[Closed] Modern art??

Mrs deadly asked the same question. 🙂

I went to the opening of a show recently.. some of my work was featured and I knew a couple of the other exibitors.. it was a street art show..

I was not prepared to over analyse the work on the night preferring to keep things at a level that I felt was more honest (and that I felt more comfortable with..) I was really disappointed at the number of 'educated' folk who refused to engage in discussion with me regarding the exhibits once they realised that I wasn't going enter into any deep intellectual debate about the work..

but they were soon happy to talk once they discovered that I was far more informed about the work than they were.. (not happy enough to show this ignorant little street urchin any respect for my artistic integrity though unfortunately..)

In this way I felt alienated.. but I guess that's what keeps the whole circus moving..
we're expected to take a degree in physics to understand physics and so art has had to create an imaginary scholastic history and complexity to create degree courses and heirarchies so that the art industry can function as it does..

I watched a film, 'The Piano' on film night in our university hall of residence (back in the day when most of us didn't have tellies in our rooms). I watched it, ok fine - not bad. Then afterwards one of the English students started discussing it with me.

She pointed out TONS of symbolism and subtext that I'd missed completely. That's when I started thinking more carefully about books and films, and talking critically about them to try and understand from many angles. I get a lot more out than I used to.

With art, I am still in the dark. I do not understand the language in which things are being said to me. Which is a bit of a handicap to be fair 🙂

makes me think they are crap at communicating their ideas tbh
It is niche whoring of the highest order, elitist and thinks anyone who does not get it is somehow a bit dumb or ill informed. I might try this approach with non footy fans 🙄

With art, I am still in the dark. I do not understand the language in which things are being said to me. Which is a bit of a handicap to be fair

this.

i studied cezanne as part of my degree. it opened up a world that i previously did not understand.

i stand by what i said earlier, art is exclusive as we aren't broadly educated to appreciate beyond the aesthetic level.

[i]She pointed out TONS of symbolism and subtext that I'd missed completely.[/i]

Did she let you see her monkey?

If you don't have that then you have no context, and Pollock is just paint splodges and Rothko is just coloured squares.

no they are just splodges and squares. You can call your over rich interpretation of this "culture" or "learning" if you want but I think it is a pointless over interpretation of squares and splodges.
As TM notes it took him years of being told what to see before he could do it. Conditioning the correct response in a viewer does not make that view a reality.

elitist and thinks anyone who does not get it is somehow a bit dumb or ill informed

up to and including the painter.. which is pretty funny..

Art is...... 'anything done well'. [Andy Warhol]

'Everybody is an Artist...but only the Artist knows it'. [Joseph Beuys]

makes me think they are crap at communicating their ideas tbh

So I can blame the Germans for not understanding what I'm saying to them?

I think it is a pointless over interpretation of squares and splodges

It entirely depends on what the artist wanted to say. I firmly believe Shakespeare for instance is over-analysed. It's clear to me he just wanted to make a ripping good popular yarn.

However I'm sure Pollock wanted to convey something through the medium of splodges, and given his success I think he succeeded - to some. Arguably, he knew his audience.

Did she let you see her monkey?

Sadly not, but me at 18 was far too young for her at 21. Although if she'd have taken a student I'm sure I'd have enjoyed the lessons 🙂

Arguably, he knew his audience.

Oh you can say that again. Apparently there's one born every minute.

here's a painting by a 15 year old. When you can do that at 15, where do you go from there?[img] [/img]

Coming to this one late but Pollock, Rothko, Reinhardt are amazing. As is Hirst, Kapoor, Gormley.

I dont pretend to know anything about high level physics, or maths, but why should I. I have never studied it. People feel they should understand conceptual art or pure abstract painting just because they can see it. More to it that that.

Pollocks were originally designed to be shown in narrow corridors, where the eye could not see the edges of the painting and the colour field enveloped you, provoking an emotional response.

Go see the Rothko's at Tate Liverpool or London. Sit in front of them for a period of time and watch how the subtlety becoems more obvious and the colours/spaces fight against eachother.

As Clement Gereenberg (50's art critic)said "everyone's opinion is valid , just some peoples opinions are more valid than others."

The strange thing about some visual/non conceptual modern art and colour field painting is that no artistic knowledge is required, just requires the viewer to experience something when stood in front of the piece. However, viewers often look for more when there is no need. Scale is a huge issue, a postcard of a pollock is pointless (nice postcard though).

