# Art that people rave about that's actually shit.



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

*Concetto spaziale, Attese by Lucio Fontana - $1.5 Million*

*



*

*Blue Fool by Christopher Wool - $5 Million*


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

Is it a con?


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Is it a con?


Why would you ask that?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Why would you ask that?



Because it's a question....and why not ask it?


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Well, who is conning who?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Well, who is conning who?




I'd be inclined to think the buyer forkng out $5million for a canvas with the word FOOL on it is definitely not being conned.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)




----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

If someone wants to pay that much for an artwork, then surely that is their choice - I doubt that they had a gun placed against their head.


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2014)

I like the slashed canvas pieces. Never heard of the Blue Fool thing before though. Distinct lack of raving about it.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

$87,000,000


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Ah, a Mark Rothko. I like a lot of his work.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> If someone wants to pay that much for an artwork, then surely that is their choice - I doubt that they had a gun placed against their head.


No... but it's the same culture that breeds Apple fanboys. It's a big part of what's wrong in the world.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> No... but it's the same culture that breeds Apple fanboys. It's a big part of what's wrong in the world.


I don't think it's anything like that. These are not consumer products. The prices that they fetch may well be obscene, but it's not as if it makes a difference to the likes of you or me.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Ah, a Mark Rothko. I like a lot of his work.


It does absolutely nothing for me, but I'm aware I seem to be in a minority on that(?)


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> If someone wants to pay that much for an artwork, then surely that is their choice - I doubt that they had a gun placed against their head.



Sure.....but is it really great art?



fishfinger said:


> I don't think it's anything like that. These are not consumer products. The prices that they fetch may well be obscene, but it's not as if it makes a difference to the likes of you or me.



Of course they're consumer products. If they were free nobody would bother with them.  Their price tag is what makes them consumable to the nth degree and the fact that some art critic has  represented them well and they've hung in a prestigious gallery is part and parcel of creating a consumer product for a wealthy investor.
IMO..


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I don't think it's anything like that. These are not consumer products. The prices that they fetch may well be obscene, but it's not as if it makes a difference to the likes of you or me.


I see poverty and starvation throughout the world, then I see someone has paid enough money to feed countless starving people for a piece of shite 'art'. This does actually affect me... it sickens me.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

I went to see Tracy Emin's exhibition 'Love is what you want' and really liked it. Her attention to detail with quilting is extremely skillful and her prolific writing is quality. I think she is a good artist (i dont say this lightly, i spent two hours at this exhibition, which was a kind of magnum opus of all her work) and it is actually good (and very, very detailed).


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

I do like abstract stuff indeed a lot of my photography is quite abstract which begs the question why do I need a sophisticated camera to make images which comprise mainly blurring. I think the artists that command big prices are doing something interesting usually although I am sure there are volumes of artists also doing interesting work which has not hit the big time money wise. That said I like the pickled shark and the jewelled skull and they are expensive! So there!


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Sure.....but is it really great art?


Is what great art? The 2 pieces you put in the OP? - I don't know. I quite like the Lucio Fontana piece, I'm less keen on the Christopher Wool one, although some of his other work is interesting.



> Of course they're consumer products. If they were free nobody would bother with them.  Their price tag is what makes them consumable to the nth degree and the fact that some art critic has  represented them well and they've hung in a prestigious gallery is part and parcel of creating a consumer product for a wealthy investor.
> IMO..


Maybe that was a bad term for me to use. What I meant, is that they are not a throw-away mass produced items.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I see poverty and starvation throughout the world, then I see someone has paid enough money to feed countless starving people for a piece of shite 'art'. This does actually affect me... it sickens me.


I didn't say that it doesn't affect you. Whether the person spent their money on "shite 'art' " or just burnt it makes no difference. The fact that they have that disposable money is another thing entirely.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

Yes Tracy Emin's quilting is interesting...speaking as someone who has actually made a hand stitched quilt it is a long tedious process...
 I have seen fantastic hand stitched detailed quilts that are really beautiful.
Tracey makes what I'd call graffiti like  quilts. And I could be wrong but I think hers are made using macine stitching. 

I like truth in art....I'm not so sure that the artworld of 2014 is about truth anymore. Am I wrong?
Is it too attached to money...and who you know?


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2014)

I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

I have some pictures on my walls, a pastel winter scene and a Tibetan oils scene. They have sentimental value and I do have affection for them but I would actually prefer now to put my own art on my own walls, I may have to dispose of these to make room.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I like truth in art....I'm not so sure that the artworld of 2014 is about truth anymore. Am I wrong?
> Is it too attached to money...and who you know?


Art has a long history of involvement with money. Without a patron, most famous artists would never have worked


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Art has a long history of involvement with money. Without a patron, most famous artists would never have worked



Patronage yes .... but this?






“Balloon Dog (Orange)” by Jeff Koons. The work sold for* $58.4 million, *a world auction record for the artist and a world auction record for a living artist, according to Christie’s..


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

I do think Emin's bed is rubbish (well it is) though, she has claimed it is a seminal work, well it is seminal in that it is the first time someone has managed to get an art lover to pay that sort of price for an unmade bed certainly, but if it is seminal in the traditional understanding of the world, where are all the follow on beds from other artists? Where?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Patronage yes .... but this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An asset that is sure to deflate!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> An asset that is sure to deflate!


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

well photography sure aint art....im (told by a brother in law who is an ace photographer) that i am also very good. Do i think that is 'art?' no way! its really not hard to take a good photo...


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Patronage yes .... but this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jeff Koons did not sell that work for $58.4 million. It was owned by Peter Brant, who bought it in the 1990s. The money raised by the sale was invested into The Brant Foundation Art Study Center.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> well photography sure aint art....im (told by a brother in law who is an ace photographer) that i am also very good. Do i think that is 'art?' no way! its really not hard to take a good photo...


I disagree. It is easy to take an acceptable photograph, depending on what style or genre you are following but to create an exceptional photograph definitely takes special skill. Further, exceptional photography definitely is art in my book!


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

quite like Jeff Koons....an artist mate of mine hates him though, says he is a sham, and nothing more than an advertising executive (i dont agree)


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I disagree. It is easy to take an acceptable photograph, depending on what style or genre you are following but to create an exceptional photograph definitely takes special skill. Further, exceptional photography definitely is art in my book!



skill perhaps, but it will never be comparable to the skill involved in drawing or painting.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I do think Emin's bed is rubbish (well it is) though, she has claimed it is a seminal work, well it is seminal in that it is the first time someone has managed to get an art lover to pay that sort of price for an unmade bed certainly, but if it is seminal in the traditional understanding of the world, where are all the follow on beds from other artists? Where?



Yes...true indeed.

What people sometimes don't realise is that artists don't all do their own work.

"Hirst is one of the rare artists to publicly give credit to his team. Of his favorite assistant, Rachel Howard, he said, “*The best spot painting you can have by me is one painted by Rachel.”
In 2008, Howard put one of her spot paintings, unsigned by Hirst, up for auction in New York. It brought in $90,000. Several months later, another of her spot paintings — this one signed by Hirst — sold for $2.25 million.*"

http://nypost.com/2014/04/27/inside-the-mad-world-of-modern-art/


This to me just shows how crazy the art world is...


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

yeh Hirst didnt do much of those....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Jeff Koons did not sell that work for $58.4 million. It was owned by Peter Brant, who bought it in the 1990s. The money raised by the sale was invested into The Brant Foundation Art Study Center.



Christie's sold it for that money.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> .. This to me just shows how crazy the art world is...


Yes I mean I think I see your point except that didn't Warhol operate a factory of workers also? and if you buy a car from Mercedes Benz, the original Benz didn't build it himself anymore it was probably mainly built by robots.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

Saw Koon's Bears at the Tate. I thought they were brilliant. The impact was quite shocking. Loved them. Art is so subjective though...


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Christie's sold it for that money.


Your post seemed to imply that Jeff Koons was getting $58.4 million in "patronage".


