What's wrong with contemporary art: Jane Deeth at TEDxHobart 

What's wrong with contemporary art? The artists aren't making anything that can be appreciated without a 10 minute lecture or a degree in modern art.

perhaps we need to reclassify these pieces as non-art works of visual philosophy.

Modern Art -- like Postmodernism -- boils down to playing word games: shuffling semantic labels around to give the appearance of being profound.

No. "Contemptuary"Art is not a spoiled child seeking attention. It's a spoiled Artist seeking attention. The examples used are not indicative of good Conceptual Art, but rather examples of Art as Celebrity. P.S.,... Contemtuary Art is elitest. It takes pride in it's alienation. I'm not offended easily especially by Art, however when it is given monetary value, that's what is offensive.

The title is "What's wrong with contemporary art?" but then she spends most of her talk criticizing the viewer and the culture for not "listening" to art. She should then call it, "What's wrong with contemporary culture?"

I was expecting a critical analysis of modern art. I listened to 14 minutes of nothing. Funny, that's similar to exactly what's wrong with modern art!

There is much good in here, and I am a fan of contemporary art broadly speaking. But, two points. 1) The message is a bit patronizing: if you would only listen, you would see the value. Can you modify that message so that those speaking against a work have the potential to be "right" in what they are saying? For 2) How do you distinguish a good piece of contemporary art from a poor one? If contemporary art has the potential to be bad, then those speaking against the work have the potential to be right.

There's 12 minutes I'll never get back again......

I want to assemble all the "modern" artists in one room and tell them: "postmodernism was fun we had a good 60 years but it smells. Let's move on." I am actually burning to see a new movement arise like it did with Pop or abstract expressionism. I have not the slightest clue in what direction it will go. Probably a counter culture of traditional high-skilled craftsmanship with a fresh twist.

Maybe this woman should start listening to others. She demands that her perspective be understood while at once denying the perspectives of others. She demands that her definition of art be accepted, while denying the definitions of others. Like all intellectuals who subscribe to a discourse, she is condescending as fuck by branding people incapable of understanding her discourse rather than seeing them as having a merited, negative, understanding of her discourse.

Most of the main Art schools here in the US should be called self defense academies, they teach you how to defend garbage and argue validity into it. Good artistic skill never needs its' author defending it.

Just because something can spur philosophical thoughts doesn't mean that it is art. A tree can lead to philosophical thoughts about one's place in the world, or where one's strength comes from. However I wouldn't call a tree art. A tree is a blank canvas to place thoughts upon. I won't attempt to define art. However contemporary "art" is not art.

I know how to listen, that's not the problem. When galleries go through great lengths to promote works that have no merit whatsoever, that's what's wrong. Art isn't valuable as children expressing their whatever, if the expression doesn't have artistic merit it's called trash. Yes, everything means something to someone, congratulations art world you've discovered what we all knew at age 2. I can handcuff a dead rat to a manhole cover and call it "Urban Development" and that will mean something to someone but most people will call it crap, because it is. The moment you put a $3 million price tag on it, dedicate a room in your gallery, and give me prizes for it that's just lying to people saying their tastes don't matter and rightly people are going to be a little insulted that you think they're stupid for trying to trick them into appreciating crap with accolades. She threw eggs because she disagrees with the philosophy that it's OK to lie to people saying "blinking lights" is worth some sort of art prize. Egging the blinking light room did absolutely nothing to reduce the worth of the art, because there wasn't any to begin with, so her philosophy was proven victorious and you art nuts just completely missed it and thought it was envy.

This is, quite simply, the worst TED talk I've ever seen. Her main point--that we need to listen to the artwork--could equally be applied to the sidewalk or to a dumpster behind Denny's. How does it in any way validate the crappy works of art she speaks of? A mind-numbingly bad speech by someone too self-satisfied to notice that the emperor has no clothes.

In all honesty contemporary art seems like an abuse of the relationship between the viewer and the piece. Contemporary art is basically saying hey I'm going to use minimalist skills in this work and you, the viewer, should rack your brain over some message or idea that I am trying to convey that does not actually exist. You should also pay me hundreds of thousands for causing you to look introspectively at yourself. Total scam

If you validate and explore the light bulb, aren't you obliged to validate and explore the egg being thrown at it? Both are forms of expression. And isn't the egg more visceral and honest than the intellectual dance routine that created the bulb? I have to say that I really don't care for the bulb, but I do like the egg.

