Alyssa Monks creates some of the most beautiful and startling paintings (yes, this IS a painting) mainly of the female form in the shower. They're in no way crude or pornographic but delicately studied and demonstrate a craftsmanship that is simply breathtaking. Google her to see more.
Jason Taylor has established a series of really amazing sculptures on the sea bed. This takes heed of what DT1 mentions above - some art works best in a specific environment. These pieces will probably never be seen by most people which delves into an even more profound concept which I believe was first breathed life by Oscar Wilde: Does art need an audience in order to be art? This is one of the most fascinating bits of work I've seen in modern times, not simply because of its physical configuration but because of the deeper questions it raises about art.
HR Giger is an artist that I have loved for years. His imagery is equally terrifying and erotic. He creates environments based on sex and death woven into beautiful biomechanical landscapes that are stirring to say the least. His work has inspired movie makers for decades including Ridley Scott and many others.
Tracey Emin. Bit of old rag. Cher-ching.
Now, I know that art means different things to different people. DT1 your posting is excellent and does provide a different perspective, but for me personally an artist should have at least some level of skill or craftsmanship and not just "an idea". And even if it is just an idea then it should at least be one which matters to some degree, otherwise even the "bloke in the pub" can be an artist if all ideas constitute valid art. I realise that market forces may have pushed for the avant garde in order to spike the industry with fashionable innovation (which no doubt translates into big price tags) but there has to be some level at which such work is regarded as the rubbish it truly is.
Look at it this way. If "just any" woman took used tampons into an art gallery then she'd be shoved out, and may even have the police called. But if "an artist" does the exact same thing then it suddenly becomes interesting to people, like the force behind the artist's idea is somehow more valuable to society than "just any woman". This is where I get lost in modern art. I won't bother looking this up but I do remember seeing paintings that had been made from human poo, which were causing a real buzz at the time. I mean, come ON!
Sure, the guy in the pub DIDN'T think of it first, but does that really make it valuable as a piece of art just because an artist did? Perhaps nobody else thought of it first for a bloody good reason! Perhaps some artists, like Emin, are struggling to dream up such shocking claptrap in order to carve a reputation for themselves rather than doing what I believe art SHOULD do, which is providing something of value to the society they represent.
I still maintain that Emin's work is dire, diabolical, and offers nothing more than the most basic freak-show curiosity.