[Closed] Modern Art - SPOILER ALERT

See what I'm getting at, is that a piece of art should communicate effectively. If it needs further explanation, then it fails in its objective, imo.

I find this inter interesting. I agree with you but only to a point, you can never really know but what you as a viewer bring is also very important. In the past you have been complementary about some of my pencil drawings like this. (and very nice of you too).
[img] [/img]

or
[img] [/img]

I presume it is because the technical skill needed to produce something which looks a bit like what it is supposed to using basic non-specialised tools, some pencils and paper. This is not the only style, type of work I make and come I from a very “modern art” background.

For me to produce any art work there has to been lots of reasons. It has to do something for me and possibly for one or two viewers too. The two or three main reasons for me producing the pencil drawings I have are not for technique, demonstrating skills (if there are any) or keeping tradition. I don't want to say what the reasons are, publicly here anyway, I personally don't think it is up to me to tell someone what to see. There are no secrets as far as I'm concerned though, no hidden ideas only the educated, wealthy or artistically trained to see. I try to be honest an open not telling and demanding. People see different things, take what they want.

I find the divides art sometimes feeds on can be revolting and unnecessary. Unfortunately the money people or insecure artists create them . That's up to them but I have always gone out of my way to avoid such things, to the point on anonymity, using different names or even someone else pretending to produce the work, when I have had exhibitions in the past.

Isn't it more interesting to make your own mind up about how you feel about a piece of art?

I think rustyspanners comment similar to my own but do think there has to be responsibility on the person to understand their own mind enough first.

There's a difference between art and craftsmanship.

There's a difference between art and craftsmanship.

Is there? Care to explain?

See what I'm getting at, is that a piece of art should communicate effectively. If it needs further explanation, then it fails in it's objective, imo.

Hence why a work like Edvard Munch's 'The Scream' is easily recognisable as 'art' (to most folk anyway, I'd imagine), whereas an unmade bed or half a cow in formaldehyde isn't. Doesn't mean the latter aren't works of art, but perhaps are only so to a much narrower audience.

So the 'artness' of an object is subjective, for some people it does need further explantion and others it doesn't. The unmade bed and Scream are part of the same continuum. Both are instantly recognisable and yes more people would call the Scream, art. but would they know why he is screaming? what is he screaming about? waht is the message and emotion being conveyed, and if folks don't know what it is, then it's just a crap drawing of a bloke holding his head, and it stops being art? So i wonder, if so few peopleknow understand what the unmade bed was 'saying', how many people actually know what 'the scream' is saying. Not many i reckon, and certainly not many without having been told or having it explained, even if only in the little placard next to the picture.

You cannot use yourself as the metre for others, just because you didn't get the unmade bed you say it isn't art, and because you get Scream, it is. That's ok, so long as you have the caveat, 'for me' and i dno't just mean 'IMHO' the artness of it is dependent on the viewer, if your criteria are to hold

The two artists from my previous post were Hitler and Churchill respectively, BTW.

Personally, I like the latter, but not that mad on the Hitler painting.
How much of this is down to the fact that I KNOW it's by Hitler I'm not sure.

Roper, wow! There really are some very talented individuals on here.

So i wonder, if so few peopleknow understand what the unmade bed was 'saying', how many people actually know what 'the scream' is saying. Not many i reckon, and certainly not many without having been told or having it explained, even if only in the little placard next to the picture.

Personally, I find the artist to be an irrelevance - if I see something that generates an emotional response, then that response is relevant and genuine to me, because it's mine

This is another interesting issue, about whether or not the artist can be separated from the art. Famous examples being Wagner (composer not x-factor bloke) and Mishima. Both crazy-A bonkers supremacists but created wonderful work. You might say 'so what' you like the output and that's all that matters, but Wagner would have despised you for listening to his music on a small electronic device instead of a big concert hall. So does it matter then if you enjoy the art, but not in the way it was intended or if you weren't the intended audience?

could do most of what Damien Hirst does -iirc he does not even do it other artists do his work for him - Lauren child - Charlie and Lola fame - used to colour in his big circles for example.

but that is Lauren child doing the technical bit. The creativity was predominantly Hirts's. I'm interested that you could do something like Hirst. What would you do?