When I listen to Mozart, I don't need to know the meaning. I like it because its beautiful.The piece is worth studying for people concerned with the subject i.e. music,but even people who don't know what a chord is will appreciate the music. That's art

I feel like if at any point a person stands in front of your work and they get nothing from it you've failed. The personal connection is found through the on sight resonance. I shouldn't have to go and make a connection first to appreciate it. If you see it and feel nothing it failed bottom line. You shouldn't look at work and feel like you're being ripped off because the artist didn't feel like making their work speak. What she calls listening I call grabbing for what isn't there.

Basically she said nothing.

I disagree with what this woman says, that the onus is on the viewer to find interest in the work as opposed to the artist presenting his idea in an interesting and engaging way to the viewer. To say that making unintelligible visual works is what's "right" about contemporary art is an exercise in double speak. That is what's wrong with contemporary art: only the people who have drunk the kool-aid "get it", where as the majority of us are left scratching their heads.

Art is only well known because of the value collectors and museums give it. People with money give it value. Its politics plain and simple, money buys exposure. Once again its billionaires who tell us who to give our attention to. If that one person didn't buy the giant shiny balloon animal for 55 million NOBODY would care. But because a single piece sold for a ridiculous sum because ONE person with money liked it, we're given the impression that there's merit to the art. Nobody gives value to art but YOU. All the crap you see in museums really is just that, its garbage...But at least one person happened to like it.

My general rule of thumb is: If the viewer has to spend more time to research and interpret the work than the artist spent on making it, it probably doesn't belong in a museum.

Jane Deerth's condescension towards the "intolerant parents" who don't know rubbish from art is infuriating, but her comparison of Contemporary Artists to misbehaving children is spot on. However, what she fails to ask is: What do we need Contemporary Artists for, when the world is already full of misbehaving children?

Everything should sound like Mozart. Forever.

The average person sees an architechtural marvel and they are amazed. The average person sees modern art and they see trash. Interesting isnt it?

There are a lot of people who don't know the difference between 'Contemporary' and 'Conceptual', and Jane Deeth is obviously one of those who display no understanding of her own misunderstanding!

Art is so the way it is so ordinary people feel they are capable of doing it themselves saying "I could become an artist too!, This is so easy!" and their self esteem is lifted.

Why is there ALWAYS a group of people that feel that certain art is not art? Art just does not consist of nude models, religious imagery or landscapes, if certain art is not to your taste, then move along and look for what you like.

The gist of Ms. Deeth's argument is that the viewer of what she calls "art" has the responsibility of examining himself or herself and adapting his or her views to the artist's view or philosophy-- at least to some degree. The responsibility of the artist to the viewer is not mentioned. Thus the following question comes to mind. Why is there ALWAYS a group of people that go out of their way to offend others and then label them as Philistines for being offended? The problem with the offenders is that they do not want us to "move along". They want to rub their misbehavior on our faces. We can avoid the unmade bed, the on-and-off light switch and the shark in formaldehyde and ignore their pointlessness, but that does not satisfy some contemporary "artists". They hurl public insults and they play coy about their motives. They pretend to have high brow intentions while deliberately insulting our tastes and values. We'd like to move on to worthwhile things-- but the high brow vulgarians don't want to let us do so.

This video/lecture is mis-titled. From the lecturer's point of view the question is "What's wrong with contemporary art audiences?" Not 'what's wrong with contemporary art'? That wasn't answered...and I'm not sure she thinks there is anything wrong period. Interesting nonetheless.

I think leaving out the money issue is a BIG omission. I'm a working artist myself, and my gripe with--for example--Tracey Emin's 'Bed', isn't that it's 'not art' but that its noticeably less interesting and well executed than equivalent works by the Kienholzes or Louis Bourgeois. But for non-artist friends, I sense their objection to the kind of pieces profiled in this Ted Talk is not that they're 'too weird' or 'not-art' but that they sell for huge amounts of money. I think any short talk on the contemporary art world needs to address this because its a valid and interesting problem; one we ignore at our own peril.

