Creative Global Network for the Visual Arts

Is Modern Art a load of Rubbish?

One day in early January 2010, whilst on his lunch break, a guy was having an argument with a friend about modern art. His friend, having studied art at university, was vigorously defending it with the usual arguments of the art being representative and an emotional interpretation of the artists’ innermost feelings and experiences.

The guy disagreed.

He saw the vast majority of modern art as ‘crap on a canvas’ (or words to that effect). He held the stance that todays modern art could have been produced by absolutely anybody with no tangible artistic talent. The only reason this art work sold, he felt, was because the artist had become a ‘known entity’ on the art scene and was able to project some anal significance to the mess they had created and labeled it as ‘art’.

The conversation turned into a heated debate and so the guy decided to set himself a challenge. He would see if, with absolutely no artistic talent at all, he could create a piece of modern art and sell it for a profit; his hypothesis being that “most of todays modern artists are tallentless and absolutely anyone can create modern art and sell it”.

The Faux Artist was born.

The challenge would have the following guidelines:

1) The modern art must be sold for a profit i.e. more than it cost to make

2) The modern art can not be knowingly sold to friends or family of the Faux Artist

3) No-one else can help the Faux Artist in the creation of the modern art

4) There is no restriction on the type or number of mediums utilized in the art work, however must satisfy point 1

5) Any reasonable channels can be used to try and sell the art work

6) At no point must the Faux Artist lie to enhance his artistic profile
…that would just be down right dishonest, now wouldn’t it!

With these rules in place, let the experiment commence!

www.FauxArtist.co.uk

-The Faux Artist-

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mike hinc on February 21, 2010 at 18:39

Let's help with that revision Marty. I would like to make an offer to purchase...... £2.99 going once and once only. Time to cut your losses Faux? Maybe you should leave art to the artists .

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike hinc on February 21, 2010 at 19:29

"Trate" might be "trait" but who's counting....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike hinc on February 22, 2010 at 9:09

Whilst I can only agree with much of what you say 48073, if "absolutely anyone can create modern art and sell it” how come you and I sell so little?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CAP on February 22, 2010 at 13:33

Because you are weak and have sold your BMXs for fake blow.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Faux Artist on February 22, 2010 at 13:49

48073; that made me chuckle. I think it was the sh*tting on a pie that did it!

Actually, in my personal opinion (and as I have aluded to on my website www.FauxArtist.co.uk), alot of today's modern art is like "sh*t on a canvas". So the fact that you are telling me to go "sh*t on a pie" instead, goes to highlight my point further.

If my 'artwork' gets taken seriously and purchased for a daftly inflated price, then it seems that 'sh*t on a pie/canvas' can indeed be passed off as modern art.

In regards to the experiment being 'unethical'; I think you may have got your adjectives confused there as it is in no way unethical. If you are a green-fingered individual and are inclined to believe that farting is causing the melting of ice caps, then it may be seen as environmentally un-freiendly; however that is all relative to your own personal beliefs ;-)

-The Faux Artist-

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike hinc on February 22, 2010 at 15:20

"Opinion" and specious arguments on cultural relativism apart Faux, it's interesting......much western art for the last century or so can be seen as an attempt to escape quotation marks yet you seem determined embrace cliché like the friend you never had. Go read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit
Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

@CAP - but wasn't it you who bought my BMX??? And you're right, the blow was cack - can I have my bike back?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Faux Artist on February 22, 2010 at 15:38

Would you believe it...sh*t in a can! Real sh*t modern art!

Amazing. If nothing else comes of this experiment, at least it has been a voyage of personal wonderment!

It seems the art community, yourself included Mike, attempt to challenge the experiment / defend your passion and profession...but in doing so, just strengthen my own argument that this modern art malarkey is awful. I mean, sh*t in a can?!

We seem to have clearly opposite stances, yet we use the same points to argue with.

Interesting...

-The Faux Artist-
www.FauxArtist.co.uk

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike hinc on February 22, 2010 at 15:45

Ignorance really is bliss. Almost no one you are talking to here is actually involved in making "modern" art - a practice which died several decades ago. Contemporary art, yes - post modern art, inevitably. I'm glad you are getting an education in art history- perhaps you should pursue it a little longer before passing judgments which contrive to be both cynical and naive. Your hypothesis is not so much "wrong" as banal. Shit in a can? Well, yes.... and people bought it. That's the whole point.
But then it was the sixties.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Faux Artist on February 22, 2010 at 16:05

As an outsider to the art community, the difference between 'modern' art and 'contemporary' art is beyond me - however it really is splitting hairs. Everyone so far, including yourself it appears, seems to have grasped what I mean, regardless of my lack of knowledge in the field of historic art terminology. Infact, if you have a gander at some of the websites that sell this type of art of which I refer, they call it Modern Art. This can also be seen from a simple Google search. So whether it is the correct technical term or not...the vast majority of people use it.

Regarding studying art before I can pass judgement - surely this is a very poor thing for someone like yourself to say! One mans rubbish is another mans treasure... Art is in the eye of the beholder... [insert turn of phrase here].

Everyone can hold an opinion on a piece of art, and I’m sure you have to agree that all art is not good (in your eyes, of course).

So; my opinion is that ~~modern~~ contemporary art is awful. This can not be challenged as it it my opinion. It is also the opinion of many many others. Once again, can not be challenged. Likewise there are people in the profession who disagree. This is there opinion and yes, can not be challenged.

Therefore the experiment is not trying to say "your wrong, I’m right"; but attempting to see if an artistic reject can effectively fake some modern art with the same apparent quality as a real art piece...and sell it. Thus making me just as much of an artist who can make identical drivel with no effort, imagination or creativity as the pros.

Going back to the 'your argument is also my argument' argument - "Shit in a can? Well, yes.... and people bought it" is precisely it. People bought shit in a can...I'm not sure how else I can phrase that in order to make it seem less insane.

-The Faux Artist-
www.FauxArtist.co.uk

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike hinc on February 23, 2010 at 8:36

1961 ...can you see how dated, intellectually threadbare and redundant your whole project is in its very conception. Basically, it's a good joke told one time too often. Manzoni did it better half a century ago and repetition is tiresome is tiresome is tiresome is tiresome.............

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Faux Artist on February 23, 2010 at 9:12

I do have to admit, the Artist's Sh*t is an awesome example; one of which I’m unsure I can match. However, he was always a self proclaimed 'artist' and what he was doing was always with art in mind (or so it seems, the more I read about him). I am not an artist, and what I am doing is to question peoples vision of this modern/contemporary art and pose the question of whether it can justify being called 'art' and the associated price tag.

The Sh*t In a Can appears to have been conceived as a "critique of mass production and consumerism, and the waste it generates". This therefore was made with purpose and an underlying meaning slapped onto it to try and justify its existence. This is exactly what I laid out as the reasoning for my dislike in modern art from the very beginning.

I know this brings back the whole debate about 'what is art'...but I think that is a very poor excuse for a rhetorical stance on the issue. It's like asking a religious person how and why they believe there is a god when there is no evidence. Nine times out of ten they will retort with a similar fluffy answer or even pose a question right back.

The debate of 'what is art' is not going to be resolved anytime soon, and I don't intend it to be. That is not my goal.

You say it is tiresome, however I have not been able to find any literature where non-artists take a step back and question the quality of art; or indeed anyone undertaking a similar experiment or project as I am doing now. Yes there have been occasions where artists have done things of which slap of irony and poke fun at types of art, however these are always done by artists with art being the final goal.

I think the Faux Artist is actually a very unique proposal indeed!

-The Faux Artist-
www.FauxArtist.co.uk