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes I mean I think I see your point except that didn't Warhol operate a factory of workers also? and if you buy a car from Mercedes Benz, the original Benz didn't build it himself anymore it was probably mainly built by robots.




I think there is a long history of artists having students painting significant portions of paintings. But the artists themselves also painted/created art of their own.... They didn't just sign a student's piece and sell their signature...which is what Hirst has done on numerous occasions.


----------



## oryx (Sep 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I went to see Tracy Emin's exhibition 'Love is what you want' and really liked it. Her attention to detail with quilting is extremely skillful and her prolific writing is quality. I think she is a good artist (i dont say this lightly, i spent two hours at this exhibition, which was a kind of magnum opus of all her work) and it is actually good (and very, very detailed).



I went to see her Turner Prize exhibition including 'My Bed' which I found really moving. I also think she's a brilliant at drawing, and love her neon and patchwork stuff.

I think it was Steve McQueen who won that year (1998) with stuff including a video of (IIRC) an old cassette recorder in a field with a balloon attached to it , which I really did not get.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I don't think it's anything like that. These are not consumer products. The prices that they fetch may well be obscene, but it's not as if it makes a difference to the likes of you or me.


They are indeed consumer products, every bit as much as an iPhone... assuming you have exploited enough people to be able to afford a few hundred million to throw at incoherent splashes of paint on canvas.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

oryx said:


> I went to see her Turner Prize exhibition including 'My Bed' which I found really moving. I also think she's a brilliant at drawing, and love her neon and patchwork stuff.



her drawing (and even the writing!) is extraordinarily detailed and skillful....her exhibition blew me away...those HUGE quilts are incredible


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

oryx said:


> I went to see her Turner Prize exhibition including 'My Bed' which I found really moving. I also think she's a brilliant at drawing, and love her neon and patchwork stuff.
> 
> I think it was Steve McQueen who won that year (1998) with stuff including a video of (IIRC) an old cassette recorder in a field with a balloon attached to it , which I really did not get.





Cheesypoof said:


> her drawing (and even the writing!) is extraordinarily detailed and skillful....the exhibition blew me away...those HUGE quilts are incredible



Any pictures of these outstanding drawings?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Your post seemed to imply that Jeff Koons was getting $58.4 million in "patronage".



I was pointing out the crazy price paid by a patron at the Christies auction for "balloon dog".


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I was pointing out the crazy price paid by a patron at the Christies auction for "balloon dog".


But it wasn't Jeff Koons' patron that bought it for that price. It was bought by an unknown telephone bidder.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Any pictures of these outstanding drawings?



i know this sounds shallow - and anyone who has seen her work up close will agree - but it looks shit when photographed! you have to stand very close to see the amount of work put in. Here is an attempt ( i have tried to save and post this pic for the past 10 mins, dunno why it wont save, sorry for the delay...)

http://weareoca.com/fine_art/tracey-emin-love-is-what-you-want/


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> But it wasn't Jeff Koons' patron that bought it for that price. It was bought by an unknown telephone bidder.



Yes I know....but whoever bought it still became, albeit by default, a patron of Koons. 
His stock price went through the roof.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Jeff Koons did not sell that work for $58.4 million. It was owned by Peter Brant, who bought it in the 1990s. The money raised by the sale was invested into The Brant Foundation Art Study Center.


tbf if they've managed to make a balloon dog that doesn't deflate in 2 decades, then that really is some sort of special magic that's worthy of $58.4 million just to attempt to work out how it was done.


well, when I say worth $58.4 million, I could probably think of better things to spend the money on if I had it.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

the price of art is just sinful....


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> His stock price went through the roof.


I'm afraid I don't understand this at all.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

Good or shit?... how much is this worth?


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> tbf if they've managed to make a balloon dog that doesn't deflate in 2 decades, then that really is some sort of special magic that's worthy of $58.4 million just to attempt to work out how it was done.


They cheated. It is made of stainless steel .



> well, when I say worth $58.4 million, I could probably think of better things to spend the money on if I had it.


As for the money, I agree.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Good or shit?... how much is this worth?



Abstract Rubix Cube, I'll give you a quid for it


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> They cheated. It is made of stainless steel .


Thanks, I'll stop looking down the back of the sofa for the $58.39995 million I'm short.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Good or shit?... how much is this worth?


I don't particularly like it. It looks like some sort of Mondrian knock-off. As to what it's worth - whatever someone is prepared to pay for it.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Good or shit?... how much is this worth?



That's doing bad things to my eyes.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I don't particularly like it. It looks like some sort of Mondrian knock-off. As to what it's worth - whatever someone is prepared to pay for it.


It sold for 8.2 million squids


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 21, 2014)

tracy emin is self indulgent narcisistic shite


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It sold for 8.2 million squids


Who is it by?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i know this sounds shallow - and anyone who has seen her work up close will agree - but it looks shit when photographed! you have to stand very close to see the amount of work put in. Here is an attempt ( i have tried to save and post this pic for the past 10 mins, dunno why it wont save, sorry for the delay...)
> 
> http://weareoca.com/fine_art/tracey-emin-love-is-what-you-want/



I've seen loads of her work up close, it's still shite.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Who is it by?


Me... it took half an hour in Photoshop and you can have it for half that price


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2014)

jesus.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 21, 2014)

I genuinely don't get "art". A pretty picture is, well, just that. Nice to look at. A sculpture can brighten the place up a bit.

The rest of it? Shit like the stuff on this thread? An utter waste of time, effort and money. Anyone finding "inner meaning" or other such twaddle from any of it needs to get out more.


----------



## Bungle73 (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Ah, a Mark Rothko. I like a lot of his work.


When they had the recent exhibition at the Tate a few years ago, I went twice. 



weltweit said:


> I disagree. It is easy to take an acceptable photograph, depending on what style or genre you are following but to create an exceptional photograph definitely takes special skill. Further, exceptional photography definitely is art in my book!


Agreed. If photography isn't "art" then how come there are galleries all over the world with walls covered in photographs?

And how can you say the work of the like of Ansel Adams isn't art?


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Me... it took half an hour in Photoshop and you can have it for half that price


Like I said, I don't particularly like it. And I'm afraid that even if I did, your price is far too high for me. I've never spent more than about £20 on any art.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 21, 2014)

Photography is easy.  Good photography is fucking hard.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Like I said, I don't particularly like it. And I'm afraid that even if I did, your price is far too high for me. I've never spent more than about £20 on any art.


Give me 20 quid and I'll email you a print size


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 21, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Agreed. If photography isn't "art" then how come there are galleries all over the world with walls covered in photographs?


It does seem to me that more often than not "fine art photography" can also be described as "blurry badly composed photograpy"


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Give me 20 quid and I'll email you a print size


I've already told you, I don't really like it. Why would I want to pay for it?


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Photography is easy.  Good photography is fucking hard.



I dunno....i think with a good eye and camera, its not that hard. Its definitely not art, thats for sure...


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I've already told you, I don't really like it. Why would I want to pay for it?



people don't buy 8 million quid artworks because they like them


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 21, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> people don't buy 8 million quid artworks because they like them


No, they buy them because they're colossal twats with too much fucking money.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I dunno....i think with a good eye and camera, its not that hard. Its definitely not art, thats for sure...



Try taking a good photo, then compare it to an actual good photo.  You'll realise your photo is shit.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> people don't buy 8 million quid artworks because they like them


Fookin' spot on!!!!
They most likely buy them to tell people how much they spent on a piece of worthless shite!


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> people don't buy 8 million quid artworks because they like them


I don't buy 8 million quid artworks whether I like them or not.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I don't buy 8 million quid artworks whether I like them or not.



I have several dr herbz on my walls


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> Try taking a good photo, then compare it to an actual good photo.  You'll realise your photo is shit.



yeh...done that. There is skill involved but its not art, and never will be.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 21, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> I have several dr herbz on my walls


Good for you


----------



## weltweit (Sep 21, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> yeh...done that. There is skill involved but its not art, and never will be.