As for Hirst's "the physical impossibility of death in the mind of someone living ".......awesome !!

Kapoor's Marsyas is probably the best thing I have ever seen.

Apparently there's one born every minute

What, an arrogant cynic? 😉

Kevevs makes an excellent point. Where do you go from here? Should we still be painting pictures like Rembrandt? Wouldn't we have become a little bored after 40 years of the same thing?

Pfft: Anyone who dismisses people like Tracey Emin in the context of art clearly hazzunt got an open mind about what art actually is.

You are wrong. Do you in fact even know how wrong you actually are? On a scale of wrongness, you are at Olympic/World Champion level.

I'm going to have a shower, as I am very sweaty from playing footy (we won 4-2! Woohoo!).

Then, I may, or may not, come back and explain just how wrong you are, and why.

What, an arrogant cynic?

Cynical, possibly. Arrogant...now Molly, that's not very nice is it? Not like you to be so personal. 🙁

i like rothko too. i've got one in my lounge because the colours are just right. it looks great.
i've no idea what it is or what it means or why the painter painted it.
to my mind, because of that i'm not getting the most out of that piece of art. if i bothered to educate myself, i'd get more out of it.

Interesting you pick Rothko. A very good mate used to rave about him, but the reproductions, while attractive in their own way, didn't really 'do' very much for me. Which is fine, I used to do photoshop and scanning work on artworks, and I know exactly how much is 'lost' in the repro, and how 'flat' a reproduction is. When I finally saw some Rothko's in the Tate, I could appreciate how much more there was to them, but still couldn't see quite what my mate got so excited about. Moving forward, there was an exhibition of Rothko, with a lot of photos taken of detailed areas using UV which revealed hidden layers of 'colour' which weren't otherwise visible. Now, my mate is very sensitive to UV light, and it suddenly occurred to me that Rothko himself might have been the same, being able to see various mixes of a particular colour as different colours due to the way they reflect UV light. Nick, my mate, can see complex layers in a Rothko that are just hidden to me. I can appreciate Rothko, but not, perhaps the way Rothko saw what he was painting.
Do I need 'educating' to appreciate Rothko, or any other artist? Well, certainly, as a number of people have pointed out, you can learn a heck of a lot about the context and subtext of a painting, hidden 'codes', if you like, like the various details in Holbein's [i]The Ambassadors[/i], the distorted skull in particular. However, there is a staggering amount of snobbery and total bo11ocks talked about art, and a fair bit on here. There's a few here could give that poncy snob Sewell. Someone said something like "if you just 'like' a picture, then is it art?" Christ on a pogo stick, that is just pretentious twaddle, It's all about how the viewer interprets what they see, and beauty, of course, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I love works by many artists, old and new, and totally understand what a work of art actually is. I don't actually need all the poncy snobbery that says I can't appreciate a work without being educated in it's 'hidden mysteries' in order to understand that what I'm looking at is a work of art. Knowing about the context of a painting, and what the artist may have been trying to say certainly [i]adds[/i] to the enjoyment of a particular work, but a don't need all that to allow me to just enjoy a Monet, a Turner, Holbein, Rembrant, or Vermeer for the utterly wonderful creations of extraordinarily creative people that they are.

Cynical, possibly. Arrogant...now Molly, that's not very nice is it? Not like you to be so personal.

Full apologies, it wasn't meant to be offensive.

But still - being sure that it's all nonsense and anyone who tries to explain otherwise is a sucker..?

I love works by many artists, old and new, and totally understand what a work of art actually is.

Please explain then because this thread has not reached a consensus 🙂

Nor will it tbh.

Wunundred! 😀

Right then:

Pfft: Anyone who dismisses people like Tracey Emin in the context of art clearly hazzunt got an open mind about what art actually is.

What a bucket of hairy testes.

So, cos I rightly dismiss a charlatan and a fraud, I jolly well have not got an open mind about what art actually is?

I would really like to see your attempt to prove just how narrow-minded I am when it comes to art, I really would.

One of my favourite books from a very young age (about 3 I think) was EH Gombrich's [i]The Story of Art[/i]. I was taken by my mother to art galleries from almost as young an age. I grew up with a love of art, aesthetics, form, shape, colour, etc. I have been exposed to all sorts of art, good and bad. I went to college where I was surrounded by people with artistic talents, then on to Goldsmiths College. Plus, I grew up and lived in London, the Art capital of the World. At college and uni, there were times when I was going to several art shows and galleries a week. Coon't get enough (although I have to admit there were loads of chicks which added to the appeal somewhat...).

