Can someone explain why a picture of a child killer made up of kids hands is art ? ?

Question

Or an unmade bed strewn with contraceptives also claiming to be "art"?

(Tate Modern exhibition )

Answer 1

One might say, artists are eccentric as they are like with Russel's philosophy's (wink, wink).  

ART evoke emotions - Loved it! Hated it! WTF was that! Ehh..., Buy it! etc...

Artists - Inspire, un-inspire, get inspired, want adulations, hate adulations, educates, dictate, philosophize, a con artist, etc... but mostly, expresses themselves, just like people who answers, asks, criticizes, etc... with Y! A... Some try to create a new movements in Art, and some succeeded.

Sure anyone can paint a blue canvas and call it art. But that painting alone doesn't sum up what the artist is all about. Just like when Martha Graham did a dance piece where for almost four minutes, all she did was sit and not move. People stand and applauded! There were probably a few who said, what the...   Or John Cage, in one of his albums (his that old), for 10 minutes all you hear are street noises above recorded from his apartment window, or 3 minutes of silence - and he called it music.  Eccentric? Pushing people's buttons? But still that don't sum up what kind of artist they are and their arts. It's deeper than that. What is it that so profound you could say if you painted a canvas plainly blue, that I would want to buy them, and compared or in contrast to your other arts - your philosophy of it, and are you well known enough that it will go up in price when you died.  

All the posters made some valid points; Shanna S and Schypt really gave a good answers. To do such art that anyone can do requires to learn how to be a good artist first, then you can do what you want to do. Of course there are exception like Pollock and artist that had great agents.



Back to the paintings - What do you think the picture of a child killer made up of kids hands is saying? Does say anything to you? Did you let your open mind first think about it, or you just didn't want to think about it?  Apparently it is saying something cause of your reactions or your questions - probably evoking certain emotions -- as also to that bed in the museum. Maybe we should ask the artist himself/herself, if we don't understand it.  

Those who don't understand it, doesn't mean they are ignorant - as to those who say they understand it, are knowledgeable. When my classmates and I were critiquing each other's painting, back when I was in college, there was one particular painting that we have some opinions of what it is about. It's a painting that has something that doesn't belong in it. It's an image of a large s***w. There were a lot of opinions about what the painting was all about - a lot said, the artist is saying "s***w the world." Finally when we asked the painter, he said, "I just like it there. I just wanted to put a s***w in my painting." So sometimes, A s***w Is Just A s***w!

Answer 2

This type of "art" infers a message which to me says:

"You must understand that this is art, otherwise you will be accused of not having the ability to understand art".

Weak minded people then pretend to "understand" it for fear of being labelled as philistine.

Answer 3

Simple. Because art is subjective.

The premise of art isn't skill alone, but rather the concept and individual interpretation.

The picture of the child killer made up of kids hands could be interpreted as dark irony, combining a strongly conflicting subject matter and media. Similarly, the bed strewn with contraceptives could be viewed as a personal statement by the artist or as a biting social commentary on modern-day promiscuity.

For me, personally, art isn't just about making something "pretty", it's about conveying a message and doing something no one else has done before.

Answer 4

A person is said to have "vandalised" that obscene c**p.

I congratulate the  person who damaged it , it was no act of vandalism it was a public service

This type of "artist" is never capable of drawing a likeness or oil painting an object or  scene

Answer 5

It seems anything is "art". I went to a art gallery once an seen a plain blue canvas, which is probably worth a lot of money if its in a art gallery an I was thinking any1 can paint a canvas blue an it won’t be worth thousands so what is really "art"?

Answer 6

Why is a picture of a bunch of nude bathers art? Why is a picture of a bunch of sunflowers art? Art is what we choose to call it. If you don't think its art, then it isn't for you. It is always subjective.

Answer 7

I think the word 'art' is now so loosely defined that bored rich people use it to describe worthless c**p. Then, when sensible people question this, they hide behind the fact that art is essentially subjective, and that the reason we don't get it is because we're just not capable of understanding it. Personally, if I were to cut a sheep in half, pickled it in formaldehyde, and then charge money so that idiots could look at it, I would be f***ing well ashamed of myself.