Define Art then?


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2014)

I'm going to have to put this shit on ignore. it's like some kind of competition to redefine banal.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Define Art then?



no definition.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 21, 2014)

art:


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 21, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> I have several dr herbz on my walls


Joking aside... I (used to) build websites for a living. Then I went on to search engine optimisation, and I can get pretty much any website to or near the top of Google... So... I wonder how long it would take to establish myself as a renowned artist?

A perfect example of how fucked up the art world is... Exit through the gift shop. It unearths the utter bullshit surrounding the art world, and how a complete no-mark made fortunes off the back of Banksy


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 21, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes I mean I think I see your point except that didn't Warhol operate a factory of workers also? and if you buy a car from Mercedes Benz, the original Benz didn't build it himself anymore it was probably mainly built by robots.



Warhol's prints/paintings were all about mass production and the imperfections made by the process itself, including having others do most of the work.

You'd be amazed at the number of household name artists today who do no more than email a sketchy jpg to a fine art studio and then simply sign their finished edition of screenprints, etchings, lithographs or whatever a couple of months later. Some are more hands on, but many let the printer do practically everything. Easy money, but of course not so easy getting to the stage where you can do that.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 21, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Joking aside... I (used to) build websites for a living. Then I went on to search engine optimisation, and I can get pretty much any website to or near the top of Google... So... I wonder how long it would take to establish myself as a renowned artist?
> 
> A perfect example of how fucked up the art world is... Exit through the gift shop. It unearths the utter bullshit surrounding the art world, and how a complete no-mark made fortunes off the back of Banksy




When I painted "what the fuck are you looking at?" on a canvas they took it off the wall and threw it in the skip.  When tracy emin wrote the above on a bit of paper it's in the tate.

That's art.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 21, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I'm afraid I don't understand this at all.



His artwork is at a higher premium now....than prior to the Christies auction.
Mini balloon dogs are selling for $5000 a piece...



weltweit said:


> Define Art then?



Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2014)

Took me two more years to realise it.

I should have quit at foundation


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> When I painted "what the fuck are you looking at?" on a canvas they took it off the wall and threw it in the skip.  When tracy emin wrote the above on a bit of paper it's in the tate.
> 
> That's art.



This ^^^^^
This has always bugged me....


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Shall we start the bidding at 2 million?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Shall we start the bidding at 2 million?


Now that I like.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2014)

I thought that was rick mayall but it's just the guy from game of thrones.

I'm out.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2014)

it is rather brilliant though


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Now that I like.


Cheers... that took about 2 hours in Photoshop... and it's yours for 12 million


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Cheers... that took about 2 hours in Photoshop... and it's yours for 12 million


Just email me a hi res jpeg and I'll do myself a print.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Just email me a hi res jpeg and I'll do myself a print.


Done... I'll send you a link shortly


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Done... I'll send you a link shortly


See. This art thing is a piece of piss.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> See. This art thing is a piece of piss.


----------



## xenon (Sep 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.


 Is it going to be one of those threads. 

I clicked out of curiosity. pictures of pictures aside. I am trying to remember who people raved about when I was doing art. And coming up short. It wasn't people selling of millions though. They are just anomalies after all. I always liked Richard Sara's stuff. I don't know what it sold for. Why is priced the arbiter of art or equal to what is raved about. As with the other threads. When not judging them by how many books were sold, films by purely box office success.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Done... I'll send you a link shortly



Free original art on t'internet......

Suck that Bno


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

xenon said:


> Why is priced the arbiter of art or equal to what is raved about.



Exactly....


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Just email me a hi res jpeg and I'll do myself a print.


This'll give you a 2 foot wide print. It's not a finished work but that'll probably make it worth more 

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5573/15291816196_9713e54c5c_o.jpg


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> This'll give you a 2 foot wide print. It's not a finished work but that'll probably make it worth more
> 
> https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5573/15291816196_0d514c9c0d_o.jpg




Will you post the finished work ... when it's finished?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Will you post the finished work ... when it's finished?


For a fee...


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)




----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

How about this... ?


----------



## N_igma (Sep 22, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> $87,000,000



If you ever seen a Rothko up front you'd change your mind.


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 22, 2014)




----------



## Fez909 (Sep 22, 2014)

N_igma said:


> If you ever seen a Rothko up front you'd change your mind.


Why? just because you like it?


----------



## N_igma (Sep 22, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Why? just because you like it?



No because his work is magnificent. On the face of it it just looks like two colours but his inception draws you into a world of helplessness. Picture it as a window and the red glare reflecting against your own conscience it asks questions whilst being subtle at the same time. You need to see it up front to understand. Either that or you don't get abstract Impressionism lol.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 22, 2014)

N_igma said:


> No because his work is magnificent. On the face of it it just looks like two colours but his inception draws you into a world of helplessness. Picture it as a window and the red glare reflecting against your own conscience it asks questions whilst being subtle at the same time. You need to see it up front to understand. Either that or you don't get abstract Impressionism lol.


False dichotomy.

"I like it because of its <subjective quality>. If you don't like it then you don't understand it."

What arrogance.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 22, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> False dichotomy.
> 
> "I like it because of its <subjective quality>. If you don't like it then you don't understand it."
> 
> What arrogance.



lol false dichotomy you can't just say false dichotomy for no reason you know what it means? Anyhow I was just pointing out that you need to see a Rothko painting up front before passing judgement.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 22, 2014)

N_igma said:


> lol false dichotomy you can't just say false dichotomy for no reason you know what it means? Anyhow I was just pointing out that you need to see a Rothko painting up front before passing judgement.


Of course I know what it means: I spelled it out in the very next sentence.

Misplaced condescension on top of arrogance. Brilliant.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 22, 2014)

N_igma said:


> No because his work is magnificent. On the face of it it just looks like two colours but his inception draws you into a world of helplessness. Picture it as a window and the red glare reflecting against your own conscience it asks questions whilst being subtle at the same time. You need to see it up front to understand. Either that or you don't get abstract Impressionism lol.


I like Rothko's stuff, purely because I like the bold colours. But I'm afraid your description is art critic wankiness. You are Brian Sewell and I claim my £5.


----------



## gabi (Sep 22, 2014)

i once met an assistant to david hockney. he mockingly asked me to 'draw a tree' (im a graphic designer, upon whom 'artists' look down on.)

here's some of hockney's work fwiw. beautiful eh?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 22, 2014)

N_igma said:


> On the face of it it just looks like two colours but his inception draws you into a world of helplessness. Picture it as a window and the red glare reflecting against your own conscience it asks questions whilst being subtle at the same time.


Then again, it might just be shite.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

N_igma said:


> No because his work is magnificent. On the face of it it just looks like two colours but his inception draws you into a world of helplessness. Picture it as a window and the red glare reflecting against your own conscience it asks questions whilst being subtle at the same time. You need to see it up front to understand. Either that or you don't get abstract Impressionism lol.




You've ruined it for me by reducing it to a window...now all I see is a window. Before, it was a well of coloured imagination. Now it's a crappy argos blind pulled down on a sunny day over a shitty window.. 

Where's your conscience man?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

gabi said:


> i once met an assistant to david hockney. he mockingly asked me to 'draw a tree' (im a graphic designer, upon whom 'artists' look down on.)
> 
> here's some of hockney's work fwiw. beautiful eh?




Isn't this one of his ipad pics?


----------



## gabi (Sep 22, 2014)

not sure. but ive never seen anything by him thats any good. to my eye anyway. obviously art's a highly subjective thing though.

i did meet him once, years ago. he was a lovely dude. just surrounded by a phalanx of yes men.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 22, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Define Art then?



I've always gone with this definition:

Something that has been deliberately constructed to evoke specific thoughts and or emotions. 