I think the problem may lay in the fact that to someone with no knowledge of an artist's previous work can look at one piece in isolation and say 'that's rubbish, that's not art, I could do that'. But often the artist in question has already built up a reputation for creating work that inspires, interests and causes discussion and opinions to be formed. That means that when people like Tracy Emin makes a work that is 'just an unmade bed' people will look at it and try to understand what she is trying to say.

Saying that, not much of her work inspires me.

With many modern artists you can actually doubt they have artistic talent.

But often the artist in question has already built up a reputation for creating work that inspires, interests and causes discussion and opinions to be formed.

+1 and sometimes the work only means something because of all that has gone before it. The Rothko stuff means nothing in isolation, it is a response to the art that has gone before.

With many modern artists you can actually doubt they have artistic talent.

If you look at Tracey Emin's earlier works you would not doubt that she can draw and paint in a more representational manner, so you may like or not like what she does now, it may or may not be a load of crap, but she is definitely not doing it because she "can't paint properly".

[i]but this is recursive, because you have a conception of art and artistic talent which does not include the things they do.[/i]

Ah, so Jedward maybe really are the great artistic talent of our age then 🙂

Ah, so Jedward maybe really are the great artistic talent of our age then

you never know, look at all the stuff we call classic now. I mean some folks think Wham! were great. and what about ABBA?

I'm interested that you could do something like Hirst. What would you do?

Wagner - my son used to make me listen to this whilst having tea - he is not chilled out at the dinner table music

There's a difference between art and craftsmanship.

Well there certainly was in The B of the Bang was concerned. Fantastic looking sculpture, with the slight drawback that huge chunks of metal kept falling off it, threatening to land on someone's head and kill them

Mind you, it certainly wasn't the last expensive failure to rock up at Eastlands 🙂

I see your point though as I am sure you can see mine

If agree, if it can be done with no artistic talent then it is not art, but this must be more than just recreating it. It must be imbuing with significance too, amongst other things

"See what I'm getting at, is that a piece of art should communicate effectively. If it needs further explanation, then it fails in its objective, imo."

Some stuff needs contextualising to get it's meaning, or implied meaning, or point of view. Knowing it was made in a certain place/time, or by a certain means, or as a result of something, or in answer to something, gives the work it's meaning. Without that information, it's just a thing.

Junkyard - no need to paint your own spots. Damian Hirst doesn't. He has minions to do that for him. He simply has the 'idea' of spots. Then he waves his hands and people scamper off to make it so, put it up for sale, sell it to some gullible half-wit and deposit the cash in Mr Hursts account.

I really can't comprehend how that talentless charlatan has the audacity to refer to himself as an artist? To me he is the physical representation of the utter shallow vacuousness of the whole Blair era Cool Brittania bollocks

No! I refuse to and so I win! Hah!

Binners I know Lauren Child painted them - I mentioned it above - dYou mean you dont read my posts like I do yours 😥

Is there? Care to explain?

it's easier to look at a stock image of a woman walking down stairs and compare it to Duchamps 'nude descending a staircase'

one is merely a facsimile of something real (like drawings copied from photographs) one is a work of art*.

*not my cup of tea just the first example that popped into my head.

no need to paint your own spots. Damian Hirst doesn't. He has minions to do that for him. He simply has the 'idea' of spots. Then he waves his hands and people scamper off to make it so, put it up for sale, sell it to some gullible half-wit and deposit the cash in Mr Hursts account.

The same could have been said of Michaelangelo. 😕

Sorry aJunkyard. i'd read yours, I was referring to the fact, that to my knowledge, Mr Hirst has never actually 'made' anything. Be it sharks in formaldahyde or this tacky monstrosity:

[img] [/img]

If that's art, then so is most of the stuff in the back of the Daily Telegraph Sunday supplement or a Louis Vuitton handbag.

