I respect artists that can stand in front of a scene or person and paint it like a photo, but, sometimes we need to see, beauty, drama, shapes and things that make us think and feel with 'Art'.
I don't care about modern art myself but this philistinism is a bit wearying.....
Surely the point of art is that it presents an idea or a thought or an interpretation of something or a metaphor for something....
A perfect self portrait is just copying......there might be 'craft' involved in that but it's not saying anything. A proper portrait b an artist would bring out the character of the model.......or the artist's interpretation of the character. It would say something more about the subject than merely 'what he looked like'
An arranged pile of rubbish might be saying something about the modern world.......the 'artist' had created it to say something about the world we live in. Now it's quite probable that the pile of rubbish will not be amongst the 0.001% of 'art' from this era that makes it to the 22nd century. It's also quite probable that the consensus will be that whatever point the artist is trying to make will be dismissed as a load of old tosh and it'll turn out that the work is ephemeral and forgotten next week. Them's the breaks......but it shouldn't stop people making art and if anyone thinks that their 3 year old could do that.....get them cracking then ! Ask them what point they wish to make and what materials they'd like to work in and give 'em the garden shed as a studio.
How much 16th century art are we aware of now? There's probably always been 10,000 more art created than is ever remembered by future generations.......trouble is you're never quite sure which one in ten thousand works will be deemed important in a few decades
As Rodney Trotter once said, art by it's very nature should be self indulgent. It should be about personal symbolism rather than contemporary mass appeal.
I utterly despise modernist/conceptual art and architecture. I'd burn every last scrap of it I could get my hands on. But there are some great artists around working in more conventional styles.
My current favourite living artist is someone called Sebastian Spreng. I've got one of his paintings as my PC wallpaper. I find them really moving and evocative.
I have a print of a painting of and old kitchen dresser, cluttered with things that people may have placed, put down in passing, it is a homely mess, but within that picture I see a family and how they lived, without any face to be seen.
I don't care about modern art myself but this philistinism is a bit wearying.....
Surely the point of art is that it presents an idea or a thought or an interpretation of something or a metaphor for something....
A perfect self portrait is just copying......there might be 'craft' involved in that but it's not saying anything. A proper portrait b an artist would bring out the character of the model.......or the artist's interpretation of the character. It would say something more about the subject than merely 'what he looked like'
An arranged pile of rubbish might be saying something about the modern world.......the 'artist' had created it to say something about the world we live in. Now it's quite probable that the pile of rubbish will not be amongst the 0.001% of 'art' from this era that makes it to the 22nd century. It's also quite probable that the consensus will be that whatever point the artist is trying to make will be dismissed as a load of old tosh and it'll turn out that the work is ephemeral and forgotten next week. Them's the breaks......but it shouldn't stop people making art and if anyone thinks that their 3 year old could do that.....get them cracking then ! Ask them what point they wish to make and what materials they'd like to work in and give 'em the garden shed as a studio.
How much 16th century art are we aware of now? There's probably always been 10,000 more art created than is ever remembered by future generations.......trouble is you're never quite sure which one in ten thousand works will be deemed important in a few decades
I gave that as an example of skilful art. I'm not really a fan of self portraits but they take a lot of skill if done well. Dali created a lot of his paintings based on his dreams and yet the objects in them are still amazingly well drawn, often with a surrealistic tilt.
I don't see why it wearies you so much, you have to write a big long post about why it is so weary, especially since all you are basically doing is agreeing. Contrarians are wearying.
I don't care what is says to someone else, when all I see is a pile of junk. We all have our opinions. Perhaps it says a great deal to some people, but not to me.
that's a bit like saying......well, the first guy to make an oil painting might have been saying something, but how many oil paintings do we need !
;-)
No, it's not. Painting takes skill, effort, application, and an idea, different for almost every one. The subject and the style of the artist makes each one individual. Scattering a few **** ends on the floor as a concept takes nothing but the idea. Each time someone does that, it's the same idea.
And even it's keenest proponents could hardly say Emin's bed was a thing of beauty.
Don't be so sure. Pretty much every art movement was criticised as nonsense by the lovers of the movement that preceded it. Impressionism, Post Impressionism, Cubism... they were all dismissed as rubbish by many, but nowadays we see Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso etc as great artists.
Impressionism especially was criticised by people used to the more classical style. What on earth were these fuzzy messes of paintings that claimed to be 'waterlilies' or whatever, but were just a blurry nonsense? How dare Monet exhibit so-called paintings and claim they're art?
Art is subjective. Where one person sees some inner meaning or something which makes them think something that perhaps they haven't considered before, someone else sees a pile of rubbish. It's no different to music for example - what to one person is meaningless noise, can be moving, exhilarating, interesting to someone else. Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't necessarily make it 'not art'.
