otish coz images we create is art..  :-) 

daily mail.. (ah.. shush.. you people who think dm is a gossip paper.. :-p)  finally did a sane survey.. the result is interesting.. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365672/Modern-art-How-gallery-visitors-viewed-work-Damien-Hirst-Tracy-Emin-5-seconds.html?ITO=1490

cheers

Well when you have idiots like David Hockney giving us swimming pools and George and Gilbert giving us crap I'm not surprised people don't look at modern art twice. I've found recently that masters like Holbien had a lot more to say in their work which was often full of social commentary.

I think it was just last week that a picaso went under the hammer for $90mill. I could have done better in Vue with my eyes closed.

Didn't Tracey Emin give us 'The Unmade Bed'? Should come and take a photo of mine every once in a while. I'd make a fortune.

I ditto Bryster's view point.  What really puzzles me is why and how did these artist(?) ever get recognition.  As the survey shows it isn't very appealing to vast majority of viewers.

true, but there is some modern work worthy of a look, i wonder what the results would be if the same pieces were looked at again in 50years

rj ..been to tate modern.. 4th floor. the structure of the tate is amazing..that's for sure. the lighting, the wall. 

art? um..a sink drain plugged into a hole in the wall. A toilet.  

At tate britain.. a layer of rocks gathered together and made into an extra big oblong or squares palced on the floor. Itw as roped in..you couldn't even touch them.

How about the chap from China..who exhibited a layer of ceramic sunflower seeds..  he had them made in a factory..gazillions upon gazillions of them..to be put on the floor..and have people walk over them. Unfortunately..they had to remove them as the paint used  was toxic and was coming out in the dust created by  walking over the seeds. 

50 years from now? I don't think I'd spend a even 1000 on rocks art