Fine art or high art:

A: does the above so badly so that only 'experts' can work out (or at least think they can) what was attempting to be evoked. 
B: Has been made by someone with the right art world connections. 
C: Has been made by someone famous or infamous (considered shit until you are told it's by that guy who went nuts and cut his ear off and sent it to someone).


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 22, 2014)

Gromit said:


> I've always gone with this definition:
> 
> Something that has been deliberately constructed to evoke specific thoughts and or emotions...


...with the hope it can be flogged for a few quid so they don't have to get a proper job.


----------



## gabi (Sep 22, 2014)

Gromit said:


> I've always gone with this definition:
> 
> Something that has been deliberately constructed to evoke specific thoughts and or emotions.
> 
> ...



thing is, van gogh was actually a genius. in my eyes anyway. Anyone who considers his work as 'shit' should cut out their eyeballs.


----------



## chilango (Sep 22, 2014)

Re the OP.

I really like Lucio Fontana's stuff.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

N_igma said:


> No because his work is magnificent. On the face of it it just looks like two colours but his inception draws you into a world of helplessness. Picture it as a window and the red glare reflecting against your own conscience it asks questions whilst being subtle at the same time. You need to see it up front to understand. Either that or you don't get abstract Impressionism lol.


LOL  

You should be an estate agent


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I dunno....i think with a good eye and camera, its not that hard. Its definitely not art, thats for sure...



Photography *can* be art, just as sculpture or painting can sometimes not be art. Just as music is sometimes art, and sometimes not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> people don't buy 8 million quid artworks because they like them



More often they buy them for either status reasons, or because of investment potential, both of which reasons are fairly nauseating, IMO.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> ...with the hope it can be flogged for a few quid so they don't have to get a proper job.


Proper job? Why isn't being an artist a proper job?


Such obtuseness on this thread. An ignorance parade.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2014)

gabi said:


> thing is, van gogh was actually a genius. in my eyes anyway. Anyone who considers his work as 'shit' should cut out their eyeballs.



Van Gogh and a couple of his contemporaries introduced people to a new way of picturing landscapes and portraits - ways that weren't truly representational of what was there, but were what *they* saw.  I love that Van Gogh's paintings look *to me* like he was frantic to get down what he was seeing.
And they mostly didn't paint or sculpt saints either, which is a big fucking relief after about 7 centuries of martyr veneration and the licking of Church arse (and seeking of Church patronage) by artists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Proper job? Why isn't being an artist a proper job?
> 
> 
> Such obtuseness on this thread. An ignorance parade.



Here he goes again!!!


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Photography *can* be art, just as sculpture or painting can sometimes not be art. Just as music is sometimes art, and sometimes not.



I guess when you put it like that, its right. I would be very reluctant to consider a photograph a work of art, unless it was REALLY something.

Actually, I think this is a very artistic photo that a photographer took of Amy Winehouse in Scotland. Really captures her in a classic, 1950s paparazzi style.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Here he goes again!!!


Again?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

Mark Rothko –White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose)
$71 million..in 2007..

Reminds me of Bassetts liquorice allsorts....


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

If you don't like Rothko, then there's no hope


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> If you don't like Rothko, then there's no hope



why do you like him so much?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> why do you like him so much?


I like the way his paintings look. They make you gasp close up.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I like the way his paintings look. They make you gasp close up.



Really? Fair enough, I don't think they are shit btw. It is good when a supposedly 'red' painting is supremely detailed with layering and up close you can see blacks and other hues...I like that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

I don't see why you wouldn't like Rothko. It's people who don't like the self-evidently staggeringly beautiful paintings of Rothko that need to explain themselves


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I like the way his paintings look. They make you gasp close up.


No, they don't. They're a bag of shite.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't see why you wouldn't like Rothko. It's people who don't like the self-evidently staggeringly beautiful paintings of Rothko that need to explain themselves



Check out some responses here....
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=630949

I do like it (only heard of him today)


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> No, they don't. They're a bag of shite.


Explain why


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't see why you wouldn't like Rothko. It's people who don't like the self-evidently staggeringly beautiful paintings of Rothko that need to explain themselves


No.... It's people who do like that shite who need to explain themselves.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> No.... It's people who do like that shite who need to explain themselves.


I already have. Your turn.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Explain why


Because it's pretentious shite


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Because it's pretentious shite


Most art is pretentious shite, maybe it's not for you?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

That word pretentious again....


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Because it's pretentious shite


Awesome painting. Two words isn't an explanation. Explain why you believe Rothko to be pretentious and why you think he is shite.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Because it's pretentious shite



Thats beautiful


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 22, 2014)

What is it making a pretence towards?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> What is it making a pretence towards?


Not being shite.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Most art is pretentious shite, maybe it's not for you?


I agree. Most art is pretentious shite, and isn't for me but we're back to the same old question... what is art?

This might be art but it's shite. Anyone who can't see that is a deluded fool.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 22, 2014)

In fairness though, Rothko paintings have to be experienced in person to get the full effect, you won't get much with an image on a computer screen.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I agree. Most art is pretentious shite, and isn't for me but we're back to the same old question... what is art?
> 
> This might be art but it's shite. Anyone who can't see that is a deluded fool.



Maybe you should consider the idea that you you are the deluded fool.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I agree. Most art is pretentious shite, and isn't for me but we're back to the same old question... what is art?
> 
> This might be art but it's shite. Anyone who can't see that is a deluded fool.



Well, you're saying "anyone who can't see that" - so you must have some idea what constitutes "good art" in your eyes to know that it isn't in this painting... so what do you think is good art?


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2014)

I like rothko and dr herbz


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> Maybe you should consider the idea that you you are the deluded fool.


Just like audiophiles who think they're the only people who can hear the difference a 5000 quid power lead makes, and the rest of the world are the deluded ones.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well, you're saying "anyone who can't see that" - so you must have some idea what constitutes "good art" in your eyes to know that it isn't in this painting... so what do you think is good art?


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Proper job? Why isn't being an artist a proper job?
> 
> Such obtuseness on this thread. An ignorance parade.





Orang Utan said:


> If you don't like Rothko, then there's no hope



i agree with your first point. your last one less so. rothko does nothing for me and i've seen them close up and personal more than once.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> If you don't like Rothko, then there's no hope




I think it's very overpriced.....for what it is. .even close up. So it's still amazing to me that it commands such an extraordinary price.... 

I actually like the liquorice allsort one...it beats the red roller blind.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 22, 2014)

For most people, it's the seemingly random way monetary value is assigned to art (well a body of art by particular artist) that's the problem, not what's good/bad/art/not art


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I think it's very overpriced.....for what it is. .even close up. So it's still amazing to me that it commands such an extraordinary price....
> 
> I actually like the liquorice allsort one...it beats the red roller blind.


Who cares about the price? Why fixate on that? I want to know what you think about the painting


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Just like audiophiles who think they're the only people who can hear the difference a 5000 quid power lead makes, and the rest of the world are the deluded ones.



Its not like that at all.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 22, 2014)

I don't think I would be awed by a Rothko close up, I just can't see it myself.
A Damien Hurst physical thing though, that would work.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> Its not like that at all.


It's exactly like that... people pretending to see something that isn't there.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well, you're saying "anyone who can't see that" - so you must have some idea what constitutes "good art" in your eyes to know that it isn't in this painting... so what do you think is good art?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It's exactly like that... people pretending to see something that isn't there.


You are presuming a lot about other people.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


>


If you can appreciate that, how can you dismiss abstraction?


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 22, 2014)

it took me _years_ to work out that i just don't get painting on the whole. show me a decent photograph, print, sculpture or sketch and i'll see the point. painting (in general) leaves me cold.


----------



## SovietArmy (Sep 22, 2014)

Well if sold for few millions that mean art is shit.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It's exactly like that... people pretending to see something that isn't there.



Its not though is it. Just because you dont get it doesnt mean that everyone else is pretending.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It's exactly like that... people pretending to see something that isn't there.