Answer 8

open your mind,if you don't understand what the artist is saying don't be critical of them,even the great masters centuries ago were misunderstood some never earned a penny from their work and today as you are aware are worth millions,it's good to see the artist getting the recognition and the fame as well as the money while they are alive and not dead.

Answer 9

They need to rename it ab-scene art.  I suppose the artists are trying to get a message through based on their own feelings. It will sell, no doubt. Not my style and not my bag!

Answer 10

I agree, but it seems this is the route 'so-called' experts are going.  Just wish they could see my son's room...I'd probably be a very wealthy woman with his contribution:-), It seems we don't have a generation of Monet, Constables etc anymore just a generation of throw litter in the middle of a room put a few coloured boxes together, use a few sick b******s to exploit kids and thats "art"!

Answer 11

Artistic con men have been going now for quite awhile , its easy to fool the halfwits in the art world, its our fault for putting such idiots in charge of the art councils purse strings . one day somebody will call there bluff and demand an accounting of the puerile rubbish passed of as art that we all foot the bill for.  and if some stupid art critic tries that old kings invisible cloak on me watch this space.  

Answer 12

It is art because it is a human-created expression intended to evoke a response.  That your response is distaste (as most anyone's would be for these examples) is beside the point.

Answer 13

I agree I hate stuff like that, there was a bear that walked around a museum which was "art" - HOW?!?

Answer 14

Well, what is art?   This is a very old question, and one that is not easily answered.  I will provide you with some generally accepted concepts of what is art.

Art is an artifact that transcends time and provokes a response from the viewer, providing an indirect connection of the artist and the audience that interacts with the artifact.

In the past, before photography and the industrial revolution, visual art making was pretty much limited to paintings and sculptures made of stone or metal.  Most lauded important individuals, aspects of history, celebrated religion or portrayed beautiful landscapes or artifully arranged still lifes (fruit on a table).  

Then there were the challengers like DaVinci, and Caravaggio who dared to paint everyday people and everyday scenes of human life.

Again, the Plein Air painters like Constable & Corot and the Barbizon painters challenged the establishment with their views of painting what was really there in nature, and not romanticizing it.  

The Impressionists took the plein air ideas and joined them with Da Vinci and Carravagio, for scenes of people as they were during their era, and bright outdoor scene with minimal strokes, and even exploring perspective and ways to paint on the canvas in the process.

But then, the 20th century comes along and photography is common ways to record a portrait.  There are new machines.  New ways of life, new world conflicts, new everything.

The world of visual art is no different and reinvents itself through two pivotable figures arguably the most important of the 20th century:  Picasso and Marcel Duchamp.

Picasso as you know painted different angles of the same person from different perspectives simutanueously.  He also incorporated this into his sculptures.  He also used everyday and found objects in some of his sculptures.  His forms led to the modern and minimalist movements.

Duchamp however, challenged everything.  Like Picasso, he was a painter by training.  He became promient through a painting called Figure Descending a Staircase.  It's sometimes mistaken for a Picasso.  It predates Picasso's take on multiple perspective and movement.

Duchamp though shocked the world one day by taking a urinal, and laying it on the floor and then signing it.  The art world has not been the same since.

One other artist is worth mentioning as challenging assumed definitions of art who followed in the spirit of Duchamp is Piero Manzoni. One of the more audacious things he did was to place nude women on a stool, then sign part of their torsos, calling himself the artist.  The MOST audacious thing he ever did was a big mental block called "Socule du Monde" or Pedastal of the World.    The title of the piece is written upside down.  He literally put the world on a pedestal, and called it his own work of art.  Did he think he was God?  

So....  Back to your question -- yes those things can be considered works of art.  

Keep this in mind.  Art anymore is hardly ever what known as "representational."  Even someone like Chuck Close whose work is amazingly realistic, is not entirely just a portrait of something or someone.  

The artists are making commentary and stirring your emotions purposely.  The artists are trying to provoke the viewers to reconsider their own assumptions about everyday life (the bed) and how you view other people (the photo composite of the child killer).   Sometimes the artwork is merely reaching to understand motivation (photo composite), not exalt or excuse it.  

The Tate Modern purpose is to house this type of conceptual artwork.  

You are free to dislike it, be confused by it or even offended.  Your perception belongs to you.

Great question.