In defence of Tracy Emin, after wandering past her smelley bed a few years ago I read some of the poems she had scrawled on the wall, they were quite good.
Elfin - I was being post-modernistically sarcastic - it is because you are clever (this comes across quite clearly for the most part in your posts) you are unable to accept that it doesn't actually mean you are always right - you are just having opinions.
Art is not a sum, it cannot be calculated and proven to be correct or incorrect.
can we get this typed up and edited and do a special 'art of moutain biking' issue of the mag with this as an appendix and loads of nice pix of bikes? great thread.
i can't go into why elfin could think a little bit harder about andre's minimalism and duchamp's readymades. the fact that duchamp's is a 'remake' of the original fountain comissioned by him in his resurgence/re-appropriation in the 60's, and the idea of photographing the minimalist 'staged' encounter (especially the way it is done), make the issue too much for me in themselves before we even get to the problem of duchamp's original intention and the context in which it occured, and what andre was saying with his bricks.
suffice to say that warhol, for example, wouldn't have existed without duchamp, and at the same time warhol is part of the reason duchamp still comes up in debates like these and hasn't vanished into obscurity, that kind of arguement is enless. neither could gormley's sculptures have their place without minimalism (and 'those' bricks) or the advent of photography and photomechanical reproduction, and at the same time he negates both.
the point is to keeping thinking because there comes a point where the thoughts link up and can genuinely enrich, not just moments stood in front of paintings, but how we go about our daily lives.
someone asked who i liked, i think robert smithson's 3-part work 'spiral jetty' is pretty good, i'm quite into the afro-mysticism of ellen gallagher (sp.?) and i'm trying to get my head round the high-camp social critiques of ryan trecartin. I think for me last year was all about wolfgang tillman's show at the serpentine.
emin and elfin are actually far more alike than either of them would like to acknowledge i'm afraid, it's all about a naive sense of individualism, in complete denial of the very messy and contradictory tangled-up-ness of things.
ps. sorry i can't spell and haven't been using capital letters!
So Hirst isn't a good "painter".
Seems impossible to get beyond the idea that to be "art", there has to be painting or carving skill...
Jeff Koons is interesting. For instance, this:
[img] 
[/img]
Amazing. Made completely of flowers, except that Jeff didn't do any of it - he employed workmen to put it together for him. Is he less of an artist, then?
i can't go into why elfin could think a little bit harder about andre's minimalism and duchamp's readymades.
It's cos I'm too thick and stupid, sadly.
Sorry, but that's the way it is. You might not like it, but you'll just have to accept it I'm afraid.
[i]But why are you afraid, Elfin?[/i]
Well, because I'm too dim to work stuff out therefore have developed a defensive mechanism which sees me lash out and attack anything I don't understand.
SMASH KILL DESTROY!!
Would you care to deal with any of my points, Fred? I'd be interested in reading your responses.
I like Jeff Koons as i think he raises some challenging points with his work. Hirst has never had anything interesting to say. Ever! His work is just too lazy IMHO.
Its like he possibly had the seeds of something interesting developing... then.... no, I can't be arsed. I think I'll go out clubbing a do a load of nose-bag with Keith Allen and Alex James instead. I'll pop into the studio for 5 minutes first and see if they've finished 'my' latest batch of paintings. I'll need the cash. My turn to get the chop in.
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
i don't know how you've made that leap of faith when i've made no reference whatsoever to any of those 'artists'.
what my post and your subsequent musings illustrate perfectly is the lack of education that we recieve in this country about art which results in people get all upset when confronted with what they don't understand, calling people ponces and accusing others of being without skill talent or application.
if i'd recieved a decent education in art, i'd be prepared to give a critical judgement on emin, hirst et al. as it is i can only look at it and wonder wtf it's supposed to be/mean/say. on an aesthetic level i might like it, i might just be bewildered. what i wouldn't do is assume that my ignorance meant the artist was a ponce or that their was no worth to the piece. i'd just be inspired to elevate my own understanding.
I am now convinced that Elf is trolling - to make a well thought out point. Which is why he hasn't responded to Woppit's points which are excellently put.
I do think that Elf on a plinth would make a fantastic installation though, I really do! If I had a bit more money I'd pay him a daily rate for it!
A lot of art seems to take itself too seriously
But not, apparently, Duchamp, which is ironic of course.