That reminds me of being fourteen.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

SovietArmy said:


> Well if sold for few millions that mean art is shit.


No, it just means someone has paid a lot for it.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> If you can appreciate that, how can you dismiss abstraction?


That Turner painting is a proper work of art, whereas a 2 year old child could have churned out those Rothko paintings.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> Its not though is it. Just because you dont get it doesnt mean that everyone else is pretending.


Audiophiles use that exact same reasoning.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Audiophiles use that exact same reasoning.


But your comparison of audiophiles with people who like stuff you don't is specious.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> That Turner painting is a proper work of art, whereas a 2 year old child could have churned out those Rothko paintings.


You are going to have to do better than that. A year 9 would get a C for that argument.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 22, 2014)

The usual bollocks that comes out in these threads aside: I really don't like Dali. I had an art teacher who sniffily said "a lot of people like Dali when they're younger" which I thought was patronising at the time but I can see what he meant now; it's all rather shallow. (On the other hand, Miro is amazing - the Miro museum in Barcelona really had a huge effect on me.)

I'm not a Gilbert and George fan. They strike me, like a few other people, as sort of performance art in their entirety including all of their works, rather than making individual pieces of good art. On that note, not a huge Warhol fan either, though I like some.

There's an exhibition of really abstract stuff by William Burroughs in Shoreditch that I saw recently and didn't like - he's not really noted as a visual artist but there's an obvious halo effect. I don't think he would have been bothered by people saying "look Bill, these are a bit shit". (His street photography is excellent though. I've always thought that he was one of those artists who do best when they have certain unavoidable constraints imposed on them, with his writing too.)

I think Hockney is overrated too, if not shit. Just never really got on with the deliberately naive thing he does except in a few cases.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> You are going to have to do better than that. A year 9 would get a C for that argument.


Most children could easily recreate a Rothko. Try that with a Turner.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 22, 2014)

Turner is a really bad counter-example to use if you're trying to do the "it's just a noise, anybody could do that" thing.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Who cares about the price? Why fixate on that? I want to know what you think about the painting



I've already told you....some I like. Some I  don't.  
No matter what you believe, or think, you cannot dismiss the art world. They put a price on art work and that price leads to the view that certain art is exceptional...special. .collectible. ..unusual and unique.
 I've looked at Rothco works very closely....and I understand and know his background and struggles...
It's a matter of personal preference tbh.


----------



## chilango (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Most children could easily recreate a Rothko. Try that with a Turner.



No, they can't.

Nor I suspect could you.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> If you can appreciate that, how can you dismiss abstraction?



It's called passion. 
Rothko controls, condenses and encapsulates and stays at a distance.
Turner explodes, bursts out of the canvas, erupts and pulls you in.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Most children could easily recreate a Rothko. Try that with a Turner.



They couldnt. That argument is rubbish. 



> If you wander through New York’s Museum of Modern Art, you’ll eventually come across _Painting Number 2_ by Franz Kline, a set of thick, unruly black lines on a white canvas. Elsewhere, you will find one ofMark Rothko’s many untitled works, consisting of various coloured rectangles. And in front of both paintings, you will inevitably find visitors saying, “A child could paint that.”
> 
> To which Angelina Hawley-Dolan and Ellen Winner replied: “Could they?”
> 
> ...



http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...rt-from-a-childs-or-chimps-work/#.VCCMf65FDbU


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 22, 2014)

I remember that the Mail did a sneery piece saying "half of these pictures are by famous abstract artists, half of them are by kindergarten children, can you tell the difference?" Even not knowing anything particularly about visual art at the time I got them all right. It wasn't hard.


----------



## chilango (Sep 22, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> They couldnt. That argument is rubbish. Here is some evidence:
> 
> 
> 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...rt-from-a-childs-or-chimps-work/#.VCCMf65FDbU



...over the last decade or so I've taught literally hundreds and hundreds of children how to paint, including abstraction. I've yet to encounter one who can paint at Rothko's standard.

Fwiw I don't particularly like Rothko.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 22, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...over the last decade or so I've taught literally hundreds and hundreds of children how to paint, including abstraction. I've yet to encounter one who can paint at Rothko's standard.
> 
> Fwiw I don't particularly like Rothko.



Me either really.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I got them all right. It wasn't hard.



I would certainly hope so...the test would be to ask some art students to replicate the paintings and then carry out the same experiment.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Most children could easily recreate a Rothko. Try that with a Turner.


Actually a lot of thought and work went into those, he didn't just slop on a bit of paint, and Turner did abstract art too.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...over the last decade or so I've taught literally hundreds and hundreds of children how to paint, including abstraction. I've yet to encounter one who can paint at Rothko's standard.
> 
> Fwiw I don't particularly like Rothko.



I doubt the children had access to the materials used by Rothko though.


----------



## chilango (Sep 22, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I doubt the children had access to the materials used by Rothko though.



Oils, acrylics and canvases.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Actually a lot of thought and work went into those, he didn't just slop on a bit of paint, and Turner did abstract art too.



Turner does things like this...






Rothko does this...







Regardless of how technically perfect he might have been, with layers, etc... it's still shite.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

chilango said:


> Oils, acrylics and canvases.



And did they know how to mix glazes?
Were they using linseed oils and glazes? I'm asking because generally in schools there is a time limitation and cost factor involved in the use of art materials and the duration on any one project  if your classes are learning how to use oils and layer thin layers of oil paints with glazes etc then that's really great..


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Turner does things like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shite, why?. Can you appreciate any abstract art?


----------



## chilango (Sep 22, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And did they know how to mix glazes?
> Were they using linseed oils and glazes? I'm asking because generally in schools there is a time limitation and cost factor involved in the use of art materials and the duration on any one project  if your classes are learning how to use oils and layer thin layers of oil paints with glazes etc then that's really great..



Not generally. That stuff was available for particularly keen older students though.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

chilango said:


> Not generally. That stuff was available for particularly keen older students though.



Pretty much like over here then. 
Acrylics all the way 
You just can't get the same depth with them though. 
It's great when theybfinally get their hands on oils and start to understand how the great masters used layers of colour and glazes to build paintings.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Shite, why?. Can you appreciate any abstract art?


Because regardless of how he achieved the end result, the end result is still 2 painted rectangles.
Yes, I can appreciate abstract art... here's one I prepared earlier.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 22, 2014)

Right then you bag of cunts. I'm gonna paint a Rothko.

I have an unused canvas sat in my living room and some paints and an easel (kindly donated by two lovely Urbz) and I've been wondering wtf to paint for ages.

I haven't painted for about 15 years and I was never any good anyway.

But by the end of the week I'm gonna present my £75m painting. No bother


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Turner does things like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Explain why. Do not just proclaim it as shite.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Because regardless of how he achieved the end result, the end result is still 2 painted rectangles.
> Yes, I can appreciate abstract art... here's one I prepared earlier.


That's awful. It looks like a drunk man's misremembering of Mondrian with the wrong colours on Photoshop


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Actually a lot of thought and work went into those, he didn't just slop on a bit of paint, and Turner did abstract art too.


should have gone to specsavers


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> That's awful. It looks like a drunk man's misremembering of Mondrian with the wrong colours on Photoshop


no it doesn't. it really doesn't.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> That's awful. It looks like a drunk man's misremembering of Mondrian with the wrong colours on Photoshop



Here.. have another with different colours.






No doubt it would be special of Rothko did it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Here.. have another with different colours.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have failed to make your case.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Because regardless of how he achieved the end result, the end result is still 2 painted rectangles.
> Yes, I can appreciate abstract art... here's one I prepared earlier.


 But the two painted rectangles are exercises in form and colour, as much as this is, I think you're looking for something which isn't there.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 22, 2014)

.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no it doesn't. it really doesn't.


And neither does a Rothko look like a child has done it. It's usually Pollock who gets that particular criticism. He is awesome too.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Turner does things like this...




But what's the point of that in the age of photography?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> You have failed to make your case.