9:10 She chose to throw eggs at it? Well, then it must have been a performance! No, but seriously. There is contemporary art that is good and that actually can speak to people who don't have a degree in art, but sadly most contemporary art isn't like that. I wouldn't have a problem with that and most of the time I simply ignore bad modern art, but sometimes there are reasons to get angry about it. Example: My school went to an art exhibition in honor of the Expo in Milan in 2015. The theme of the Expo was "Feed the Planet" and it should have been about ideas helping to make food accessible to the poor, environmental friendly food etc. (that the Expo mostly failed in conveying this message is another story). Anyways, as soon as we reached the part of the exhibition about modern art, we were able see the exact contrary of that message in many different pieces of "art". One artist, for example, had put a lump of mozzarella into a chariot, calling it "Mozzarella in carrozza", which is basically a pun about an Italian dish with the same name that literally means mozzarella in a chariot. And that's it. That's the whole message of it. And the museum was putting a new lump of mozzarella into that chariot everyday. Do you know what a waste of food that is? Another artist had build a house out of bread. I don't need to say more about this. These things really made me angry, because it just shows how little respect and gratitude we have for being able to eat as much as we want to. So in some sense these works had a meaning, but it wasn't intended by these artists...

What happened to 'a picture paints a thousand words'? With modern art, a thousand words seems to be required to paint a picture. Art should stand on it's own merit- it shouldn't need an essay to convince us that it is art.

I can't believe no one booed.

since Duchamp, nothing really new has been done. When Duchap started with his ready made, it was a revolutionary idea. it made people reflex on what is art or not. Now, galleries don't want us to question anything, they want us to assume that if it's in the gallery, it's ¨art¨ and whatever the price they put on it is fair. it's mostly a money laundry scheme. There's some genuine good contemporary art, but it's rare to find it

she equates opinions of modern art as a troublesome child who have nothing to constructive to say. I completely agree

So what she is saying is that WE must "listen" to the "bad behavior" of Contemporary Artists. Awww….the poor babies have something to say and we're NOT LISTENING! BAD BAD BAD people. Shame on us. How did the world get to be so crazy. A pile of poop in the middle of an Art Gallery…and there is something wrong with US for not wanting to look at it, engage it, or think about "what is good about this "art".

I don't need to 'listen' to bad art any more than I need to listen to a bad song on the radio.

I went to museums with my best friend and his dad. His dad is a abstract expressionist and owns his own gallery and will stand at a painting in a gallery and talk about it for minutes at a time so everyone can hear and understand. Like all aspects of life there'll always be people, unfortunately elitists who will be heard above the rest, that don't understand. This speech is irrelevant.

Shitting on a canvas tells a story tooo. Someone handled shit and spread it on a canvas. Great story! These nutjobs out in force thumbing down every video calling their shit, ummm, shit.

PhD in madness or narcissism more like it.

Okay... Or maybe the emperor really is naked, Lady.

The problem is that people want art so much to correspond to their personal expectations about what art should be. The problem is that people expect art to be something they should understand, sometimes with a minimum effort. The problem is that people confuse understanding with liking.

If the visual aspect of the work is a far second in importance to the philosophical aspect, then the artist has chosen the wrong form of expression. The artist should be writing an essay or book to explain the idea. An artist can hide his/her poorly researched and understood ideas in the form of contemporary art.

I think this is a very helpful perspective for people who are newcomers to contemporary art. It was a good talk.

if it takes so much explanation to appreciate it is not art, especially when it doesn't make much sense. The condescension doesn't help

The best bit in this whole video (for me) was near the end when she touches on the idea that contemporary works of art demand more from us than, say for instance, the classical works of the "old masters". They demand more from us in that they ask us to really engage with the work of art, and they have the potential to speak to each person on a level that's intimate and unique to that viewer. The work asks each of us to explore issues and ideas about ourselves; how, what, and why we value what we do. This is something the works of the "old masters" simply don't do. When I look at the Mona Lisa, yes, i, as someone with a fair amount of fine art education in my background, may be able to get more out of it than say, your average viewer with no real art historical knowledge, etc. But the difference between what i can get out of it compared to the average, "uneducated" viewer, is really not that great, compared to the difference between us when we engage with one of these more contemporary works of art. In other words, contemporary art has the great advantage of being able to put everyone on the same level in this sense, where my knowledge and background in the fine arts is not terribly important anymore. What matters is my own personal experiences, my emotional, conceptual, and psychological context. In this sense, we all are on a level playing field with modern art because we all have emotional, conceptual, and psychological nature that we bring with us, and no one person has an advantage in this respect. And what modern art really demands of us is that we engage with that context; our own personal natures as individuals (as well as members of communities, families, etc.). The Mona Lisa doesn't demand this of us; it merely requires our ability to appreciate "realistically" rendered images, which practically speaking, anyone can do. Not sure if i'm expressing myself as precisely as i'd like about this, but i hope people understand the idea i'm trying to point at here.

