[Closed] Modern art??

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.

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.

Trailmonkey's post above illustrates perfectly just how much some people are missing the real issue here, which is that stuff like Emin's, some of Duchamps, Hirst, etc is produced simply to show off, to get attention without any genuine effort, skill or talent being used to produce it. The difference between say Duchamp's 'Fountain' and Gertler's work above is that the latter is produced using the unique skill and talent which belonged to the artist. The former is just a urinal placed in an art gallery, nothing more. Taking the piss. Pure and simple. You could argue that Duchamp had a 'talent' for shocking people, for getting attention, but no more than a naughty kid having a tantrum in a supermarket, or a streaker at a sports event. Are they 'artists'?

You can intellectualise it all you want; anyone who's being completely honest with themselves knows I'm right.

As for the BritArt thing; most of it was just to make money. Nothing more. 'Ooh, what can we fool the philistines with this week?'. Charles Saatchi is interested in one thing and one thing alone; money. He knows that by patronising crap like Emin and Hirt's work, people will think cos he's a rich and successful bloke he knows what art is. He just knows how to con people.

What you people what can't see the [b]Emperor is actually naked[/b] don't seem to realise, is that proper skill and talent for producing art is being ignored in favour of shock value. Bit like how some girl pop group just take their clothes off and gyrate seductively in a video and people think it's great music....

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

I will. Cos that's what they are.

See, people like that would rather have shite like this, than some proper art:

[img] [/img]

Pile of bricks ffs someone shooduv had a smack for that one. 🙄

I know absolutely zip about art. Actually, that's not technically correct as one of my G/f's degrees is for Fine Art but my understanding compared to hers is akin to a bungalow to The Shard.

My own stance is that it's art if it provokes an emotional or intellectual response in you beyond mere aesthetic titillation. Some graffiti can be art, often you can find social commentry there if you look hard enough.

The Haywain is a lovely painting, no doubt about that and it looks great recreated on my parents' placemats when we sit for Sunday roast. I would argue that someone like Banksy, Emin or Hirst who start out with a concept of what they're trying to achieve are worthy of their acclaim. Sure, I could dip a sheep in formaldehyde and leave it in an art gallery. But did I come up with the idea before Hirst? No. Do I have any idea about the themes I'd be attempting to deal with? Not a clue. But I do sort of get what Hirst was trying to get across... In my own ineloquent and clumsy fashion.

So art requires effort then, Elf? What kind of effort?

Elfin - I think the problem here is that you just don't get their work and are refusing to accept them as artists because you don't get them. That's fine, that is your opinion and you are (god knows why) entitled to it.

But it does not stop them from being artists.

Elfin - I think the problem here is that you just don't get their work

That's because there's nothing to get.

You don't even know yourself; you're just miffed cos someone else has the balls to come out and say it like it actually is- crap.

One day you will realise that I am right. It is better for you all, in the long run, to just accept that I am right, and you will have better, more rewarding and happier lives.

Whether or not people get them doesn't actually stop them being artists

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation ]These guys...[/url]

had the measure of most of the Brit Art guff before most. And commented on it with more wit and verve than Hirst/Emin's could ever dream about

[img] [/img]

yes still our fault if we dont get it rather than them being crap at conveying an idea through art...just arrogance. As you note with your of Constable you dont like him but accept he is an artist.
i dont like Hirst but reckon i could put fwd a reasonable argument that he is not even an artist tbh. This is the problem at the moment IMHO. Blaiming the viewer for not getting the very opaque and unclear message being sent is unfair and is the wrong way round.

That's because there's nothing to get.

Fred is unable to accept the idea that art can exist without technical or artisan skills.

I would still like to hear his thoughts (however inelegantly put) about my hypothesis on the Duchamp urinal.

+1 for the K Foundation. Mad as a box of beards.

I think it's incredibly simple to 'get' the work.. but it's another thing entirely to be inclined to see the point of getting the work..

On Hirst - what would be better, a photo-realistc painting of a skull embedded with diamonds, or a skull embedded with diamonds?

Why?

Elfin - one day the whole world will realise that you are right !

Blaiming the viewer for not getting the very opaque and unclear message being sent is unfair and is the wrong way round.

But not every audience is the same...this is why more people buy books (supposedly) written by Jordan than Dostoyevsky. Or more people read the News Of The World than The Sunday Times.

Or have I missed something?

A mate's GF used to work at the Tate, and one year we got invites to the Turner Prize private view.

TBH it was mostly crap, as expected, so we amused ourselves by getting stuck into the free beer, then walked around and basically made idiots of ourselves by gushing loudly about how brilliant things like light switches and fire extinguishers and that were. Y'know, proper stupid dickhead stylee. I'm sure many other people just thought we were ignorant savages. At one stage we were laughing at a Damien Hirts piece, and my mate's GF was well peed off cos apparently standing just behind us had bin Damien Hirst himself (who we din't recognise cos we're uneducated artistically illiterate heathen scum). 😆

We din't get invites the next year. 🙁

Perhaps we should have Elfin installed in the Tate? Rotating on a motorised plinth, shouting out Elfinisms and throwing shit* at passers-by.

*I can say shit because in this context it is art and therefore acceptable.

shitshitshit

Perhaps you aren't clever enough?

No, I'm as thick as pigshit, me. Obviously.

Elfin - one day the whole world will realise that you are right !

And on that day, Peace, Love and Harmony shall reign.

TBH it was mostly crap, as expected, so we amused ourselves by getting stuck into the free beer, then walked around and basically made idiots of ourselves by gushing loudly about how briliant things like light switches and fire extinguishers and that were.

Elfin [i]does[/i] have a point there. A lot of art seems to take itself too seriously.

Which neatly brings me back to the K Foundation.

I tell you what. If Emin and Hirst set up their own PR agency, they'd clean up. If their rampant self-obsession would allow them to promote anyone or anything other than ME! ME!!! ME!!!!!

which I seriously doubt. Self-indulgent claptrap the lot of it. Have you seen Hirst's attempts at painting. Sweet Jesus. Best summarised as "I'd love to be Francis Bacon. Unfortunately He had more talent in one of discarded bogies than i could ever muster. So I'll do these sub sixth-form homage/pastiches of them. He didn't persevere with that one for long. Before returning to his natural territory. Selling manufactured post-modern crap to rich half-wits

Look at them Binners; quick to call me a thicko, but can't bloody explain the crap they're defending, can they?

[i]'You don't understand it cos you're a bit thick'[/i]

Ok so explain it to me please

[i]'No sorry can't do that you're simply too stupid to understand'[/i]

Oh. 😥