Said the audiophile to the sceptic.



Blagsta said:


> But what's the point of that in the age of photography?



What's the point in owning an oak table when a plastic one will do?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

I'm not an audiophile. What have audiophiles have to do with this?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Right then you bag of cunts. I'm gonna paint a Rothko.



Me too ...


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 22, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Said the audiophile to the sceptic.
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point in owning an oak table when a plastic one will do?



Oak tables are not representations of something else.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Right then you bag of cunts. I'm gonna paint a Rothko.





bubblesmcgrath said:


> Me too ...



I'm looking forward to seeing these


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> But the two painted rectangles are exercises in form and colour, as much as this is, I think you're looking for something which isn't there.



Like...life....movement....space...light....texture....dimension...drama..passion..emotion....and all those wonderful things?


----------



## N_igma (Sep 22, 2014)

What the fuck was I on last night? Lol


----------



## discokermit (Sep 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Photography *can* be art, just as sculpture or painting can sometimes not be art.


it can be, by accident. photographers aren't artists though.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 22, 2014)

To me, art is pretty much anything that is creative, so photography is art as is drawing painting sculpture embroidery etc etc


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 22, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Like...life....movement....space...light....texture....dimension...drama..passion..emotion....and all those wonderful things?


If you're looking for movement in paintings like that you're looking for the wrong thing.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 22, 2014)

Soapsuds and whitewash.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 22, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> If you're looking for movement in paintings like that you're looking for the wrong thing.



It's art. I'm the observer. I can look for whatever I like  
Actually there is some movement in the feathered edges of layers of paint so I'll give Rothko that.
But I still don't like most of his abstract field paintings...


----------



## discokermit (Sep 22, 2014)

chess is the purest artform.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 22, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Oak tables are not representations of something else.



They're both products. If I wanted an exact copy, for technical reasons, I'd want a photograph. If I wanted it for its artistic value, I'd want a painting.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 22, 2014)

discokermit said:


> chess is the purest artform.


cheese is definitely purest artform


----------



## discokermit (Sep 22, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> cheese is definitely purest artform


cheese is on a par with photography.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 22, 2014)

They laughed at Alex James.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 22, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They laughed at Alex James.


we still do.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't see why you wouldn't like Rothko. It's people who don't like the self-evidently staggeringly beautiful paintings of Rothko that need to explain themselves


The structure of an atom is beautiful. Looking up at the stars and seeing the scale of the universe and our place in it makes me gasp.

Rothkos paintings are blobs of colour on a canvas. Yawn.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The structure of an atom is beautiful. Looking up at the stars and seeing the scale of the universe and our place in it makes me gasp.
> 
> Rothkos paintings are blobs of colour on a canvas. Yawn.


And literature is just words on a page. And music just a bunch of noises.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> And literature is just words on a page. And music just a bunch of noises.


To some, yes.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> To some, yes.


So you are as ignorant about art as others are ignorant about music and words


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> So you are as ignorant about art as others are ignorant about music and words


But they're not ignorant at all. If something doesn't connect with you then you're free to see it for what it ultimately is.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 22, 2014)

gabi said:


> thing is, van gogh was actually a genius. in my eyes anyway. Anyone who considers his work as 'shit' should cut out their eyeballs.



I own a Van Gogh. He was very good. He died poor and unappreciated as the people of the time considered him shit.

Once his story spread all of sudden everyone gets it. Get it in a very big way. Millions and millions of pounds in a big way.

I personally think his eye for art was even better than his own artist ability. His own personal art collection of other's works was /is quite astounding.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> But they're not ignorant at all. If something doesn't connect with you then you're free to see it for what it ultimately is.


It's fair to say something doesn't connect with you but not to dismiss those who do appreciate it differently.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 22, 2014)

Gromit said:


> I own a Van Gogh. He was very good. He died poor and unappreciated as the people of the time considered him shit.
> 
> Once his story spread all of sudden everyone gets it. Get it in a very big way. Millions and millions of pounds in a big way.
> 
> I personally think his eye for art was even better than his own artist ability. His own personal art collection of other's works was /is quite astounding.


You own a Van Gogh? Mmmmmmmreallly?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 22, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> It's fair to say something doesn't connect with you but not to dismiss those who do appreciate it differently.


I dunno. The art world does have a line in pretentious crap to justify that connection way beyond that usually found in music and literature. It's that that people tend to take the piss out of, quite reasonably IMO.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 23, 2014)

When people use the word pretentious they are hardly ever talking about taste or aesthetic sensibility. It is a mask for a deep and profound ignorance and fear of what they dont understand. It says much more about you than your taste.

Music is never just a bunch of noises. Books are never just words on a page. Art is never just blobs of paint. Ever. What a tiny world you must live in.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> They're both products. If I wanted an exact copy, for technical reasons, I'd want a photograph. If I wanted it for its artistic value, I'd want a painting.



So the Art is in the interpretation of reality?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 23, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> Music is never just a bunch of noises. Books are never just words on a page. Art is never just blobs of paint.


If it has no connection with you then that's exactly what they are.



> What a tiny world you must live in.


Oh fuck off with that patronising crap. "Oh look at me with my deep understanding, you plebs just don't get it".


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> When people use the word pretentious they are hardly ever talking about taste or aesthetic sensibility. It is a mask for a deep and profound ignorance and fear of what they dont understand. It says much more about you than your taste.
> 
> Music is never just a bunch of noises. Books are never just words on a page. Art is never just blobs of paint. Ever. What a tiny world you must live in.



Yes...sometimes it's 9000 dead butterflies.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 23, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> When people use the word pretentious they are hardly ever talking about taste or aesthetic sensibility. It is a mask for a deep and profound ignorance and fear of what they dont understand. It says much more about you than your taste.
> 
> Music is never just a bunch of noises. Books are never just words on a page. Art is never just blobs of paint. Ever. What a tiny world you must live in.



Yes, you're so right.

Here... would you like to buy this masterpiece?






It's a depiction of my ongoing struggle to achieve your level of awesomeness.  




Blagsta said:


> So the Art is in the interpretation of reality?



Not necessarily. Art can be anything, including shite.


----------



## chilango (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Here... would you like to buy this masterpiece?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not as good as Malevich's "White Square on white" though is it?

...and that's a serious point.

Two things can be very similar (in this case a white square on a white background) and yet something, something, elevates one way above/beyond the other. Sometimes this "something" is easily examined via tangible qualities such as material, media, scale, technique, context etc. Sometimes it's not.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

"Something" crept into the "art world" in the last century. The artist suddenly became more important than the work.
A culture of personality evolved and it seems that now it is all about the name...it's all about the "artist"


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 23, 2014)

My house is made out of 100s of copies of equivalent 8


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 23, 2014)

Most artists produce more than one piece, hence the interest in their output as a whole and the story it tells collectively.  Inevitably this means examining the artist themselves.  Unfortunately this sometimes, but not always, bleeds over into a cult of personality rather than appreciation of work.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 23, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If it has no connection with you then that's exactly what they are.
> 
> 
> Oh fuck off with that patronising crap. "Oh look at me with my deep understanding, you plebs just don't get it".


That's not what he's saying and he's spot on. Fucking hell I'm a total art ignoramus, but you and herbz are talking absolute shit on this thread.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 23, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If it has no connection with you then that's exactly what they are.
> 
> 
> Oh fuck off with that patronising crap. "Oh look at me with my deep understanding, you plebs just don't get it".



It all has a connection to me because I am human. 

If you feel inferior it proves my point: its all about you and your feelings and nothing to do with taste.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 23, 2014)

My latest masterpiece.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 23, 2014)

Has anyone mentioned grayson perry's pots yet? Truly shit.

I like his newer stuff though.

And tracy emin


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 23, 2014)

Still not got a valid argument eh, Dr_Herbz? Just stick with your rubbish arguments, you might even convince yourself eventually.


