Look mate; I've bin involved in art in That London's Famous London for over twenty years
i feel your pain. on the 2012 poster evidence you'd have been better off in st ives.
the point i've tried to make is that sometimes things have to be this poor for things to change. not everyone is thick, if you've picked up that contemporary art is shit then others will too. that will facilitate change............
eventually 
And I know enough to say something's crap if it actually is
Just because you think its crap doesnt mean it is.
The concept of 'concept art' is bollocks. All art stems from a concept within the artist's mind...It's just a label to give to something that the ponceratti seek to commercialise, in order to maintain their positions within the art World.
That statement is boll ocks.Proof in itself that you dont like/understand 'conceptual' (not concept) art.
Are you saying Klein, Beuys, Le Witt (or dare I say it Hirst) are any less valid as artists than say Rothko, Freud or Matisse.
For someone who claims to have seen and spoke to 1000's of artists I find your views on art naive and basic.
Right. This might be that the pictures aren't rendering properly cos I'm browsing on my phone, but does that one with all the words say "arse piercing rod of muscle" at the bottom?
These posters are good. We have a rich and diverse artistic history that most countries would die for. Why not get Riley to design a poster. Would rather have that than some graphics graduate designing something he thinks is 'fitting'. Whiteread, Hodgkin, Hume .... artists that are deservedly recognised for the work they have done to date.
That statement is boll ocks.Proof in itself that you dont like/understand 'conceptual' (not concept) art.
Concept, conceptual, whatEVER.
I understand art. And I also understand what is a load of bollocks. Simples.
For someone who claims to have seen and spoke to 1000's of artists I find your views on art naive and basic.
Stock response whenever someone criticises something that's nowt more than a load of dressed up cobblers. Change the record. I could just as easily say that you're easily taken in by bullshit and pretentiousness. See?
The thing is, no matter how "good" those posters might be according to "art lovers", for the average man in the street, they're still w***y b******s. Whoever commissioned those appears to have totally missed the point (or maybe I have, and the Olympics really is totally corrupted).
Aracer's got it. The Lympics are for everyone, not just a bunch of self-serving mutual mental masturbators pretending to be clever...
I find the world of art quite hard to understand.
I like the stripes one, and I like the cup rings one, and I quite like Bertie's hat. They're nice to look at.
When I went to the Tate Modern, some of the stuff was nice to look at, some wasn't.
What I cannot for the life of me get my head around is some of the utter guff that comes with it - this represents this and so on. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Why not just draw something nice, and let folk enjoy looking at it. No need to complicate it surely?
Can't believe I've contributed to an art thread 
I don't want to get into chat about the merits of art, or whether it's just blobs and doodles and other rubbish, even though it obviously is 
But, some of those I just can't connect to the olympics at all. Even with the explanations half of them still seem like they could just be stock art with a bit of mumbo jumbo attached. Yeah, that totally represents a wheelchair, obvious isn't it. The leaves? No, no idea what those are for. Isn't the wheelchair tennis held in a forest? No? Ah well.
i think they are great for various reasons.
but mainly because they boil the piss of the visually unaware.
the Munich 72 posters are worth a look.
What I cannot for the life of me get my head around is some of the utter guff that comes with it - this represents this and so on. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
So what? This is why art is art, it only has to mean anything to the artist.
Recognised by who? By poncey arty types? The thing is, no matter how "good" those posters might be according to "art lovers", for the average man in the street, they're still w***y b******s.
But as has already been established, the man in the street has already had their chance at tickets, these posters are not aimed at generating interest in the games or selling tickets, they are the artist's interpretations of what the games mean or represent, that is all. They only have to mean anything to the artist.
I understand art. And I also understand what is a load of bollocks. Simples.
Clearly you don't.
elf, you clearly can't distinguish between concept and conceptual art regardless of your opinion of it. a shame given your claim you've been to so many shows. is it that you somehow feel thwarted?
a representative example. i'm no fan of video art so much so i hesitate to call it art, i can cite many examples and of why this is so and unlike yourself don't have to resort to comedy posturing in order to do so (tho i can if i want to - douglas gordon, you occupy a special place in my zone of dislike). my daughter, on the other hand, who has no art training but has been going to galleries since she was wee, loves the stuff. i gain great joy and some insight by tagging along with her to such things. she has neither being gulled by 'the establishment' nor has she been disillusioned. rather the opposite in fact.
similarly, back in the day i used to do environmental art classes for high school kids. was it based around notions of conceptual art? it could be argued so. what was certain was that the kids loved it and me, i count it as one of the more quality things i've done in my life. what dissenting voices there were, were such as yours with all the same dismissiveness and all the same certainties. it seems a peculiarly joyless position (and one that feeds on the very things it supposedly protests against).
i love creativity in daily life. i think it's great that a bunch of well known artists have got involved at all even if, looking at it, it's not really to my taste. i hope it inspires (or at leads goads!) people into doing something themselves. but that's just me
they boil the piss of the visually unaware.
