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?

Looks like someone's feet just got trampled. :)

You're skating on thin ice, callus eater.

... and you can't take a joke.

yawn...i couldve done that in second grade...i think i did, actually....

gross, put your dick away

it could, and that is the beauty of a wholly subjective endeavor such as art or music.

I just find that bed piece EASY. easy to grasp, easy to do, easy to dismiss, easy to never in any way affect anyone ever, other than reminding them of stuff they did on their bed.

Saatchi got assfucked on that one.

I have a recreation of toilet paper I wiped my ass with. you think he would buy it?

not necessarily. it could just as likely suggest that the piece is saying NOTHING hence my revulsion at such insipid inanity.

Well said. I can't rape you everyday, but consider yourself penetrated. On that Tracy Emin bed.

does she have pubic lice?

Oh god. I did a search image search for pubic lice. i did not want to see that!

that's what drives me insane, the public is revolted by the success of the inane works of emin, but the art establishment sees sees only the uproar and fails to grasp why people are disgruntled by her accolades.
she's representing the UK in the fucking venice biennale this year for christ's sake!

maybe i've been looking at internet pictures of student shows :eek:

:p


don't be jealous.

Cutting edge has ruined art, simply by:

1 - Failing to make the earth shake.

2 - Giving presumptuous and utterly talentless people the tools for creation.

3 - Failing to make a serious point about anything other than the artist's own vanity.

that's cos all the smart people are in the sciences these days.

For as long as they don't start looking at their microscopes thinking that they could turn them into art, I'm totally happy to accept that.

this has been one of the good threads this week
thanks for the interesting read

I think that you have a very narrow view of what is art and what is not. That view seems to be that if you can see it's artisitic merit then it is art, and if you don't like it then it isn't art. That's what's known as an opinion.

Just because people don't agree with your opinion doesn't make them wrong, and just because you don't like certain artworks, that doesn't lessen their merit as works of art.

Personally, I can't stand a single thing that Mark Rothko has produced, but I can accept that he is an artist and that what he produces is art.

Not all art is produced for your approval.

Florya, are you Lethrneck4 or do you just share the exact same "Atari says:" sig style?

not that I REALLY care......just wondering because the resemblance is uncanny.

The opposite is true, I'm afraid. In fact if it wasn't because there isn't always time, I'd tend to check out as many works of art as I could. That hardly qualifies as the point of view of a narrow minded person, unless you want to argue otherwise.

well there you go, student shows suck

ha ha ha, i was referring to yours, which porky visited.

but i didn't mean to throw crap at you, except to the extent that i thought you were taking this thread too seriously.



really-- who gives a shit what people post about art on the internet? think the tate curators are looking for answers here?

if you're an artist, you'd be better off defeating your enemies with art rather than with inane discussions. :o

cmon, now go post us some good art.