I can't sing at all but by what you're telling me lady, the problem is with the audience not listening properly. Excellent! I get it now... so, I've recorded a song. It's of me burping. These are the best burps anyone has ever heard. I've called it 'A little bit of indigestion' by me, the artist known as 'Ava Burpsing'. I'll get my coat. I'm off to Sony!

This was definitely what I was looking for, someone explaining how to look at and interpret contemporary art, I was beginning to give up on trying to understand it.

As near as I could figure, her point was that man is suppose to serve art, but art is not there to serve man. However, if you want my investment of time and/or money, then you have to meet my expectations. I have no obligation to spend even one microsecond paying attention to your "art". Effort, skill, and something other than a tired old social justice message better be included.

From my experience conceptual work is not a scam, because for the most part the artist isn't trying to trick anybody into buying it, that isn't their reason for making the thing in the first place. Stupid people get offended by it because they think its trying to trick them or that its trying to be pretentious. the fact that everybody on here is debating the fact that its economically a scam have already thought of work with such a limited perspective that they will never really have any sort of interesting experience with the art. A lot of this work is really referential of events and ideas in history, art history, philosophy, etc. that many viewers aren't aware of (esoteric). Most people don't pretend to know anything about molecular biology or genetics... shame that everybody thinks they are so goddamn smart that they have it all figured out with art.

I wrote that before the summary which was: The problem with contemporary art is that no one listens! brilliant solution, just tell everyone to listen.

The problem isnt with the art its with the viewers .people want to roll into a museum and understand everything like they understand tv,movies,amusement parks,and their friends.Its a game and the best way to play it is to enjoy Art because you DONT understand it.Have you ever seen that guy in a museum talking about the art so everyone can hear?Its a really arrogant way to be.Whats cool about it is that life is hard to understand but we try to enjoy it anyway.Art is the same.Now you can study it and you will enjoy it more..but its impossible to fully understand a work of art.its a mystery why we even do it. She has points to be made but in the end shes wrong to even try to explain it.If you dont get it dont go to a Museum.Its not for everybody and thats ok.I dont get soccer or chess..but I dont whine about it.

In my opinion if an artist wishes the audience to listen and to engage in a philosophical conversation, then he/she must use the visual language to welcome the audience and lure it into this conversation. If the artwork fails to do so, or moreover makes it way too difficult for the audience to understand or witness the meaning behind, or to even identify it as art, then the artist is bad at communicating his/her ideas through visual language. Such people may still offer great amounts of wisdom or philosophical questions. Then why not write a philosophical thesis or a book about it instead of lying in bed or setting up an automatic light shutter? There is a reason why philosophers like Plato, Confucius, Kant are not labeled artists, because the value of their thought was depicted in words so that the audience could read and listen to what they have to say. They understood that its the value of the thought they are emphasizing and not the (art) object that would lure the audience into the conversation. Otherwise the art object in my opinion must be able to tell that the artist put his mind, heart, effort and time into delivering what it's supposed to deliver. The audience should be able to tell that the artwork is radiating the artist's soul. Only then may such art truly be recognized world-wide as a masterpiece. Whether Matisse or Rembrandt, the execution may vary, but it still lures the masses to listen to the artist's soul.

i have been painting and drawing my whole life,visual art is about emotional effect ,what you see and how to express,it is not about thoughts what you listen and what to express.

