, suggests it actually is saying something,

maybe. i just like how the photo (of the bed, for pity's sakes) looks. sorta like the proof of the pudding etc. BUT i can't discuss more right now, gotta get off the internet & toil a little. catchu later.

i was arguing about this with a friend the other day, there seems to be a consensus that if something gets people talking it muust be a good thing, which i disagree with, that line of thought smacks of desperate attention seeking. i've never heard anybody say anything good about tracey emin's bed, i think while all this talk has no doubt done good things for her bank balance i think it is ultimately very detrimental to contemporary art as a whole, for a myriad of reasons. not to mention that as a piece of work it is lazy, vapid, unimaginative and narcissistic.

I agree with you on this.

yeah, but aren't all contemporary artists lazy, vapid, unimaginative and narcissistic? isn't that the essence of what is called "art" today?

well not necessarily but, if you generalize enough, then YES!

Would it make a difference if her bed was turned upside down? :D

To me the bed is a self portrait. It isn't very original, but it is "her" bed, and it definitely describes her personality. Chaotic, undisciplined, disorganised and filthy. Much like a lot of the photo's I've seen on this forum of boardies rooms. Not really my cup of tea.
Comparing it to the pisspot is beyond me though. Two different artists with two very different objectives.
To answer your question, yes it is art, but not very good art.

Ps: Besides, Lydias bed is a lot raunchier. :rolleyes:

Of course it's not, and I seriously think that anyone who does think that it is art quite possibly hates art in general. Even arguing about it is pointless, in this time and age. Seriously, with all the steps forward that humans achieved over the years, I cannot understand why some people are so mentally lazy.

no, maybe you've been checking out some shitty galleries though?