Hang on got to attend to me pasta....

It's ok, coming along nicely.

Where was I...

Oh yeah. College and uni.

So, I have met literally thousands of creative people, seen countless works of art, bin immersed in art all me life.

And you think I'm 'narrow minded' cos I think Tracey Emin is shit?

Nah mate. I'm just honest, and not blinded by bullshit like so many others.

Which makes my onion more valid than others, so ner. 😛

Have an El Greco to be getting on with.

[img] [/img]

See that? Art. See Emin? Not capable of anything even 0.0001% close to that.

Should we still be painting pictures like Rembrandt?

only if we feel like it.

Rembrandt wasn't some step in human evolution. A few developments in paint technologies aside any human could have painted in the same manner as him, in any culture, at any time before or since - if they felt like it. For the vast majority of human existence people have had a visual literacy that doesn't require straight pictorial facsimile. Realism is that sense brings the world you are depicting to a dead halt, much as a photo does. Earlier art used fractured and assembled time and space to convey more than a blinks worth of information

MF - it really does help.

Perhaps it does help appreciate art to a greater degree but it doesn't exclude those from who know nothing about it from enjoying it. For example, I have always liked Dali's surrealist period just because 'I liked it'. When I went to art college I wrote my thesis on him and learned much more about him as a person, his methods of generating the ideas, his objectifying of his fears as depicted in his work blah blah blah and so on.

But I still liked his work before I knew any of that crap and I was no less appreciative of it nor less able to have an opinion on whether I liked his work.

[i]Should we still be painting pictures like Rembrandt?[/i]

who is this "we" that is doing paintings like Rembrandt? I'd really like to see 'em!!

maccruiskeen - yer talking shite! There are very few if any painters that have the honesty, or even just painterly flair and natural talent that Rembrandt had at the time, or even since. IMHO etc! the self portraits he did over his lifetime are pretty unique in their quality I reckon.

makes me think they are crap at communicating their ideas tbh
So I can blame the Germans for not understanding what I'm saying to them?

I think my quote is quite clear that the fault lies in you [or the artist]for not being able to speak German /convey your message."Art lovers" are the ones suggesting the listener/viewer is to blame. I am suggesting this is false as your example demonstrates using language the communicator should be able to convey meaning rather than leave the listner to [overly] interpret it.

Wow this thread certainly carried a lot further than I expected it too!! "art" for me as said before, is a bit of a weak subject, I reckon I've been in half a dozen art galleries In the last 35 years, I presume that's where my shortcomings on the subject stem from!!

I reckon I've been in half a dozen art galleries In the last 35 years

😯

I can't even imagine not having had the pleasure I have in seeing art in galleries and stuff. Jeeze.

Please, go to more galleries, look at more stuffs! Seriously, you will enjoy it. Maybe not everything you see will appeal to you, but so many hidden delights await you.

Elfin is shocked by Wrightyson's admission:

[img] [/img]

And you think I'm 'narrow minded' cos I think Tracey Emin is shit

No. Just inarticulate because you aren't able to explain how you arrived at that opinion. Impressive list of opportunities you had, but as Dorothy Parker said - you can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think.

Old Rembrandt is pretty taken aback by such an admission, too:

[img] [/img]

I find going to art galleries seriously knackering. just far too much sensory overload laid on, I want to go to a gallery like a library, so I can clock out one painting and take it home for 3 weeks (with armed guards) and then bring it back! Went to that Rembrandt exhibition in The National Gallery years back and it was like being on a conveyor belt surrounded by hundreds of people to catch a fleeting glimpse of these things I'd wanted to see for years. crap experience!

No. Just inarticulate because you aren't able to explain how you arrived at that opinion.

I'm not even going to indulge your ego by explaining why she's crap. Go ahead, carry on being deluded and brainwashed by the artistic equivalent of Crazy Frog.

I'll just carry on laughing at you.

Elfin, you have a rare talent. How did you manage to be exposed to so much art, be surrounded by so many artistic people and still manage to avoid any education in that area?

I'm not even going to indulge your ego by explaining why she's crap.

