Dennis, it does seem like you make these rather provocative comments just to start a debate! I think the big cliche of "modern art" is that it has to be shocking to count. So are artists like Emin really giving their all from the heart or just trying to find the most visually challenging images to make a stir, thereby making a pile of cash. I have to also query your comparison with the Impressionists since Tracey Emin is now an RA herself and so a Pillar of The Art Establishment (god help us all)

In trying (unsuccessfully) to find some images from the current summer exhibition, I came across some rather interesting ones of Tracey Emin taken by Cerith Wyn Evans back in 2000. I'm sure they're very ironic and terribly terribly artistic and don't really reflect her priorities in life at all.

http://www.artgal.co.uk/julian-hartnoll/tracey_emin.php

Elise

Ground-breaking films like 'Up The Junction' and 'Alfie' had a deeper and longer lasting impression on me. And yes, it is shockingly normal. Tracy's work is not new and neither are her experiences. I worry that putting such experiences on a quirky pedestal in a fickle art-world desensitizes and normalizes and thereby eventually and too quickly become overlooked. Great Ist class honours material and nice stuff doesn't make news and if it is not a wider social comment and just about Tracy...yawn

I think we had a similar discussion a while ago on this forum.
It's not about art as much as about something new and shocking to get the crowds in. It's not about art in a classical sense ie being interesting or pleasing to the eye but about pushing boundaries and pushing and pushing.. The art establishment in this country has got an image to maintain to the rest of the world which is wacky and cutting edge and idiosyncratically British and on the back of it an interest is generated in other things British or London as the centre of it.
You don't go to RA to see art , learn from it or get inspired in a classical sense but to see how far they have gone this year. I suppose it is interesting as an experience and to try and work out where they are coming from. It is , as always, a personal take on the world where all the pain and anger etc , shine through.
This is one of the explanations I can think of right now.

http://www.leylamurr.com

Spot on Helen.

I can't help but feel that the majority of the folks who say how wonderfull this 'so say' art is is out of the fear of being told they are ignorant if they don't get it.

It's a bit like when someone tells a joke that makes no sense, but folks still laugh for fear of looking dumb not getting it.

I don't mean you Dennis . I mean all the oiks in the arty world.

Rage on

On the other hand are those who only believe in artistic realism.

If an image is not almost photographic quality or, God forbid, it is perceived as abstract, they too fall out of favour with another kind of cognoscenti!

Art to me is a means of higher level spiritual communion, but to others it is a way of recording what they see in this here and now.

There isn't even agreement on where the big money is spent since Emin and Vettriano (for example) couldn't be more different, yet they are both doing very nicely.

If I knew the answer, I don't think it would make any difference to what I paint or how I work, but I can empathise with those who go for where the bucks are.

And no, I am not a fan of Emin's.

Euphrosene

I'm sorry to report this but I am (tongue in cheek) classified along with Tracy Emins. My Google Blogspot carries a warning that the content of my blog may be considered objectionable by some people.
Are there curtains in front of Tracy Emins work carrying the same warning???

Lol
Jack

Yes there is a warning on the door, at Ms Emins insistance. Let us not forget that this stuff has not been produced by her, she has chosen it for her room.
The point about T.E. is that she and her life are the artwork and her sexuality is part of that. Sure she is out to shock, it is part of her modus operandi, she admits that, but that is because she sees art as being a cathartic experience for the artist and viewer. Once again, I see nothing wrong with it. But she certainly has suceeded, I am just amazed that so many members of this site seem to be joining forces with the readership of the Daily Mail, from whom you expect this sort of nonsense.
Yes bpetrie, that was in my ignorant days, but after doing some reading up and seeing her work, I changed my mind. That is what minds are for.

Yes that what minds are for.
I beg to differ from your opinion,I have a different set of values and am sad the way art is going,along with society as a whole,it is losing it's way and is followed by the masses, ecept for the few that stand up and challenge the herd.
It's so in vogue to set out to shock,but not that original,when that no longer raises eyebrows how far do you go next?

What is the purpose of art? To please, to shock, to challenge, to tell a story? To provide meaningful food for thought? In some cases to provide a work to hang on the wall, or, to stand in a corner or in the garden.
Go gack to Wendy's comment of 11th June. How does a Zebra having sex with a woman, or, a person menstruating fulfill any of those criteria, and there may be more.
If we go back to her first infamous work, the 'unmade' bed. I suppose it may have given some people an excuse to never make the bed on the basis that it was 'fine art'.
I believe art has to be challenging, but not the extent where it defecates upon the mind.
Jack

Wise words Jack

Yes Jack art is all of those things, and that is how it should be. A lot of art being produced today is a direct reaction to this mixed up sometimes horrifying world we find ourselves in. I see the women lacerating herself with a barbed wire hula hoop as an apt and potent metaphor for what is happening in the Middle East today. I was lucky enough to see this piece on show in Liverpool last year and it was both hard to watch and yet strangely beautiful. To judge all art on whether it is pleasing or can be hung on the wall in your home is a rather glib and blinkered view(Goya's Disasters of War anyone?). I would hate to live in Wendy's world where all art is judged on whether it is fit for children to see!
I am glad there are people out there who are challenging us with what art can be.This has been a theme for the last century since Marcel Duchamps readymades, and I am glad to see it is still carrying on. Sometimes it sticks sometimes it doesn't, time is a great filter, and some of the stuff on show will fall by the wayside, but some will take its place in the galleries of the future.
A theme of this thread has been that the artists are only doing it for the money. Well what are we doing on this website? Hoping to sell our work to people and get a bit of money for it! I is just the same, only a matter of degree. And yes, they are just as sincere as we are about their art and to suggest otherwise is naive and ridiculous.
Also people say that it goes straight into storage, well I have seen many of the works we have talked about here in public galleries and I am glad for the experience, and I do not appear to have been corrupted by it at all, (although maybe you should ask my wife).
I am glad to live in a world where art means more than pretty pictures on the wall, where we can be challenged by what we see and hear and not be dictated to by a bunch of maiden aunts who get an attack of the vapours by depictions of sex.That's all for now, I am off to pack up 7 pictures to go to an exhibition to make more luvverly money!

Best wishes for the exhibition Dennis. Blimey it's been a good old chat on this topic.
Jack

Jack wasn't agreeing with you.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Dennis. The biggest bugbear of this topic, for me anyway is your attitude towards others on this site for not having the same opinion as yourself regarding art. There seems to two types of artists for you, the ignorant (for not liking/understanding Tracy Emin et al and their work) and the informed (you ?) I paint to earn a living, by producing work that is hopefully pleasing and can be hung on a wall in someone's home (glib and blinkered it may be). That is the only way my abilities will allow my mortgage to be paid every month. It doesn't mean I don't like or understand other forms of art. Good luck to Tracy Emin, she's made a name for herself and I have no gripe with that.
I'll never appeal to her customers and no doubt she won't appeal to many of mine.

Brian, I completely agree with you and was actually just typing a post to Dennis when you got in before me!

We all have the right to our opinions, and Dennis if you think Emin and her ilk are great artists then that's your perogative. I think it's worth bearing in mind though that those who take the opposite view have just as much right to their opinions too. I think using phrases like "naive and ridiculous", "joining forces with the readership of the Daily Mail from whom you expect this kind of nonsense" and "expect this response from ignorant people" is very disrespectful of the opinions expressed by others and frankly unnecessary. It should be possible to argue your case without needing to accuse those disagreeing with you of stupidity.

Elise

PS What's so bad about the Daily Mail anyway?