----------



## cesare (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> "Something" crept into the "art world" in the last century. The artist suddenly became more important than the work.
> A culture of personality evolved and it seems that now it is all about the name...it's all about the "artist"


The increasing status of artists was a Renaissance thing though?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 23, 2014)

I call this one 'Solitude'


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 23, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> It all has a connection to me because I am human.


Oh ffs. So that makes people who don't get a particular piece, well, what exactly?



> If you feel inferior it proves my point: its all about you and your feelings and nothing to do with taste.


I don't feel inferior to anybody, what the fuck are you on about?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Not necessarily. Art can be anything, including shite.



I'm trying to understand the value you attach to the turner painting over a photograph. Both are technical skills, both are interpretations of reality. So why value the turner and not a photograph?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 23, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> Still not got a valid argument eh, Dr_Herbz? Just stick with your rubbish arguments, you might even convince yourself eventually.


Your belief that you're somehow superior to people who don't buy into this bullshit is the only argument necessary.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 23, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I'm trying to understand the value you attach to the turner painting over a photograph. Both are technical skills, both are interpretations of reality. So why value the turner and not a photograph?


Where did I say I don't value photographs?

I appreciate good photography, just as much as I appreciate good paintings. Unfortunately, good photography is as rare as good paintings.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Your belief that you're somehow superior to people who don't buy into this bullshit is the only argument necessary.



All about you and your feelings. Nothing to do with art.


----------



## purenarcotic (Sep 23, 2014)

Tracy Emin. What a load of rubbish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> "Something" crept into the "art world" in the last century. The artist suddenly became more important than the work.
> A culture of personality evolved and it seems that now it is all about the name...it's all about the "artist"


which was never true about eg michaelangelo, caravaggio, donatello, holbein, fuseli, etc etc ad nauseam.

do you know anything about art history or are you simply a _poseur_?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 23, 2014)

I call this one 'Into the light' It symbolises my battle against dark things.







I don't expect everyone to 'get' it but the enlightened ones will.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Your belief that you're somehow superior to people who don't buy into this bullshit is the only argument necessary.



Your attitude is the same though - its "bullshit" and you're superior for seeing through the bullshit.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Where did I say I don't value photographs?
> 
> I appreciate good photography, just as much as I appreciate good paintings. Unfortunately, good photography is as rare as good paintings.



I asked you why have a realistic painting (in reference to a Turner you posted) when you can have a photo.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 23, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Your attitude is the same though - its "bullshit" and you're superior for seeing through the bullshit.



Yes, it's the rest of the world who know nothing. The chosen few are the only people who can understand and appreciate a white square on a white background.



Blagsta said:


> I asked you why have a realistic painting (in reference to a Turner you posted) when you can have a photo.



It isn't a realistic painting. it's an artist's impression.
Find me a photo as good as that painting and I might change my mind.


----------



## cesare (Sep 23, 2014)

Surely one can have an artist's impression of the intangible as well as the tangible?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> Surely one can have an artist's impression of the intangible as well as the tangible?


I'm sure it probably happens as often as not. Getting a photograph of it wouldn't be very easy.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> Surely one can have an artist's impression of the intangible as well as the tangible?




-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-
Intangible, Outtangible, Shakeitallaboutangible.
..--..--..--..--..​I call the above piece the OkayKokey.

Imagine it stencilled on a life sized Womble. 

What am I bid?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I call this one 'Into the light' It symbolises my battle against dark things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







i call this one 'Into the light' because it symbolises my battle against dark things.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Again?



Yes, again.
Insulting and belittling people who don't share your views and tastes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Mark Rothko –White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose)
> $71 million..in 2007..
> 
> Reminds me of Bassetts liquorice allsorts....



I've looked at loads of books of Rothko's paintings, and they've always left me cold. I've seen a single Rothko at a genre exhibition back in the '80s, and while it didn't take my breath away, it was certainly fascinating in terms of how the colours are blended into each other, and the _impasto_. Up close it had a lot more depth than any of the photographic reproductions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It's exactly like that... people pretending to see something that isn't there.



Or perhaps people perceive the same thing differently, independent of any argument about the "value" of the piece of art being looked at?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> it took me _years_ to work out that i just don't get painting on the whole. show me a decent photograph, print, sculpture or sketch and i'll see the point. painting (in general) leaves me cold.



I'm very much of the same opinion. I was brought up art-wise on looking at books of Old Masters and other "painterly" artists, and it wasn't until I was exposed to Impressionist, Symbolist and Surrealist painting that I actually stirred myself to go to exhibitions (I'm also a fan of Henri Rousseau, so sue me!).  I still don't think (personal taste-wise) that I've ever seen a painting that has stirred me the way Michael Ayrton's minotaur sculptures do; Tim Page's war photojournalism does ; John Craxton or Roy Pelling's lithographs do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The usual bollocks that comes out in these threads aside: I really don't like Dali. I had an art teacher who sniffily said "a lot of people like Dali when they're younger" which I thought was patronising at the time but I can see what he meant now; it's all rather shallow. (On the other hand, Miro is amazing - the Miro museum in Barcelona really had a huge effect on me.)
> 
> I'm not a Gilbert and George fan. They strike me, like a few other people, as sort of performance art in their entirety including all of their works, rather than making individual pieces of good art. On that note, not a huge Warhol fan either, though I like some.



TBF though, G & G have never made any bones about being engaged in a decades-long "performance". It's part of their _schtick_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Here.. have another with different colours.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nope, people would still look at it and say "this bloke obviously has some severe repressive issues about the German flag, which he keeps almost but not quite reproducing".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> But what's the point of that in the age of photography?



It's a different form of representation - with a painting you (at least until the advent of photography) reproduce a representation from either memory or imagination. With a photo, while what you do in post-production and/or in the darkroom can alter it, it *can* be a more "concrete" representation of "the real".


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Yes, it's the rest of the world who know nothing. The chosen few are the only people who can understand and appreciate a white square on a white background.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, so art is about interpretation.

Photography is also interpretation. Composition, exact moment the shutter is pressed, decisions in the darkroom etc. All interpretations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Oak tables are not representations of something else.



Except representations of what an oak tree can become if it gets in with the wrong crowd.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a different form of representation - with a painting you (at least until the advent of photography) reproduce a representation from either memory or imagination. With a photo, while what you do in post-production and/or in the darkroom can alter it, it *can* be a more "concrete" representation of "the real".



Not entirely true is it. Painters would often use subjects, if not directly or from sketches of subjects.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

discokermit said:


> it can be, by accident. photographers aren't artists though.



Because photography is a technical discipline?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

an oak table cannot be art because, as oscar wilde said, all art is utterly useless.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Not entirely true is it. Painters would often use subjects, if not directly or from sketches of subjects.



True. For example Rembrandt and Caravaggio were both legendary for their use of live models in the studio, but even so, I'd say that their work was more mediated - by the demands of patrons and by their own intentions with regard to the finished piece - than photography mostly was (alythough the advent of digital modification has thrown that up in the air, in my opinion).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

discokermit said:


> chess is the purest artform.



Pfft. Go.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> When people use the word pretentious they are hardly ever talking about taste or aesthetic sensibility. It is a mask for a deep and profound ignorance and fear of what they dont understand. It says much more about you than your taste.



I'd disagree with that. To me, expecting people to share artistic sensibilities, is like expecting all men called Gordon to be nonces - it doesn't happen. That it doesn't happen isn't down to some supposed perceptual deficit on the part of the person who doesn't "get it", it's down to the fact that we're the sum of our influences and experiences.



> Music is never just a bunch of noises.



Have you listened to Antheil's "Ballet Mecanique"? 



> Books are never just words on a page. Art is never just blobs of paint. Ever. What a tiny world you must live in.



Or perhaps it's a massive world, full of differences and shades of opinion, and that's a fact worth celebrating?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh fuck off with that patronising crap. "Oh look at me with my deep understanding, you plebs just don't get it".