You could stop in front of anything and contemplate it, its meaning, the way it was made, its form, the feelings you get from it etc. , it's an exercise that can add much value to life. For the way we see the world though, it would be very silly to stop in front of a spoon or a traffic light and do that. Also people around us won't respect our silence if we go on contemplation mode at work or while shopping. We need context, we need to be told that we have now entered a museum where special objects are collected for us to contemplate, a place where silence is enforced, we need to pay for that, we need to be told that what we are looking at was made with effort and has its own story. The art is not in the invisible silk sold to the king, it's in the context that was crafted around him so he could discover how good it is to walk around naked

The title should be "nothing is wrong with modern art."

the problem is contemporary people

I swear some people speak the thousand words for art rather than letting the art speak those words for itself.

Interested how all contemporary artists have such similar demeanor and vocal intonations...

The child's "bad behavior" metaphor can be used for modernism, because the modern artist did not want to grow up, to mature, thus their constant search for the "new" (see Kuspit's online article "The Problem with Youth"). In postmodernism or contemporary art, however, art is not "new", nor "bad" but "Neo" and "tamed", including Tracey Emin''s domestically "arranged", deliberately "messy", and pretentiously "emotional" bed.

It's easy judge art, good art holds your attention, bad art doesn't.

10 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.

It's a complicated topic, but I consider art like something that gets in your senses and makes you feel something, you don't have to reflex a lot about it or to be an expert, you just understand the message of the painting, picture, song or poem, because artists have the ability to translate the emotions. When most people have a problem to understand it, that means that the way used to translate is wrong... Just saying. (sorry if something is wrotten incorrect, i'm learning english)

Many of the comments written here ask whether one can tell a good piece of contemporary art from a bad one. The answer to this is surely 'Yes' in regards to almost everything we consider art before the 20th century. Let's take impression as an example, which was controversial in its time. A Monet surely can be seen as requiring more skill and being more thoughtfully painted than the average joe could put together. Yet, the controversy at the time was that the works were considered too 'sketchy' and like a rough draft of a more finished and polished piece. So why do we now sometimes find them to be more profound and brilliant than the masterful and meticulous paintings produced before them? One reason is because the Impressionists were getting at something new in art that hadn't been done before. Namely, they were painting their 'impression' of a scene: the lighting, glare, and blurry quality included. Instead of a real representation of precisely what a scene 'objectively' looks like, they painted their perpection of a scene instead - the sun bouncing off a lake, or water lilies flowing together in color and palette. Modern Art (one of the movements before you see the contemporary art of today) brought in an even more abstract view. Works were devoted to just one or two colors, a few lines, or some simple shapes. Again, the art community asked why? Now there is none of the beautiful impressions and perceptions the impressionists saw and recreated. What beauty or value can a painting of just a few colors be? Well, an exploration of mood, of color, and of line and shape are some possible answers. Modern artists explored the raw power of individual colors, of sizes, of clashes between shapes and intersecting lines. The smooth feeling of a curve vs. the hard edge and barrier of a straight line. We again saw its beauty and power, and we again recognized which artists were truly discovering these aspects, and which were mere imitators. And now, arriving in the 21st century, art has again turned its sights. One broad answer to the kind of art that is being produced is an exploration of concept, of philosophy, and of the groundwork of 'what art is'. Instead of exploring perfect representation (the old masters), impressions, or abstract form, Contemporary artists explore the notion of what an art piece is and can be, which by its very definition is going to stand on the borderline of what is and isn't art. Can a whole space be art? Does a signed object become art? Can vandalism be art? Can art be ugly, tasteless, blank, empty, disgusting, audience-created, shocking, or even completely pointless? If a work fails to evoke these questions, if 'listening' to it provides no original ideas, if there is nothing to be discusssed about it, then it will die out and be considered a failure. But if it provides a spark, if it gets people talking, and if curators, buyers, and critics like it, it will rise to the top and be accepted into the art world. Not many can make art that reaches this criteria, and it isn't just a crapshoot. There are artists which get us talking, and those that leave us flat, and because of that, a new trend in art now exists all over the globe.

I think this video is significant in today's day and age where it seems people don't take the time to fully examine anything anymore, much less art. Contemporary art for the most part goes so far out of the norm that the only feeling/idea that can be drawn is indirectly by the viewer themselves. If people don't take the time to look at it, they won't be able to understand or appreciate it. However what this woman fails to realize is that just because something is contemporary and 'carries a philosophy' doesn't mean it's a good piece. "The Lights Going on and Off " is a bland and arbitrary piece of contemporary art in my opinion. How well you execute your idea is just as important as the idea itself. Even if your style is 'out of the ordinary' and doesn't follow traditional art rules, if you fail to make something that doesn't connect with the viewer on some type of level you've failed. People that make pieces as dumb as that are whats giving this field of art a bad name.