No, it's not. Painting takes skill, effort, application, and an idea, different for almost every one. The subject and the style of the artist makes each one individual. Scattering a few **** ends on the floor as a concept takes nothing but the idea. Each time someone does that, it's the same idea.
And even it's keenest proponents could hardly say Emin's bed was a thing of beauty.
'Art' does not necessarily have to portray beauty.
That has always been my mantra on certain forms of conceptual and contemporary art.
Art doesn't have to be pretty. It doesn't even have to be technically perfect. However, there is a set of very narcissistic and pretentious people who think that if they can give a very worthy and esoteric description of a pile of tat that they have created, it somehow imbues it with a sense of importance and value. Maybe they can convince themselves that it does and maybe they can convince others but sometimes the little child (as in the Emperor's New Clothes) or, in this instance, the cleaner, cuts through the layers of self-importance and grandiosity and speak for most people with the simple phrase, "This is a load of rubbish."
If artists stuck to classical methods of creating art, the world would be a boring place. The whole point of art is to keep it moving forward, keep doing new things and keep developing new ways of creating art.
I'm not big on art, but my favourite painter is Salvador Dali.
I prefer art that takes a great deal of skill to produce.
All this throwing random paint on a canvas and calling it an act of 'expression' doesn't express anything to me other than perhaps, you don't have any skill as an artist.
He is mine too so I'm a little surprised that you're not a fan of any 'contemporary' art, as much of it (such as installation art)is just a three dimensional form of surrealism imo. I agree that a lot of it appears to be crap but some of it is fantastic.
I believe that art has it's most powerful effect on us when it reflects our state of mind, or seems to echo our feelings back at us. I find that some contemporary art can often do this more powerfully than a less abstract but skillfully painted picture can.
I refuse to believe that any fan of Dali could fail to moved by any of the more contemporary art
Oh dear! (slaps head smiley) at the woman who threw it away, not you OP! I'll try and explain it.... You might think you're looking at a pile of simple, meaningless or crude shapes, blotches and squiggles, applied so randomly and haphazardly, you think - hey my cat could do better!!
So, say you look at a painting of something recognisable, maybe a landscape, or bowl of fruit - you're processing the objects in the picture, the trees, light on a river, fruit on the table, the background.
The appeal of abstract or contemporary art is that you are not distracted by meaningful images, so virtually all of your brain power is devoted to feeling and your own interpretation. Maybe the colours and shapes, evoke memories of a sunset river on a romantic holiday. Lots of spots, might remind you of the chaos of the crowds on the London underground! Lots of lines, your love of high buildings! (I'm making this up!) but you get the gist.:D
Add to that the draw of the artist if he's famous. If it was done a long time ago, maybe it's striking because it's a head of its time. The reason for the art - has he/she done it for decoration, to tell a story, or to illustrate or capture or preserve an image?
Then you begin to see it a bit differently and it potentially becomes more captivating! (Or not! and you walk off in disgust! )
Bulk of these chancers don't even construct the abominations they put their names to... An army of lackeys and interns does all the building, gluing, constructing etc..... Knobs like Hirst just spew out a "concept" on the back of a **** packet and go and count their £millions whilst spotty acolytes toil on procuring and mounting the dead sheep, bag of blood or whatever turd he's decreed to be art.
Bulk of these chancers don't even construct the abominations they put their names to... An army of lackeys and interns does all the building, gluing, constructing etc..... Knobs like Hirst just spew out a "concept" on the back of a **** packet and go and count their £millions whilst spotty acolytes toil on procuring and mounting the dead sheep, bag of blood or whatever turd he's decreed to be art.
Rodin never touched a heap of his sculptures either. Chancer?
Rodin never touched a heap of his sculptures either. Chancer?
That's not the bit that makes them chancers to me. I just think it's neither smart, clever or artistic. Dali, Picasso, I can handle. I wouldn't have it on my own wall, but I'm quite clear it's art. Rodin too, though he's not to everyone's taste either. Henry Moore, again, not traditional, but art nonetheless. I don't get sheep in formaldehyde, full ashtrays, dirty sheets.
Oh, and I haven't been to any jazz for about 3 weeks... went to see Sax Appeal last month.
That's not the bit that makes them chancers to me. I just think it's neither smart, clever or artistic. Dali, Picasso, I can handle. I wouldn't have it on my own wall, but I'm quite clear it's art. Rodin too, though he's not to everyone's taste either. Henry Moore, again, not traditional, but art nonetheless. I don't get sheep in formaldehyde, full ashtrays, dirty sheets.
Oh, and I haven't been to any jazz for about 3 weeks... went to see Sax Appeal last month.
Which is fine, obvs. Just different taste. I was looking at those effing great big Raphaels the other day and by God I hate them. I really really loathe them. But I'm not about to say it isn't art.