It's ok if you don't know. We'll al help you through it

I'm not even going to indulge your ego by explaining why she's crap.

Heh heh!! Good to see debating skills honed in the schoolyard. Yawn!!

Ha ha! Deluded fools. You carry on thinking you're so clever and educated and everything. There's no point me bothering to explain your errors, as you'll just get all defensive and try to justify your (wrong) decisions and then it'll just end up with your egos being seriously wounded and I'm not that cruel.

Binners will hopefully be along presently to confirm your wrongness.

Kev; went Nat port Gal BP Portrait awards couple of weeks ago; oh my God bloody amazing.

Nathan Ford; '[i]Abi[/i]':

[img] [/img]

Jan Mikulka; '[i]Jakub[/i]':

[img] [/img]

Tracey who? 😕

oooooooooooof!

You like that one, innit Yunki??! 😀

[img] [/img]

prog about Scottish painter Peter Hewson on BBC4 Four at 11pm :)[img] [/img]

maccruiskeen - yer talking shite! There are very few if any painters that have the honesty, or even just painterly flair and natural talent that Rembrandt had at the time, or even since. IMHO etc! the self portraits he did over his lifetime are pretty unique in their quality I reckon.

I used the phrase 'in the manner of'

Nice one Kev. It's getting watched.

Am wary about posting on here cos compared to the rest of you I know very little about art, but I don't think that leaves me being merely a passive observer. There is much that amazes and engages me, that leaves me asking questions, considering new ways of looking at the world, or inspires me with the sheer beauty or talent in particular work.

There have been exhibitions where I have just got lost for hours - Friedensreich Hundertwasser's Museum / Gallery in Vienna captured me completely - his painting, architecture, philosophy and concepts all interacted as a whole: http://www.kunsthauswien.com/

Or the Jaume Plensa exhibition at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park - loved the relationship between sculpture, language and the environment - could have spent days there.

Wish I did know / understand more about art, as I do think it adds a lot, but in the meantime I'll continue to be fascinated by things I see whether or not I fully understand it all

I don't think you have to "understand it all", it's such a subjective thing. To be fascinated and interested in the stuff around you and stuff made by other people is enough isn't it? pointing at something and going "that's bad" or "that's good" isn't the point I don't think. What you like just depends who you are and where you're at, etc. It's not like bloody boring maths where you get it right or wrong! Thank God for people being creative and imaginative, it's the better side of humanity!

Sue_W - Member
Am wary about posting on here cos compared to the rest of you I know very little about art,

wouldnt bet on that judging by some of the posts on here.

BTW - sounds like your doing just fine. Love YSP.

Kevevs - Member
I don't think you have to "understand it all", it's such a subjective thing. To be fascinated and interested in the stuff around you and stuff made by other people is enough isn't it?

your exactly right, but sometimes knowledge can add to the experience. Knowing about renaissance painting structure and its links to nature/maths, pre-rapaelite philosophies, the idea's behind american abstract expressionism and its aims can all make for a better viewing experience. you cant place a seurat next to a rothko and look at them in the same context.....but it doesnt stop you enjoying either/both of them.

yeah. I understand all that stuff Margin walker, so I get ya, it adds depth and meaning. I suppose it's the same for mathematicians (for example) when they talk about the beauty or symmetry in maths and numbers. You get out of something what you put in. I use a calculator!

On reflection, praps I shoon't have bin quite so vitriolic in my condemnation of Emin, as people are of course free to enjoy what they choose. So, soz if I've offended anyone.

But don't, because someone criticises something they feel is crap, think that you have any right to suggest that they have little knowledge or understanding of art. Because you don't know nuffink about that person or their experience or knowledge.

As for Marcel Duchamp's [i]Fountain[/i]:

Just putting something in an art gallery does not in any way necessarily make it Art. There are lots of fire extinguishers and things in galleries; are they 'art'? No, they're bits of safety equipment. You can't make something something it's not just by placing it within the context of a gallery space. That's just bullshit.

Nowt wrong with seeking attention, trying to get a reaction; just bloody produce something decent, don't be so flippin' lazy then proclaim it's 'Art' and that anyone who does not in any way 'understand' is an ignorant narrow-minded philistine, cos all your doing is showing yourself to be an elitist ponce.

Makes me angry that so much crap gets lauded as great art, while so many other far more deserving people with actual real talent don't get the recognition they deserve simply cos their stuff isn't trendy or en vogue or they don't know the right rich poncy well-connected greedy bastidz.