Don't try pretending you're all superior and can 'understand', cos you're lying to yourself. You can build a wall against the truth, as high as you can, but you've no mortar for your bricks.
Clearly you don't.
Clearly, there is something you don't understand.
One day, if you're very lucky, I may explain it to you....
margin, seeing as you mentioned beuys.
back in the day i had some quality wtf/elf style rantings about him. fortunately tho i also also bumped into richard demarco who was both a compatriot and remains a great proponent of his work. demarco is a guy who can proper noise people up around these parts but for me, in my dealings with him, i've found him an utter (eccentric) diamond. he totally changed and enlightened me re beuys. i'm still not that enamoured with his work but thinking about t changed the way i approach creativity.
as for klein. those blue pairings. too sublime for words!
elf, you clearly can't distinguish between concept and conceptual art
Oh dear. Oh well, there you go then eh? 
you're going to cite duchamp. really?
there is a critical distinction between concept and conceptual art (mainly because they're too entirely different things). pasting pictures is not that.
here's an example - if you're going to paraphrase kosuth, at least get it right.
or maybe you're happy just with the pictures and the shouting of bollocks. in which case fair play to you.
there is a critical distinction between concept and conceptual art
Granted, I used the wrong term, originally. But tbh, it's of little consequence, cos the crap on display in that selection of posters isn't deserving of the title of 'art' in any shape or form. Just cos the 'artist' is pals with some ponce who owns a gallery etc dont' make it 'art'. The whole Brit Art thing is merely an exercise by those with certain power and influence in the world of visual communication, to see just how much they can pull the wool over the eyes of the 'philistines'....
You carry on being a sheep; don't expect the open-minded amongst us to go 'baaaa' too..
Oh, and if you can work out the relationship between the two images I posted, then it means you 'understand', maaan...
Joining this debate late but really quite shocked at the spleen, vitriol, contempt and even hatred exhibited towards artists by what I'd previously considered a reasonable/tolerant bunch on this forum. Take a look at yourselves people.
pmsl at the Cockney Snob Effin the Capitalist Vulture, harpooning down at the
thread from a high in his tower.
Thats some rant fella, Marvellous making me feel better in my sick bed
Not bad..
The symbol just makes me think of Lisa Simpson giving head though.
But as has already been established, the man in the street has already had their chance at tickets, these posters are not aimed at generating interest in the games or selling tickets, they are the artist's interpretations of what the games mean or represent, that is all. They only have to mean anything to the artist.
Or do you really think these posters appeal to the general public outside the "intelligentsia"? Surely any mass appeal art shouldn't need an explanation in order to make sense of it?
I completely agree with most of the comments on here and the posters are not my cup of tea, but...
I think the whole point of art is to stir up emotions and create a talking point, we now have a three page thread discussing 10 pieces of art and people are getting very passionate in their views, has the fact that this art appears to be so poor actually meant (to STW anyway) that this has now become exceptional because of the effect it has had on everyone?
However what winds me up about art is it is meant to be an individual experience - everyone gets something different out of a piece, has their own interpretations, etc. Why do we need to be told by an art 'expert' what it means? It means something different to everyone who see's it, in the context of these pices of art, everyone see's complete shite 
I presume they got paid for them though? And as posters they're designed for public consumption? If they only have to mean something to the artist rather than appeal to the general public, why didn't they save their our money and let the artists indulge in their mutual onanism at their own expense?
They sold 250 limited edition prints of each for £500-£950 a piece, I suspect that will have covered the artists costs.
Why do we need to be told by an art 'expert' what it means?
You can't stop people sharing their opinion, you don't have to take any notice of it.
How the hell can they call this Swimming ? More like drowned as i can't see anyone swimming!
Just proves to me even an Artist has no visionary on this joke of Olympics we are
holding
i would like to know if they got paid also, esp as there appears to be little effort on show from many of them. i was particularly disappointed with chris offili as, despite me not liking him at all around the time of the elephant pictures, the last show of his i saw was both sumptuous and dazzling.
and mass appeal art that should't need any explanation? aside from the contradictory nature of such a statement then obviously religious painting must be right out the window. in fact quite a lot of narrative painting generally. and who are this mass? i'm not sure i'm one of them.
according to racer then i must be one of the intelligentsia. excellent! i hadn't realised that. better yet, according to elf, i must be a sheep. what a commitment to labelling you all have. i dread to think what you'd come up with if this is performance based around someone's taste or lack thereof.
