Tweet
I am now going to begin a rant against the stupidity which people call modern art or more precisely I'm going to rant about using tax payer's money to support this crap (and I mean crap literally). It appears the "prestigious" Tate Gallery paid 22,300 pounds (about $35,000) of British taxpayers' money for a sealed can containing the excrement of a deceased artist. The can was not painted or decorated it was just a can filled with ****. How on Earth can anyone call this art? More over how can any left wing MP justify wasting tax payer money on this in a time when Britain's health system is underfunded, it's train system is a mess, there aren't enough roadways to handle the traffic, and there isn't enough defense spending to deal with Arab terrorists?
Is this the only example of "artists" (I use the term losely) of questionable value being given vast sums of taxpayer money? Nope, not by a long shot. •An artist named Martin Creed won the prestigious Turner Prize, plus 20,000 pounds (about $30,000), for a work called The Lights Going On and Off, which consisted of a vacant room in which the lights went on and off. I know it is hard to think of "art" getting any more inovative then this but the "artistic" community is trying it's darnedist. According to a London Times the prestigious Paul Hamlyn Foundation has awarded one of the biggest art prizes in Britain -- 30,000 pounds (about $47,000) -- to an artist named Ceal Floyer, for a work of art consisting of: a garbage bag.
Really. The work is titled Rubbish Bag, and to judge from the photograph in the Times, it is a standard black plastic garbage bag, just like the ones you put your garbage in, except of course that you have to pay people to haul your garbage bags away, whereas Ms. Floyer got $47,000 for hers. There is a compelling reason for this: Ms. Floyer's bag is empty. That's what makes it artistic. Ms. Floyer is quoted by the Times as follows:
''It's not a bag of rubbish, it's a rubbish bag. The medium is clearly portrayed: It says it is a bag, air, and a twisted top.''
Got that? It's NOT a bag of rubbish: It's a rubbish bag! If THAT'S not $47,000 worth of innovation, then I don't know what is.
Link to Story.
Is this the only example of "artists" (I use the term losely) of questionable value being given vast sums of taxpayer money? Nope, not by a long shot. •An artist named Martin Creed won the prestigious Turner Prize, plus 20,000 pounds (about $30,000), for a work called The Lights Going On and Off, which consisted of a vacant room in which the lights went on and off. I know it is hard to think of "art" getting any more inovative then this but the "artistic" community is trying it's darnedist. According to a London Times the prestigious Paul Hamlyn Foundation has awarded one of the biggest art prizes in Britain -- 30,000 pounds (about $47,000) -- to an artist named Ceal Floyer, for a work of art consisting of: a garbage bag.
Really. The work is titled Rubbish Bag, and to judge from the photograph in the Times, it is a standard black plastic garbage bag, just like the ones you put your garbage in, except of course that you have to pay people to haul your garbage bags away, whereas Ms. Floyer got $47,000 for hers. There is a compelling reason for this: Ms. Floyer's bag is empty. That's what makes it artistic. Ms. Floyer is quoted by the Times as follows:
''It's not a bag of rubbish, it's a rubbish bag. The medium is clearly portrayed: It says it is a bag, air, and a twisted top.''
Got that? It's NOT a bag of rubbish: It's a rubbish bag! If THAT'S not $47,000 worth of innovation, then I don't know what is.
Link to Story.
), and tends to try to be pleasing to the eye, decorating the surrounding, every culture sees it like that. I don't know of any culture deliberately making ritual objects ugly or deformed in any way.
Comment