Iwent into a contemporary Art museum the other day , looked around this huge space and asked a staff member where is the exhibition? She said There it is on the wall. I looked up and saw a few fluorescent tubes put on the wall in a zig zag pattern. I scratched my head and walked out the nearest door amazed that someone had the nerve to call that Art.

I legitimately wonder how much the "white room" plays into what is considered good. The sterile quality of the museum makes everything seem more dramatic. Of course I can make Emin's "My Bed". I do it literally every single day of my life. But when I do it, it's not "art", and I'm almost 100% inclined to believe that this is due to the fact that it's not in a sterile white room, it's in my home where you expect it to be. I think the contrast of the "art" removed from its typical environment and placed in a white room really makes the pieces more dramatic than they really are, and has really propelled Modern Art. My pile of dirty dishes and a photograph of my dead grandmother on the kitchen counter are rather unremarkable. But If they were cut out of the wall and thrown in a large white room, a singular item in a sea of nothingness, I could picture people nodding at it approvingly. Add a few odd touches (off the top of my head, flashing red bulb in the bottom of the drain, empty cupboards filled with porn magazines and a mini fridge with a live rabbit in it) and I think I'd have a hit. The "white room theory". Would love to test it out somehow

The issue here is that the inquiring gaze proposed is merely gazing on an already consumed truth. We are treated like children going to see the strange goings on in a church "why is that man hanging off a piece of wood?" "Why is that man in a dress?" "Why is there so much gold behind him?" The fact that someone else has already decided that there will be a hanging man, a man in a dress, and a lot of gold on show. Really, the questions of the child are immaterial, and the role this woman plays is just like a Sunday school teacher "But isn't the church nice? If we listen very carefully, we can hear the hanging man talk to us in our heads...", and all the other indoctrination. I'm sure that she thinks that she's doing something marvelous, but in fact, she is eating someone else's food, shitting someone else's shit.

Interesting coming back to this talk Very few people seem to like this type of art, yet it is still vigorously promoted I can, understand why. I often ask what contemporary art advocates like about a piece of work and most really struggle to come up with anything worthwhile. Some try and regurjatate the sales lines without any thing convincing to show there is any merit in it Even to Dark Ages around 1200 ad had merit in their Art Historically the last 100 years or so will be seen as an Age of Decadence in our Atr history

After all my life improving my drawing skills , I studied 2 years of fine arts but I quited it after lots of frustration days. One day my drawing techer told me not to draw so realistically. "Try to come back to the time when you were a kid, or draw with your left hand...I dont know why your drawings are so figurative".

I think the problem with this kind of visual representations of philosophy is that the pieces are either too simple or too complex. It's pretty rare to find a piece that fits this category of "bad art" that people create, and one that has a good meaning behind it. It seems that the realization or message of a piece is either so simple it's not worth saying, or so complex that the viewer's will not get to the message

contemporary "art" is an assault rationality, standards, and the hard work of actual artists.

Why is that every time i watch a video of somebody complaining about modern art they only ever show the terrible stuff.

Contemporary art is not a movement or type of art. It merely describes art being created in the now, as apposed to ten, twenty or thirty years ago. It should not be explained, if you can't relate to it, then it's not for you, move on to something you can relate to. There is a lot of art in the world.

The art world of today is as trendy as it was in the past. Just because the aesthetics and trends are different doesnt make it not art. Creativity is creativity. The value is up to all to decide. Now if you are seeking fame and your art style is not the same as other successful artists, it doesnt help to degrade them. Degrading and dissing other people's art will never get you success. You will just turn people off. Better to focus on your own work and find like-minded people who support it rather than dissing the taste of more famous folks. If you want to rub shoulders with these famous artists than try to understand where they are coming from not saying its just trash.