what a pity to dismiss an entire group of people down to they type of art they practice. how shortsighted to dismiss those who might like to talk about it. how blinkered to dismiss an entire art movement without considering its influence - tho elf should know about this and all those isms as, he tells us, he went to one of those art schools so obviously if he says brit art=the whole of conceptual art it must be true. what was it, elf, one of your art school pals did better than you?
me, i've more faith in the 'man in the street' (or maybe back in the island days the man in the croft). on friday i spent my time at one of those art shows where folk who never went to art school, who'll never have themselves that much touted gallery show, got a chance to put their work up. and that at a spot that receives no public money (doesn't ask for it), if anything exists in spite of the lack of it. was there talk of what art is or what art isn't. not a whisper. best leave that to those who like to sit back and sneer. indeed since the islands i've never been at one of these gigs where this type of conversation has come up.
course we must all be the 'intelligentsia'. maybe i'll suggest that to the wee girl age 10 3/4 (not 10 1/2 mind) who was there. or the street trader guy who wants to start his own publishing thing. or any of the rest of them. maybe they missed the sign at the door pigeonholing them, telling them what they were and what they should think. there's a word for that. what they did do was what they do at so many of these things - have a good crack about what a **** magic thing the arts are, how where else could you get such a diverse bunch of folk in a space, how there was everything from 'conceptual art' to pictures of cows and what a great thing that was.
there was no mention of any olympics and if there had have been any value judgements would have passed swiftly by in favour of the question 'what would i do'? it's the same question i'd raise to the kid that feels excluded by the very views elf espouses, art's not for them, they're not good enough. i'd show them martin creed and i'd say can you do this. and all of a sudden they'd have a way in.
it's not fair to criticise elf for a few passing comments on a forum. there are plenty of other people who tell us what we should like, what we should think. what's right, what's wrong, those subjective criteria by which we should judge people. and of us those, many say a lot worse. when i'm doing the education/proselytisation part of my 'creative work' i say art gives us a means to escape from all of this. not the chat, that's just hot air, a rake of blethers, but the actual work of it. art i say does not make the external world beautiful (tho it helps) but the internal one.
i have a big motivational soap box i can get on here but i'm not going to. i'm off to do the art thing. and then, once the frost has melted i'm away on my bike. and get away from the negative vibes!
Don't try pretending you're all superior and can 'understand', cos you're lying to yourself. You can build a wall against the truth, as high as you can, but you've no mortar for your bricks.
Not pretending anything, any ideas of me being an arbiter of taste is just your imagination running away with itself. I was merely stating that their intrinsic worth to me goes beyond any aesthetic but more as a catalyst for plebeian debate about art. .
3 pages of simmering micturation is worth any increase in council tax.
3 pages of simmering micturation is worth any increase in council tax.
No thanks i am paying more towards the Olympics out of my council tax already
as i live within the borough of Newham.
Heh! You like that one, innit Grantway?
I was merely stating that their intrinsic worth to me goes beyond any aesthetic but more as a catalyst for plebeian debate about art.
You are Brian Sewell and I claim my five pounds. 'Plebian'? Get over yourself. Loosen up a bit; if you weren't so uptight you might actually be able to produce some art yourself...
the kid that feels excluded by the very views elf espouses, art's not for them, they're not good enough
That's actually the opposite of what I'm on about: elitism serves to perpetuate the situation of power and influence of particular groups, whilst excluding those who don't conform. Far from being 'radical' and 'open minded', it is in face the reverse, and discourages new ideas other than those sanctioned by such elites.
I genuinely prefer this version.
I think the vermilion undertones hint at the visceral intensity of devoting a whole identity to a single purpose.
Granted it was done by a group of toddlers at their daycare centre. So it is possible they have a differing narrative depicting it's intent.
Liking it Ian; liking it....
That was magnificent, swiss01! While reading that I could hear strains of Elgar faintly in my ear. It was like that advert for when they brought back Tetley's Tea.
Also, wunundred!
Seems only fair on a thread where Elf is getting his art handed to him on a plate that he should be denied this simplest of pleasures too.
+1 for Swiss and a big fat nil points for the art bloke on the BBC... and the "art" itself.. utter self serving pretentious guff....
Just shown the pics to Mrs Rickmeister...
"What a ******* load of utter w**k by some self serving ******d that must be so f****** up themselves... "
So thats clear then!
Ianmunro's kids FTW, I have never seen such a clear visual interpretation of gymnastics and the subtle juxtaposition of hockey and fencing..
See I can talk self serving bollocks too...
Shame. They got some of the 2007 Tour Prologue ones so right.
This one's been mentioned already but it is fantastic:
This is classic too:
Liking those posters finbar...
What gets me, is that once again London Transport can get it so right:
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
