Sunday, 10 May 2009

Art ramble

Can hideous looking artwork become amazing just because you come up with some elaborate story behind it?

I'm pretty sure that if you put down a glass of water on a table and gave some elaborate meaning behind what everything represents it could be the best thing since sliced bread.

I think i just don't like minimalism thats all i want to see something that has had alot of hard work been put in to it or you can see the long thought process that brought the artist to this conclusion

Can art just be something thats aesthetically pleasing or does it always have to have a meaning?

If there is no meaning behind a piece of artwork and it is just aesthetically pleasing does it just become a skilled piece of craft?


  1. There was once this guy I new who went to a gallery with a bunch of his mates. They had this fold up chair thing and they placed on it a bottle of coke or something like that and went out of site.. They kept a close eye on what people did.. People started like taking note of what they could see, taking photographs but the worst bit, taking real interest in a thoughtless piece of rubbish ! It’s just funny how something so meaningless can become “art” just because it’s in a gallery !

  2. One of the classic pieces is Michael Craig Martin's "An Oak Tree". See:

  3. Art does not always have to be aesthetically pleasing at all. In fact there is so much art existing now that is far fromthat but that has recieved feedback from an audience for other reasons.
    A lot of art is accomplished simply ecause it is locked away emotion that needs to be expressed or simply desire to accomplish a feat.
    I would argue that there is less and lessimportance on art being beatiful nowadays.

  4. Gary i think that where i got the glass off water thing was because i remember that piece.i think that i do admire the concept behind it but as what it actually is being just a glass of water that could put displayed so easily annoys me somewhat