Good Howson docu, nother good art programme on BBC4 now.

Couple of East End boys:

David Bomberg

[img] [/img]

Mark Gertler

[img] [/img]

i fink showing pictures is nice and all but it is kind of a flat rhetorical manouever.

if the initial fracas was caused by statements like 'so and so isn't an artist', 'such and such isn't art' (perhaps i'm wrong about this, the thread is loooong now), then posting a grainy picture up and going 'i know what art is, this is it...[insert pic]' misses the point. the point is that whatever image is picked from a possible selection of works from a particular context, including 'availablity from google images', which overall in my view can be called 'a superstructure'. the production of that whole mess of images/artists/actions/writings etc from which to choose is what this is about. within that there are debates to be had about quality, who decides quality, and what quality means. what i was trying to get at before is that art's definition has to be social, the existence of this thread proves that. but to put art in a social context that ignores the production of the catagory art itself and ITS social construction is to piss in the wind.

i love this thread by the way, i like reading what everyone has to say, i rarely get involved with threads - i like to watch and think as you might have guessed - but this has been rewarding.

ps. did someone think i was 'binners'? should i be flattered? is he good on a bike? i'm me by the way!

Howsons stuff has always reminded me a bit of Stanley Spencer, another artist I love. I think it's the illustrative/narrative/british nature of it.
[img] [/img]

Elfin, think the point was that you stated Emin was not an artist (dont think you were ever gonna get away with that). Then switched to whether she is any good (personally cant stand her, but accept that what she creates is art , albeit conceptual)

As for Marcel Duchamp's Fountain:

Just putting something in an art gallery does not in any way necessarily make it Art. There are lots of fire extinguishers and things in galleries; are they 'art'? No, they're bits of safety equipment. You can't make something something it's not just by placing it within the context of a gellery space. That's just bullshit.

This however is a beaut. 🙂 Claimaing Duchamps ready mades are not art will no doubt prolongue the thread .....or are you being controversial again ?

Are you afraid of using CAPITALS?

posting a grainy picture up and going 'i know what art is, this is it...[insert pic]' misses the point.

No it does not in any way. It reinforces the point that art should be something created using skill, craft, and above all, talent. something that expresses meaning through the medium chosen.

And something that can be enjoyed in it's own right, without the need for poncy explanation.

Emin was not an artist (dont think you were ever gonna get away with that).

Oh really? I think you'll find that I already have, by being [i]right[/i].

who decides quality

I do.

[b]END OF THREAD.[/b]

[i]art should be something created using skill, craft, and above all, talent[/i]

I'm not sure about that. one of my favourite artworks that I've seen Is Field for The British Isles, which is a load of badly made clay figures, made by schoolchildren, all over a gallery floor. I found it really moving. Antony Gormleys idea though. Art can be an Idea.

edit: no ****ing way! Peter Capaldi can draw. I knew there was something I liked about him!

Oi Kev; did you not read; [b]END OF THREAD[/b]!

Ah, but each clay figure was made by each child/person with feeling, with energy. And you know they probbly had a lot of fun making them. I agree that sometimes art can be more an idea than actual physical tangible things, but there is still the underlying talent of the artist what oversees the project. Gormley involved thousands of people in those projects, each one contributing a single part of a greater Whole. Like they'd created a society, a population, a race. That's pretty cool.

Ooh it's Malcolm Tucker talking about Art! 🙂

I should do a show about art on the telly. Would be miles better than that effete elitist Brian Sewell ponce.

I went to a student show that had a really realistic life size effigy of Brian Sewell as part of the exhibition, looked exactly like him, pointing at his own review on a wall. I got confused. good job it was a free bar!...

