Modern art??

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 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 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

Mark Gertler

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.

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 right.

who decides quality

I do.

END OF THREAD.

art should be something created using skill, craft, and above all, talent

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 **** way! Peter Capaldi can draw. I knew there was something I liked about him!

Oi Kev; did you not read; END OF THREAD!

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. 🙂

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 ‘poncy‘ 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 ‘poncy explanation‘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

Duchamp as a youth..

one of his later bicycle inspired works..

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…

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.