Examine those 'don't likes'? Sometimes, there is nothing to examine. Does it affect my behaviour? Of course it does. It makes me laugh and cry out of madness. Why laugh? Because someone actually placed it in a gallery. Why cry? Because it is considered as an art. There is simply no artistic value in it. You're defending something that degrades art in general, something that pushed many people away from galleries and what makes real artists depressed. In my town nobody goes to galleries no more. Entrance is free. The reason is that there is rarely something good to be seen. People cannot look at it and appriciate skill, they cannot connect themselves with one dot, they cannot stand in front of a blank canvas or a white mug for 1 minute and pretend there is something mystical about it. Many times they would ask the one who made it what does it mean. Many times the 'artist' would respond "oh, I cannot explain it to you". If you have to be an artist to 'see' what is on the canvas, then that is not an art. If I have to stand 20 minutes in front of a painting asking myself questions and giving answers, instead of enjoying the work, skill and/or knowledge then there is something wrong. I want to get inspired and asked myself questions because the work showed me a different world not because I do not understand what he/she ment with one line. I want to feel ENVY of how skilled and knowledgeable the artist was. With 'contemporary 'art'' I feel insulted!

It's incredible to me that people spend their lives trying to get other people to "like" contemporary art. Aesthetic beauty is easily recognizable, and it is immediately effective. She should find something else to do with her time.

there is not a single thought or idea that modern Art could express that has not been done before. Aesthetics is all that is really left. This is true of every medium of artistic expression. This is the view of my uncouth and uneducated plebe brain. Will one of my pretentious betters please correct me?

I'm not familiar with Deeth's work (found this video as a related video to a Corey Arcangel video), but I think her idea that we should look at art work the same way as a troublesome child is actually pretty interesting. I think it is good for it's intended audience, some which are probably parents of younger children who maybe want them to experience "high culture" or whatever but don't really have experience with it. Eventhough the theory will probably put off many artists who don't want to be treated like or equated with children slamming the door to their rooms, I think it points to the idea that we should look at the pathology of different artworks, how did they get there? What in their life made this interesting to them? And how do you get paid to do that, assuming it is what you love, vs making lattes for a living. I think there is a problem with the opaqueness of "artspeak" and the "white cube" as space to experience art, as opposed to say a theater (another cultural construction). I think if she had more time, I would be interested in why formalism/represtation is the first thing she says (around 7:11) is a good example of art "doing it's job" when the rest of her discussion is about contemporary "weird" art. I would also be interested in her fleshing out her conceit. I think that people intervening into works like she mentioned with the "lights turning on and off" piece is an attempt to "form a relationship" with the "troublesome child", ie the denouement of a serious issue in a family sitcom, rather than simply passively "listening", I think it is important to acknowledge that it is still a thing that happens, and that these are natural reactions to something as absurd as Creed's piece...If you got something you don't consider to be in the spectrum of what a hamburger is at a restaurant, you would complain...but at an art museum or gallery you are supposed to feign detachment or erudition which I think is a huge problem in our culture at large not just in the "art world"

9:58 But fucking nobody is trained in art these days! All the high profile art schools have switched to teaching this pretentious nonsense! Amateurs, even those who don't make art themselves, are more qualified than anyone with formal training to judge this stuff.

if the whole point is to listen then we should just sit and listen to the person speak and throw the media itself to the curve.... oh wait thats we have music and audiobooks which still require skill and creativity.

Thank you for everyone who commented! I have learnt so much from these comments!

She brings up the point, one makes a judgement about a piece within seconds and then doesn't examine the judgments made. People look at art and say they are scenes that are common and seen before, without a deeper examination. A life examined isn't worth living. Problem is, if the scene is so common it has already been examined hundreds of times before seeing it in a gallery. I went to the local museum of art today, and found little inspiring, when it came to modern art. I couldn't tell if the artist had studied, or had any real skill. Yet, I've also seen many modern pieces where I could see that each stroke was intentional, and part of the artist's soul was in the piece. The problem with modern art is anything can be called art, with no objective way of judging its merit.

Contemporary art/artist: "It's not about how the art looks like, but the message it is trying to say. It's not about the money either, but it's for sale because I've been clueless to treating my passion as a job, but I've been a starving artist for 20 years so I hope you have some pity for me and purchase my piece for the low price of half a million. thank you"

Yes I agree most Postmodern "masterpieces" are the product of a self absorbed juvenile personality disorder :)

People have been complaining about modern art since the Impressionists. The art world is much larger now and international in scope. As with music , film or TV, you have to figure out what you like amidst all the stuff you don't. In art more than anything else, the variation and selection is enormous. Generalizing about the state of art is impossible. And trying to ascertain the meaning of art is often not the point. We don't ask that of instrumental music or architecture. Enjoy it or not. We don't simply say we don't like contemporary music. We find what we like and listen to that. It's not that complicated.