Can wee get a petition going to get Fred installed here please
[img] 
[/img]
That would be seriously cool. Imagine the level of vitriol if people were coming out of the national gallery having just been to see an exhibition by Tracy Emin 🙂
Now we are moving on to Performance Art - another refuge for the talentless... (don't mean you Elfin you amuse me greatly with your articulateness and erudition)
what my post and your subsequent musings illustrate perfectly is the lack of education that we recieve
So, oyu're saying I jolly well have not had a decent education in art then?
What qualifies you to make such a remark about me? Hmm?
Which is why he hasn't responded to Woppit's points
When Woppit shows me and others on here more respect, then I may deign to respond to him. I've pretty much answered him anyway, if he actually bothered to read what I writed.
Besides, making such idiotic statements as this excludes him from any discussion about art and aesthetics, imo:
[/url]At the risk of incurring the wrath of the most high (Elfin, and possibly barnsleymitch) - everything expressed in the architecture and design of these buildings, is vile.
That would be seriously cool. Imagine the level of vitriol if people were coming out of the national gallery having just been to see an exhibition by Tracy Emin
Oh can I have a machine gun?
Please can I Binners, pleeeassee?
What qualifies you to make such a remark about me? Hmm?
well i can only go on the postings you've made on here - if you've got a first in art history [b]and[/b] your ctitical evaluation of a work of art is emporers new clothes/shite/work of a ponce etc then i'd suggest that you're doing yourself a disservice by appearing more ignorant than you are.
now if you don't mind, i've job applications to be writing.
Elfin, you have gone way up in my estimation after reading this thread.
Kind of ironic, Fred criticising Tracey Emin and co. for jumping up and down and making a noise just to draw attention to themselves.
When Woppit shows me and others on here more respect
Dear Fred, I really respect you and despite your rather vituperative and offensive mode of expressing yourself, would really really like to read your thoughts on any of the points I've made in this thread.
I'm really sorry if I've offended you in the past and hope that this apology will qualify as showing you some respect. Of course, this goes for all the "others" that you mention as well.
Woppit.
A very ugly man has just driven past on a John Deere tractor lawnmower.
Surreal, surely, [i]but is it art?[/i]
Elfin, you have gone way up in my estimation after reading this thread.
Thank you, I feel I may have gone the other way in other people's. 😀
Kind of ironic, Fred criticising Tracey Emin and co. for jumping up and down and making a noise just to draw attention to themselves.
Difference is, I'm not lying by calling myself an 'artist'.
Woppit, you have upset me too much. I will need time to consider this, but I accept your apology and thank you for doing so.
I was thinking more along the lines of the splatter guns used in bugsy malone Fred 🙂
Actually you can have a full Waco-style armory and possibly some more medieval weapons too
All I am saying is that it doesn't stop them being artists.
That's because there's nothing to get.
Well you don't think there is. Perhaps you aren't clever enough?
I started all this by saying this type of argument is arrogant BS.
I think most folk think like me only art lovers disagree hence my point about your overly rich intepretation whilst patronisingly suggesting we are all too stupid to get it....do you think this will make it more popular or just reinforce the opinion that followers are arrogant bellends overly intepreting pretentious dross as art?
Difference is, I'm not lying by calling myself an 'artist'.
No difference. Attention-seeking behaviour is attention-seeking behaviour.
Elf you must appreciate that the definition of 'Art' is the key point here?
I'm bored now tbh.
Might come back later, dunno yet.
Elf you must appreciate that the definition of 'Art' is the key point here?
I don't know - there were people way up there somewhere claiming that it only became art if you were clever enough to understand why it is art. 😯
There is an awful lot of "emperors new clothes " about for sure
and the "just because you don't like it / don't understand it does not mean its not art" theory? NO one who espouses this can actually explain what it is we are not getting
It really is laughable how the talentless manage to convince people they have something to say. Some modern art even of the much derided forms of "installation" or "performance art" can be great art. Some of what people pay huge sums for is clearly "emperors new clothes" where its all about showing off how rich you are( as a patron) or how clever you are (as an artiste)
See the private eye cartoon series - "its grim up north london"
[img] 
[/img]
I'm sure many other people just thought we were ignorant savages.
I doubt it, I'm sure most of them would have agreed with your own evaluations.
How do you know that?