My point was made to the statement that these chancers don't even construct the art [or not] they put their name to. As such, it seems pretty valid to ask if Rodin was a chancer too since it was his lackies that constructed most of his sculptures whilst he shouted the odd instruction here and there.
Sometimes art is about looking at things differently, not just looking at and painting a rose and all it's beauty as a rose, but looking at and painting the rose and how it fits in with the world around it, playing with light, colours, shadows and feelings.
As for people paying thousands for paintings or prints of coloured dots in symmetrical rows is beyond me.
Conceptual artists believe that the idea, the concept is more important than the presentation of the final work outcome. In other words, the journey is more important than the final destination.
Duchamp's Urinal is what propelled the art world to question what makes art, art. It's an idea that has been "explored" for over 80 bloody years! It's no wonder the whole world is getting bored and annoyed with it by now.
I dislike a lot of contemporary and conceptual artwork because I believe the artist has the obligation to fulfill a small set of criteria for it to be regarded as such. These of course are my person set of standards that may not be shared by everyone. Regardless:
1. A piece of art must show evidence of technical skill or craftsmanship.
2. A piece of art must portray interesting subject matter that will be relevant decades later. Great art comes without the "it was great for its time" benchmark.
3. A piece of art must transmit more than just what it is. It must communicate a mood, a feeling, a thought- something more than just itself.
Great art, for me fulfills at least one of these points.
If anyone watches Alan Yentob's Imagine series, you'll know about outsider art (Turning The Art World Inside Out) and it's intense personal take- it doesn't belong to the art world, it belongs to the artists themselves. It's work that allows you a glimpse into the artists lives, much like Van Gogh.
Still, it's wrong to assume every artwork today is like Tracey Emin's Unmade Bed, or Damien Hirst's Shark. If you think that the only work existing today is rubbish, well it's just not true. There are plenty of working artists who create work that can move you, that can interest you. It's only a matter of discovering them.
Comments
Surely the point of art is that it presents an idea or a thought or an interpretation of something or a metaphor for something....
A perfect self portrait is just copying......there might be 'craft' involved in that but it's not saying anything. A proper portrait b an artist would bring out the character of the model.......or the artist's interpretation of the character. It would say something more about the subject than merely 'what he looked like'
An arranged pile of rubbish might be saying something about the modern world.......the 'artist' had created it to say something about the world we live in. Now it's quite probable that the pile of rubbish will not be amongst the 0.001% of 'art' from this era that makes it to the 22nd century. It's also quite probable that the consensus will be that whatever point the artist is trying to make will be dismissed as a load of old tosh and it'll turn out that the work is ephemeral and forgotten next week. Them's the breaks......but it shouldn't stop people making art and if anyone thinks that their 3 year old could do that.....get them cracking then ! Ask them what point they wish to make and what materials they'd like to work in and give 'em the garden shed as a studio.
How much 16th century art are we aware of now? There's probably always been 10,000 more art created than is ever remembered by future generations.......trouble is you're never quite sure which one in ten thousand works will be deemed important in a few decades
My current favourite living artist is someone called Sebastian Spreng. I've got one of his paintings as my PC wallpaper. I find them really moving and evocative.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1024&bih=610&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=sebastian+spreng&oq=sebastian+spreng&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i24l2.3098.3706.0.3895.4.4.0.0.0.0.187.562.1j3.4.0....0...1c.1.35.img..0.4.559.hgx_UcRu3Cc
that's a bit like saying......well, the first guy to make an oil painting might have been saying something, but how many oil paintings do we need !
;-)
I gave that as an example of skilful art. I'm not really a fan of self portraits but they take a lot of skill if done well. Dali created a lot of his paintings based on his dreams and yet the objects in them are still amazingly well drawn, often with a surrealistic tilt.
I don't see why it wearies you so much, you have to write a big long post about why it is so weary, especially since all you are basically doing is agreeing. Contrarians are wearying.
I don't care what is says to someone else, when all I see is a pile of junk. We all have our opinions. Perhaps it says a great deal to some people, but not to me.
No, it's not. Painting takes skill, effort, application, and an idea, different for almost every one. The subject and the style of the artist makes each one individual. Scattering a few **** ends on the floor as a concept takes nothing but the idea. Each time someone does that, it's the same idea.
And even it's keenest proponents could hardly say Emin's bed was a thing of beauty.
Don't be so sure. Pretty much every art movement was criticised as nonsense by the lovers of the movement that preceded it. Impressionism, Post Impressionism, Cubism... they were all dismissed as rubbish by many, but nowadays we see Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso etc as great artists.
Impressionism especially was criticised by people used to the more classical style. What on earth were these fuzzy messes of paintings that claimed to be 'waterlilies' or whatever, but were just a blurry nonsense? How dare Monet exhibit so-called paintings and claim they're art?