A snip at £50 million though. Perhaps a banker will buy it with his bonus this year. That would be very fitting

he did do the last bit of the sculpting though - they did the easy stuff
I agree entirely Binners - a charlatan snake oil salesman - and the arties love him

I thought Damien Hirsts Shark was bril, as was the sliced cow. brilliant things to look at, think about and get moved by. Just like Body Worlds. Or things preserved in jars in museums. You don't HAVE to attach the word "ART" to it if you don't want to just cos it's in a certain building.

I actually think that the tacky monstrosity was more about the message than the aesthetics of the piece and I for one think it was quite clever.

The diamonds he used were exceedingly high quality and in acquiring them he actually changed the market for diamonds at the time. It made people think about wealth, diamond mining, ethics, the nature of art, humanity and death all at a time when we were poised on the brink of recession.

Whether or not you find it aesthetically pleasing, it has evoked a very strong reaction from all who knew about and to my mind that makes it a very good bit of art.

i loves a good bit of arts me 😀

Kevevs - Do you mean Body Works? I thought all that plastination malarky was brilliant, fascinating. Defintiely Art IMO.

I think I'm going to head down to that there London village with an iPod full of good music and stare at some art...

What tyres for hitting on arty types?

Yeti - You could go and sit in the Rothko room at the Tate modern for a bit, then go and get like, TOTALLY STOKED and gnarly n shit on the South Bank. Its a win/win

You may see Elfin/Fred hucking off the Millenium bridge. You could stop him and have a skinny decaffe mocha frapppachino! Imagine that? 😀

Yeah Body worlds/works. The Rothkos are great eh Binners. Couple of orangey brownish ones in my living room would be lovely!

Shh I'm busy! 🙂

I'm going to Swiss Cottage. 😯

popping in to the Saatchi? what's that still Oil thing? is that there? love that!

it's easier to look at a stock image of a woman walking down stairs and compare it to Duchamps 'nude descending a staircase'

one is merely a facsimile of something real (like drawings copied from photographs) one is a work of art*.

*not my cup of tea just the first example that popped into my head.

The judgment is the same which is what I was trying to understand. I'm not sure of the reasoning of separation.

Also what is wrong with copying from photographs to make a picture and why isn't it art?

I find the Rothko's really quite moving Kev. Don't know why

I used to love it before they moved them from the Tate Britain. There was the Rothko room, a huge Turner exhibition and loads of Henry Moore sculptures. It doesn't get much better than that really 🙂

What is wrong with copying from photographs to make a picture and why isn't it art

i think art has to say something

i think art has to say something

Body Works
i took my 4 year old to that loved it - think he saw it more as science than art tbh. he was not at all squeamish about it and found it fascinating

I used to go to the Tate to chill with The Rothkos after pimping my illustration portfolio around town and before meeting my GF who worked in Vauxhall. Good times!

Also why don't you think a copied image says anything?

It does say something. It says 'I've just copied this'

Also why don't you think a copied image says anything?

ok, it has to say something new.

Also what is wrong with copying from photographs to make a picture and why isn't it art?

nothing wrong in drawing from photographs, it's draftsmanship and the work of an artisan not an artist.

ok, it has to say something new.

So unless it says something new it's not art?
wouldn't that exclude almost every art gallery, including both Tates, private collections and artists? Turner is not new, or Rothko, Hurst, Cézanne, Modigliani, Picasso........is none of their work art anymore?

it's draftsmanship and the work of an artisan not an artist.

as i said before, a direct facsimile that shows me the ability to copy light shade and form from a photograph using the medium of pencil on paper.
without trying to convey anything about the depicted object/scene other than a direct representation within the constraints of the medium.

that's my opinion, i'm happy for people to disagree with it.

But but but ... I would say that roper's drawings are not just copies of photos - certain things are selected and others omitted, the choice of light and shade are probably interpretive, and then the choice of the photo to copy in the first place may be considered to be an artistic decision ...