I am a fan of some contemporary conceptual art, so I am glad that someone has the guts to defend it. But this defense perhaps goes too far. There was little discussion of what is actually wrong with contemporary conceptual art. Her argument boiled down finally to blaming the viewers for not listening to the artists. If an artist wants to be heard, they need to say something that an audience might be interested to or surprised to or - and don't groan too loudly - shocked to hear. Some contemporary conceptual artists communicate effectively with their audience, and others don't. And either way, the audience that wants to puzzle out what is intended by a contemporary conceptual artist is often a very small slice of humanity.

So essentially contemporary Artists are philosophers with poor execution?

if you have to verbally explain it, it shouldn't exist. Use words instead.

I really enjoyed that talk. Fantastic.

Reading so many people thinking they need work explained to them to appreciate it, sounds like when people say they won’t watch a movie with subtitles, because the don’t want to “read the movie”. Or when they don’t like books because the author uses “big words”.

I'm literally 1:13 in. I know the answer. IT STINKS! IT SUCKS! There is no skill involved. Skill is the key. The absolute worst piece of are I've ever seen was from a guy who put paint on the top part of a wall and let it all drip down the side of the wall. I remember thinking "I'd be more impressed if he'd just properly painted the wall.

Bogus nonsense! So in other words this talk was about child psychology and listening instead of questioning con men and women posing as artists or pondering actual art. Look, when I want to listen to something I turn on some music. Art should be something readily identifiable as such. Art created before the 20th-century was identifiable as ART. It doesn't always have to be beautiful but it needs to be identifiable to the common man as well as to the elitist as ART. That way, you don't waste time wondering what the hell you're looking at and whether it is art at all.Nor do you have to have someone hold your hand and explain what it is. You can then ponder the bigger questions of what the piece is trying to convey - the meat of the matter. With contemporary art, you don't even get to the meat of the matter because the so-called artist has wasted your time by making junk and then you have to sit there and wonder what it is you're actually looking at or whether it is art at all.

Her bluntness and candour is standing in for a lack of content (even though she too scared to say 'condom'), there are many contemporary artworks that do the same. There is no problem with art, there is a problem with its representation and the status conferred in it. Because many gallery goers don't confer the same status in the gallery that curators and collectors do, they are not amazed by a readymade such as Emin's bed.

Love reading the comments and realising so many people don’t get contemporary art, so they just dismiss it

"Poop comes from your butt. My poop comes from Tuscan food tonight. We all have butts, but not everyone can poop without help. So eat some food and try those tighter fitting pants on, because you might just realize you lost some weight when you didn't pay attention, or you might just have to throw those pants away, and/or try to poop more next week." Thank you.

it's shit - that's what's wrong with it. end of lecture.

I'd say one of the important elements of art in general is the amount of effort the artist invests in his attempt to make his work "speak" to it's recipient. To clarify - if you are having a conversation and you can't be bothered to articulate your message clearly then the failure to communicate is hardly the listener's fault. Now most of modern art looks like the artist can't be bothered to spare the time necessary to master his craft well enough to make his work comprehensible, and then blames others for not being able to understand it. If you make the effort, you will get your message across, if you don't - it shows you have no real intention of communicating anything, which just makes it a disrespectful waste somebody else's time. So "white on white" might actually carry a meaning, I'm not trying to deny that, however I question the artist's effort to make the message understandable.

I enjoyed Jane's talk. Nobody is obliged to buy, look at, or appreciate whatever is being called art these days. It's entirely a personal experience. If something is total rubbish in your eyes, at the very least it can make you laugh. Some artists are just trying to make a buck, but others have a life-enhancing philosophy or perspective. Our own reaction to the art can be so revealing. For that woman to throw eggs at the light installation means it must have hit a nerve ... but which one?? I'm fascinated! Where were these eggs from; did she have them in her handbag already; what did the hen think of her eggs being used in an act of violence; have the vegans had their say?