I don't know much about art but

[Robster59]

I know what I like. And this isn't it!
Turner prize - short listed artists

 

[srixon 1]

I saw that earlier and thought, what a crock of ……..

 

[Hobbit]

I find the orange tracksuit against the glass thought provoking. The un-smilie on the top with the play on words to the Nike tag line on the bottoms raising the question…

But art is subjective. I’ve seen the Mona Lisa up close, and think it’s very poor.

 

[ADB]

If it’s generated an opinion then I guess it’s worthwhile

 

[Tashyboy]

Rammel.

 

[Imurg]

Rammel.

Perfect word for it Tash.

 

[RichA]

I find the orange tracksuit against the glass thought provoking. The un-smilie on the top with the play on words to the Nike tag line on the bottoms raising the question…

But art is subjective. I’ve seen the Mona Lisa up close, and think it’s very poor.

Similarly but the other way, I always thought Van Gogh was a crock until I saw Sunflowers up close, at which point my mind was blown.
Not been for a while but I'd occasionally pop into the National Gallery and spend an hour staring at his and Turner's paintings. Most modern stuff leaves me cold. But then most older stuff does nothing for me either.
I've always hated portraits but was wandering around The Harley Foundation museum at the Welbeck estate in Notts a few years ago. There was a lifesize portrait by John Singer Sargent of the Duchess of the estate from 100 years ago. It was difficult to walk away from.

 

[IanM]

Fast Show summed it up nicely

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The Turner prize pretty much exists to irritate. It needs to in order to get the publicity it needs to survive. Ignore it, it's better for your blood pressure

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In my view the sort of art we see in the likes of the Turner Prize is created and selected on its ability to trigger thoughts and emotions that in turn can inspire others to create. And not necessarily just in art, but in architecture, design and literature. It is not necessarily an end in itself.

 

[ADB]

I find the orange tracksuit against the glass thought provoking. The un-smilie on the top with the play on words to the Nike tag line on the bottoms raising the question…

But art is subjective. I’ve seen the Mona Lisa up close, and think it’s very poor.

That is such an interesting observation on the Mona Lisa - your subjectivity is down to the quality of the physical painting - which raises the question of what makes a ‘good’ painting - technical skill or interpretation?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I liked this - https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/af7a/live/c6b42c00-0215-11ef-97f7-e98b193ef1b8.jpg.webp but is it really worthy of the Turner prize?

 

[bobmac]

Rubbish in my opinion.
Art is something created by artists who have a special skill like musicians.
You don't have to look much further than the ''unmade bed''

 

[Beezerk]

Rubbish in my opinion.
Art is something created by artists who have a special skill like musicians.
You don't have to look much further than the ''unmade bed''

So who is the better "artist", the one painting a nice pot of flowers or the one creating something that demands some kind of discussion to work out what it means?
It's just two different sides of the "art" spectrum, one nice and cosy, the other very devisive and obviously not for everyone.

 

[Orikoru]

I love modern art, but probably not in the way the artists intended. I recall walking around Tate Modern and absolutely creasing up laughing at some of the exhibits and the little plaques they put up explaining the piece and what's behind it. My personal favourite was a glass of water on a shelf which they called 'The Oak Tree' and had a framed interview with the artist where he explained why the glass of water was now an oak tree. Hilarious stuff.

 

[bobmac]

I know what I like.

 

[Backache]

I guess when one is an observer from the internet there is context that cannot be fully resolved.
However in the first example one is struck by the mid 20th century kitsch almost enveloped in the 19th century idiom which viewed through our 21 st century prism raises issues whether metaphorical or with figurative imagery that struggle to explain themselves but upon a fuller viewing in the gallery may well arouse deep feelings about a manufactured natalism that both shocks and enthralls.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Landseer’s paintings are very fine depictions of the subject matter but I find them pretty superficial in that you see exactly what is painted and that’s it - not a lot more to think about or see. So we see a Monarch of the Glen and magnificent it is. Next time I look I mostly see just the same. I tend to prefer art that requires and rewards multiple viewing through giving greater and deeper understanding of what’s going on.

 

[Robster59]

I've been listening to a biography of Leonardo Da Vinci. Behind his artistry is the work he put in on the background to his work. How water flows, the impact of shadows a week as light, getting the right muscle definition for a particular position of the limb. Only when it's explained and then you'll look again at the images can you see what he was trying to achieve, and how grind breaking he was.
Some artists capture the image, others capture the soul.

 

[VVega]

I once saw a shopping receipt from Co-op in Tate Modern Still my favourite museum though.