NO one who espouses this can actually explain what it is we are not getting
We're not claiming to understand it. We're just aware of the possibility that there might be something we don't understand.
In other words, our minds are open.
I don't know - there were people way up there somewhere claiming that it only became art if you were clever enough to understand why it is art
I hope that's not aimed at me. My position has been quite clear here. I've stated that art has an aesthetic value - you either like it or you don't. It does however have other values that are hard to comprehend without the benefit of education. That has nothing to do with being 'clever' and everything to do with being informed - two completely different conditions. It's not that we're not clever enough to understand it, we're just not enabled to understand it.
It does however link to the other theme that I've tried to get across on this thread, that art sometimes threatens people in the way that the unkown often threatens people and their reaction to that is quite primitive, hence terms like ponce, rubbish, shite get bandied about.
To suggest we have closed minds because we think it is hollow vacous pap is just more of the same arrogance.
the unkown often threatens people
No i am not threatened by Hirst's big shark in a tank slowly rotting nor do I find emins tent with the poorly embroidered names of everyone she has even "known" threatening. I find them to be shit and a bit vacous and nto saying much really except to folk wjo like to overy interpret these "creations".
Indeed junkyard.
There are many instances of art critics being fooled by either childrens paintings or chimps and monkeys paintings.
One example among many
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/pierre_brassau_monkey_artist/
No one who espouses this can actually explain what it is we are not getting
Would explaining to someone *why* something is art suddenly make them appreciate it *is* art?
MF - no but some attempt at explaining what it is that makes it art would be helpful. People make claims that its not that its vacuous rubbish but that I am missing the point - but then are unable to even give the slightest explanation as to what and where the point is.
Why does the difficulty of execution make a piece of art more "art"? ie: A "proper" painting instead of, say, one of Tracey's videos?
Edit: Oh, there's a "point"?
MF - no but some attempt at explaining what it is that makes it art would be helpful.
I think people have tried (and clearly failed) on here to explain what makes art already though and I think the definition is in 'intent'.
If a cleaner leaves a mop in an art gallery it isn't art.
It is a mop.
If an artist leaves a mop in an art gallery it isn't art.
It is a mop.
If an artist spends hours sat pondering the meaningless of life and decides the best way of communicating that angst is by putting on display a mop for people to try to understand their inner feelings.
It is art.
what about if the artist puts the mop there because they believe it is their right to proclaim it art...?
It makes the original designer of the mop an artist and they would be due royalties.
I'm confused now. What if the cleaner, having mislaid her mop, inadvertently picked up the art and did the toilets with it. Would she potentially be liable to the full value of the artwork (which Charles Saatchi doubtless just bid £12 million for) or just a new mop?
8)
guys! it's a social contruction! it's not about the intrinsic qualities of innanimate objects or individual acts of agency!
Last time I was at Tate Modern, I walked through an intervening room to get to the Rothko exhibition and noticed, out of the corner of my eye, what looked like a pile of discarded decorating equipment (paint pots, brushes, canvas sheeting etc) piled up on a couple of pallettes.
There was no card on the wall explaining the object as there was for all the other installations and exhibits.
Just as I got to the Rothko room, I wondered why the Tate Modern had, despite the completely orderly and attractive state of the rest of the interiors, allowed this pile of stuff to linger?
And then I thought...
(go on, you fill in the rest). 
I doubt it, I'm sure most of them would have agreed with your own evaluations.POSTED 2 HOURS AGO #
Mr Woppit - Member
How do you know that?
Well, the way he described he was acting, he must have looked like a dickhead, i reckon most folks around would have sussed that
To suggest we have closed minds because we think it is hollow vacous pap is just more of the same arrogance
You are allowed to think about it, consider it and rebuke the artist, but you are NOT allowed to dismiss it out of hand simply because it's just an everyday object. This includes just lining up negative adjectives for the fun of it.
WHY is it rubbish, Junkyard?
Next question - what do we think of the Mona Lisa?
No we probbly did just look like dickheads tbh. We din't really care though. Who were they to judge us without knowing us?
If an artist spends hours sat pondering the meaningless of life and decides the best way of communicating that angst is by putting on display a mop for people to try to understand their inner feelings
Then they deserve a good kicking for being a PONCE! 😈
Innit Binners? Binners agrees with me.
[url= http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/craig-martin--an-oak-tree.html ]Michael Craig-Martin : An Oak Tree[/url]
