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.

She pointed out TONS of symbolism and subtext that I’d missed completely.

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?

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 The Ambassadors, 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 adds 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 The Story of Art. 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.

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.

Should we still be painting pictures like Rembrandt?

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:

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:

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; ‘Abi‘:

Jan Mikulka; ‘Jakub‘:

Tracey who? 😕

oooooooooooof!

You like that one, innit Yunki??! 😀

prog about Scottish painter Peter Hewson on BBC4 Four at 11pm 🙂

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