End of Thread my arse. I can bang on about this stuff forever..

i found out yesterday that apart from the skull in holbein's ambassadors being anamorphic and blah blah blah it is also a visual pun on 'holbein' which might be pulled apart and translated as 'hollow bone' in, i think, dutch (i don't have any languages)

bush loving pollock is no where near as bad as reagan using 'born in the usa' as his campaign song. however much a 'i just like it cos it's pretty' kind of a person you are, you don't want to end up making yourself look that stupid

pollock was a one time member of the communist party (rothko helped union organisation in chicago during the strikes but wasn't a signed up red) and trained for a time under the famous mexican muralist and communist diego riviera in whose house leon trotsky was assinated. during this time charlie chaplin's estranged wife paulette godard (pos. two d's?-no relation i think to the film guy) was staying and may or may not have got freaky with him. she then became a new york socialite and went on to make a very crap book with andy warhol (who was generally middle of the road politically, he endorsed carter, hated mcgovern and acquiesed to reagan because reagan bought some expensive paintings). to further contextualise this, in the united states at the time you could be black listed and even arrested under false pretences under suspicion of being a communist if you were seen socialising with blacks. the national association for the advancement of coloured people's founding member was a white communist sympathiser.

the first of these 'facts' is basically bland, you might do something interesting with it in an essay, and you'd be stoked if you were the first person to realise that the pun was there, but i think that it is still essentially empty.

the second example shows an ignorance that is basically to your detriment (whether or not you win the election), you are trampling over meaning clumsily, unaware how deep people's feelings run, out of touch with your fellow man.

i hope the third example shows how knotted and complex this all can be. that politics and art are intrinsically linked, and there are fun facts and interesting avenues of investigation along the way (sorry it was so communist/socialism heavy!)

night night!

who are your favourite artists tom84? post some pics

I went to a student show that had a really realistic life size effigy of Brian Sewell as part of the exhibition

Were viewers invited to throw poo at it?

Please tell me they were....

End of Thread my arse. I can bang on about this forever..

I love it, me. Even tom84's obtuse bit above. 🙂

[img] [/img]

I think it was a St Martins end of yr show. they could've invited the real Brian Sewrage to attend. I'd love to have seen him pointing at himself pointing at his own review!

is that a fake vermeer? I like that. hey, whaddya want, this is my life here, look at this sh** I have to deal with!

No, it's a genuine Nicolaes Maes. 🙄

Good, in't it? Love this painting. Not in the National at the mo though. 🙁

strange the way the chequerboard flooring falls away. camera obscura? that's why I thought it was vermeerish, with that door and subject matter. Wasn't he Rembrandts apprentice? I suppose that's the documentary photography of it's time. but they'd have to pose and stay still for days- weeks at a time to make the painting.

art should be something created using skill, craft, and above all, talent. something that expresses meaning through the medium chosen.

And something that can be enjoyed in it's own right, without the need for poncy explanation.

see that's just a bunch of contradictory nonsense right there. in the first part it's suggesting that art should express meaning then it's suggesting that it should be enjoyed for its aesthetic value alone without the need for interpretation. the fact that elfin's used the term '[i]poncy[/i]' speaks volumes about the way people feel belittled by the ability of others to drain more out of an image than they can. pretty normal response though so don't feel too bad.

interesting that elfin has chosen an image by Mark Gertler there to unsuccessfully prove his point. if ever there was a canon of art produced to provoke reaction and make a statement it's the art of world war one. is elfin trying to say that this is a great piece of art simply because it looks good - as per his claim - or is he agreeing with the critics and the artist himself who are attaching '[i]poncy explanation[/i]'to the piece. in this case the endless futility and repetetive horror of the great war. ?

i'm sure the point that i was originally making on this thread has now been lost amongst the usual stw polemic right/wrong debate. so i'll reiterate if only for elfin, whose right to be wrong i will defend for ever.

modern art or rather art critique is elitist. the exclusive nature of this is wrong but that doesn't make the critique wrong or poncey (ok, sewell is the exception to the rule)that's just the reaction people have to feeling excluded. from my own education experiences, there's so much more to be enjoyed from lots of art beyond the pure aesthetic. the problem lies in the fact that this education is not given to all and instead of learning about art at school, we're given a bunch of pencils and told to draw even when most of will always lack the hand/eye/brain functions to enable us to ever draw successfully. there's a whole world of art that i'll never be able to fully appreciate purely because i lack the education. that's what's wrong.

if people want to enjoy a piece for it's aesthetic value alone fine, i've already stated that i've a rothko at home that serves that exact purpose for me. but i'm safe in the knowledge that it meant much more to rothko than that and there's someone somewhere getting far more from that painting than i am because they've been empowered by education.

difference is, i won't call them a ponce because of it.

Allow me to construct a hypothesis.

There is a parallel universe in which a Marcel Duchamp learns all about making glazewear to a very high standard, to produce "works of art" in that material. After many years making little angels, horses and cute doggies, he makes a urinal. It's a very good, well-proportioned urinal with all the holes set out in a pretty pattern. He signs it "I MUTT" and displays it as sculpture.