Art is subjective. Where one person sees some inner meaning or something which makes them think something that perhaps they haven't considered before, someone else sees a pile of rubbish. It's no different to music for example - what to one person is meaningless noise, can be moving, exhilarating, interesting to someone else. Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't necessarily make it 'not art'.
'Art' does not necessarily have to portray beauty.
Art doesn't have to be a thing of beauty though, does it?
Well said! Bravo!
That has always been my mantra on certain forms of conceptual and contemporary art.
Art doesn't have to be pretty. It doesn't even have to be technically perfect. However, there is a set of very narcissistic and pretentious people who think that if they can give a very worthy and esoteric description of a pile of tat that they have created, it somehow imbues it with a sense of importance and value. Maybe they can convince themselves that it does and maybe they can convince others but sometimes the little child (as in the Emperor's New Clothes) or, in this instance, the cleaner, cuts through the layers of self-importance and grandiosity and speak for most people with the simple phrase, "This is a load of rubbish."
If after having a lumpy yawn I declare it to be art, is it?
He is mine too so I'm a little surprised that you're not a fan of any 'contemporary' art, as much of it (such as installation art)is just a three dimensional form of surrealism imo. I agree that a lot of it appears to be crap but some of it is fantastic.
I believe that art has it's most powerful effect on us when it reflects our state of mind, or seems to echo our feelings back at us. I find that some contemporary art can often do this more powerfully than a less abstract but skillfully painted picture can.
I refuse to believe that any fan of Dali could fail to moved by any of the more contemporary art
So, say you look at a painting of something recognisable, maybe a landscape, or bowl of fruit - you're processing the objects in the picture, the trees, light on a river, fruit on the table, the background.
The appeal of abstract or contemporary art is that you are not distracted by meaningful images, so virtually all of your brain power is devoted to feeling and your own interpretation. Maybe the colours and shapes, evoke memories of a sunset river on a romantic holiday. Lots of spots, might remind you of the chaos of the crowds on the London underground! Lots of lines, your love of high buildings! (I'm making this up!) but you get the gist.:D
Add to that the draw of the artist if he's famous. If it was done a long time ago, maybe it's striking because it's a head of its time. The reason for the art - has he/she done it for decoration, to tell a story, or to illustrate or capture or preserve an image?
Then you begin to see it a bit differently and it potentially becomes more captivating! (Or not! and you walk off in disgust!
Hear hear. Though it is curiously fascinating watching philistinism being somehow elevated as intellectually or aesthetically superior.
Rodin never touched a heap of his sculptures either. Chancer?
That's not the bit that makes them chancers to me. I just think it's neither smart, clever or artistic. Dali, Picasso, I can handle. I wouldn't have it on my own wall, but I'm quite clear it's art. Rodin too, though he's not to everyone's taste either. Henry Moore, again, not traditional, but art nonetheless. I don't get sheep in formaldehyde, full ashtrays, dirty sheets.
Oh, and I haven't been to any jazz for about 3 weeks... went to see Sax Appeal last month.
Which is fine, obvs. Just different taste. I was looking at those effing great big Raphaels the other day and by God I hate them. I really really loathe them. But I'm not about to say it isn't art.
My point was made to the statement that these chancers don't even construct the art [or not] they put their name to. As such, it seems pretty valid to ask if Rodin was a chancer too since it was his lackies that constructed most of his sculptures whilst he shouted the odd instruction here and there.
As for people paying thousands for paintings or prints of coloured dots in symmetrical rows is beyond me.
Conceptual artists believe that the idea, the concept is more important than the presentation of the final work outcome. In other words, the journey is more important than the final destination.
Duchamp's Urinal is what propelled the art world to question what makes art, art. It's an idea that has been "explored" for over 80 bloody years! It's no wonder the whole world is getting bored and annoyed with it by now.
I dislike a lot of contemporary and conceptual artwork because I believe the artist has the obligation to fulfill a small set of criteria for it to be regarded as such. These of course are my person set of standards that may not be shared by everyone. Regardless:
1. A piece of art must show evidence of technical skill or craftsmanship.
2. A piece of art must portray interesting subject matter that will be relevant decades later. Great art comes without the "it was great for its time" benchmark.
3. A piece of art must transmit more than just what it is. It must communicate a mood, a feeling, a thought- something more than just itself.
Great art, for me fulfills at least one of these points.
If anyone watches Alan Yentob's Imagine series, you'll know about outsider art (Turning The Art World Inside Out) and it's intense personal take- it doesn't belong to the art world, it belongs to the artists themselves. It's work that allows you a glimpse into the artists lives, much like Van Gogh.
Still, it's wrong to assume every artwork today is like Tracey Emin's Unmade Bed, or Damien Hirst's Shark. If you think that the only work existing today is rubbish, well it's just not true. There are plenty of working artists who create work that can move you, that can interest you. It's only a matter of discovering them.