Meanwhile, in our universe, our Marcel simply buys a urinal which is in all respects EXACTLY THE SAME and signs it "I MUTT" then displays it as sculpture.

Given that the artisanship in both cases is identical, is one art and the other, not?

Why?

marcel duchamp was a nob head whichever way you look at it..

This has turned out to be a very interesting little thread.

I have no more to add as I feel I have said as much as I can on the subject, but still it has been enjoyable to wander back in on the unfolding discussions.

Shall we get a working group together to somehow visualise this thread of conversation into an aesthetically interesting narrative on peoples' views on art - we might even get a grant for it and be exhibited at the Tate and win prizes and get to eat canapes with Tracey Enim and stuff.

🙂

yunki - Member
marcel duchamp was a nob head whichever way you look at it..

No arguing with that,really...

One of the difficulties of "modern" art is that the term itself has become perjorative. People forget that the Impressionists were the modern artists of their day, and were just as controversial. People also forget that art we now consider to be great (say the famous Rennaisance works) has had the benefit of several hundred years to filter out the dross. Thus I expect that great art being made today (which it is - get yourself to the Tate Modern) will endure.

I don't like Emin's bed though...

marcel duchamp was a nob head whichever way you look at it..

agreed, seen him once, seen him a million times

[img] [/img]

Duchamp as a youth..
[img] [/img]

one of his later bicycle inspired works..
[img] [/img]

from this can we deduce a correlation between cyclists and nobberism..? Especially those with such a poor understanding of the relevance of standover height...

And he's riding a single speed. I bet it is a fixie too.

Quality STW this, some real thought going on here - love it.

Elf - you are being elitist yourself whilst denouncing elitism. Irony meter on the blink?

Re Emin - I never heard anyone say anything about her that wasn't a right slagging off, and I still like some of the works. They aren't masterpieces, but I liked them.

As for craftsmanship - what about photography, Elf?

Re Woppit's hypothesis - I saw an interesting installation, I forget where - Edinburgh perhaps. It was an artist's studio in a right mess - half finished stuff, paint everywhere, rubbish, coffee cups the lot. You just looked through a door and saw it, the door was roped off. First thought is 'err, ok..' then you realise that the entire thing is a sculpture. Every single tiny detail has been carved out of some kind of modelling foam with perfect realism. Even down to the discarded teabags and banana skins. It suddenly becomes captivating when you realise that it's all artifice, but before you just thought it was an unfinished exhibit. Quite odd really.

*Stands and applauds yunki for introducing the word 'nobberism' into the thread*

😀

nice truing stand where can i get it from ?

Duchamp in 'Inspired Viz' shocker...

[img] [/img]

Just putting something in an art gallery does not in any way necessarily make it Art.

No, but i don't think anyone has said that have they? Even the fans of Duchamps.

uh - oh.. thread heading speedily off rails..

was Duchamps contribution to art (other than all of the emins and hirsts that were spawned under his influence) that he made arrogance into an artform..?

STW Does Art.

Utterly brilliant thread.. enjoyed every moment of it.

Inspired.

Take a Bow fellas.

was Duchamps contribution to art (and all of the emins and hirsts that were spawned under it's influence) that he made arrogance into an artform

That's a point of view. Can an attitude be art? Is it's status as "art" dependant on the way it's expressed? If it's not representational painting, is it valid?

Where's Fred?

Wasn't Duchamps stuff statements about the art establishment? Mocking it? Wasn't he the first guy to do this kind of thing?

Fill me in please (ooer).

Yes, the project was to remove the "artisanship" from art.

Just putting something in an art gallery does not in any way necessarily make it Art.
No, but i don't think anyone has said that have they? Even the fans of Duchamps.

That *sort of* goes back full circle to somewhere near the beginning of this thread. Putting something in an art gallery doesn't make it art, no, but the argument that someone has thought conceptually about what they are doing and has challenged the viewers to ask themselves 'is this art?' and try to understand the motives of the artist kinda makes it art I guess.

This is why the deliberate 'creative' efforts of Emin and Hirst etc makes them artists. Whether or not people get them doesn't actually stop them being artists. All that does is subjectify opinion - I think Constable is shit, but it doesn't stop him from being an artist.