To be scrupulously fair, the same could be said of whenever you sound off from your Skeptic chair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> "Something" crept into the "art world" in the last century. The artist suddenly became more important than the work.
> A culture of personality evolved and it seems that now it is all about the name...it's all about the "artist"



A cult of personality didn't really evolve. It was *developed*, often by Gallery owners and collectors, for very obvious reasons. 
Look at most well-known 20th-century artists, and behind 2/3rds of them stands a gallery or patron who, by the act of collecting and/or exhibiting, promotes the artist *and* their work, and it's the "and" that is important, because it allows the patron to validate their possession of "art-work" through reference (IMO often spurious) to the artist's sensibilities and intentions.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 23, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> $87,000,000


Those Rothkos are an art fail, seemingly self acknowledged by him

This is the effect he intended these painting to have:

The following June, Rothko and his family again traveled to Europe. While on the SS Independence he disclosed to John Fischer, publisher of Harper's Magazine, that his true intention for the Seagram murals was to paint* "something that will ruin the appetite of every son-of-a-bitch who ever eats in that room...*." He hoped, he told Fischer, that his painting would make the restaurant's patrons *"feel that they are trapped in a room where all the doors and windows are bricked up, so that all they can do is butt their heads forever against the wall."*

*then*

Once back in New York, Rothko and wife Mell visited the near-completed Four Seasons restaurant. Upset with the restaurant's dining atmosphere, which he considered pretentious and inappropriate for the display of his works, Rothko refused to continue the project and returned his cash advance to the Seagram and Sons Company. Seagram had intended to honor Rothko's emergence to prominence through his selection, and his breach of contract and public expression of outrage were unexpected.

So he made them to piss off and create a sense of doom amongst the rich diners, then its sounds like once he saw how in situ  they were little more than inoffensive corporate art he pulled them and gave the money back (fair dos).

Nice try in pissing these people off, but didnt quite work. I guess its a bit like Warhols Electric Chair screenprints which were a test to see what horrors rich people could be duped into paying for and putting on their walls


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> True. For example Rembrandt and Caravaggio were both legendary for their use of live models in the studio, but even so, I'd say that their work was more mediated - by the demands of patrons and by their own intentions with regard to the finished piece - than photography mostly was (alythough the advent of digital modification has thrown that up in the air, in my opinion).



Photography has always been mediated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> Tracy Emin. What a load of rubbish.



To be fair, I feel the same about a lot of conceptual art, but I accept that *may* be due to me not "getting" the premises of conceptual art, or not *wanting* to get the premises of conceptual art - to me, while an unmade bed may well be a layering of the personal history of the artist, it just looks like an unmade bed with spunky sheets!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Photography has always been mediated.



Hence my use of the term "more mediated" with regard to painting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> The increasing status of artists was a Renaissance thing though?



Tied in with patronage - visible and ostentatious patronage.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd disagree with that. To me, expecting people to share artistic sensibilities, is like expecting all men called Gordon to be nonces - it doesn't happen. That it doesn't happen isn't down to some supposed perceptual deficit on the part of the person who doesn't "get it", it's down to the fact that we're the sum of our influences and experiences.



I don't expect everyone to share the same artistic sensibilities. That would be dull. Differences are exciting. I was making a point about the use of the word 'pretentious'. 



ViolentPanda said:


> Have you listened to Antheil's "Ballet Mecanique"?



Yes but the fact that it has a name and is defined by a certain order of random noises, that it was created as part of a wider movement means it is more than the sum of its parts, more than just a collection of random noises, which it is. This can said for any human creation. It is always more than it is. 



ViolentPanda said:


> Or perhaps it's a massive world, full of differences and shades of opinion, and that's a fact worth celebrating?



That is precisely the point I am trying to make. I am not a reductionist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I call this one 'Into the light' It symbolises my battle against dark things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It looks like a uterus that's had keyhole surgery performed on it in the dark. Obviously a metaphor for the artist's mother-hate (strokes beard).


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hence my use of the term "more mediated" with regard to painting.



How are you quantifying it?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> "Something" crept into the "art world" in the last century. The artist suddenly became more important than the work.
> A culture of personality evolved and it seems that now it is all about the name...it's all about the "artist"


another lesser reason for this i think this is because conceptual art now requires the artist to provide some theory towards the meaning... a nice painting with some flowers stands alone for all time - a lightbulb going on and off requires a damn good explanation! the artists thoughts increasingly become part of the art beyond the object itself


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Dillinger4 said:


> I don't expect everyone to share the same artistic sensibilities. That would be dull. Differences are exciting. I was making a point about the use of the word 'pretentious'.



I know. I was trying to unpack that. 




> Yes but the fact that it has a name and is defined by a certain order of random noises, that it was created as part of a wider movement means it is more than the sum of its parts, more than just a collection of random noises, which it is. This can said for any human creation. It is always more than it is.



Well quite. I think that "Ballet Mecanique" is a great example of a new idea in "art" that illustrates perfectly how there's *always* a divide of opinion, and how that divide is always valid. 
It started off as a collection of random noises, though. It was the artist's intent and training plus an audience's willingness to listen (or not!) that made it more than it originally was. The fact that some people didn't "get" it was just as important as some people getting it.




> That is precisely the point I am trying to make. I am not a reductionist.



I know. I was attempting to illustrate that static views of what is or isn't art, *are* reductionist (contemplates switching off subtlety filter  ).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> How are you quantifying it?



Merely through my own eyes and opinions, for example that the media/tools for mediating photographic reproduction were, until recently, limited in scope, and often (especially in the darkroom) dependent on technical skill, whereas mediating painted reproductions, as we know from x-rays of many "great" artworks, was commonplace.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Merely through my own eyes and opinions, for example that the media/tools for mediating photographic reproduction were, until recently, limited in scope, and often (especially in the darkroom) dependent on technical skill, whereas mediating painted reproductions, as we know from x-rays of many "great" artworks, was commonplace.



I'd question if it was quantifiable. Differently mediated, yes. More or less? Hmmmm


----------



## cesare (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Tied in with patronage - visible and ostentatious patronage.


Yes. I think it started earlier than the last century, which is what was being asserted.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> Yes. I think it started earlier than the last century, which is what was being asserted.



Yup, the Medicis with Leonardo, The Vatican with the other three Ninja Turtles.


----------



## cesare (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yup, the Medicis with Leonardo, The Vatican with the other three Ninja Turtles.


Leonardo was a ninja turtle ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, again.
> Insulting and belittling people who don't share your views and tastes.


Hardly. Your tardy post was a reaction to a fair comment and was also a fairly hypocritical one.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 23, 2014)

ive got a few seconds for even the most knocked off conceptual art but i've got a zero tolerance policy on things written in neon lights. Whoever did it first, fair enough, but theres loads of this shit, lots of artists have had a go as if its a school of art.

quick google "20 Incredible Artists Using Neon" http://uk.complex.com/style/2013/07/neon-artists/" <so thats the best 20 - that means theres plenty more who didnt make the list

oh how clever


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Hardly. Your tardy post was a reaction to a fair comment and was also a fairly hypocritical one.



Yes, it's utterly fair comment to answer a post where someone doesn't agree with you, with: "Such obtuseness on this thread. An ignorance parade", and obviously, doing so wasn't at all insulting or bellittling of people whose ideas about art and artists didn't coincide with yours.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, it's utterly fair comment to answer a post where someone doesn't agree with you, with: "Such obtuseness on this thread. An ignorance parade", and obviously, doing so wasn't at all insulting or bellittling of people whose ideas about art and artists didn't coincide with yours.


You've said much worse. My comments were fair. A couple of posters were revelling in their ignorance and I said so. What's the problem with that?
And read the fucking thread before canucking the fuck out of it, will you?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Shall we start the bidding at 2 million?


 
sorry but thats a bit shit...i suggest the artist spend time to study the work of oneharoldbishop


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> You've said much worse.



Yes, and...?



> My comments were fair. A couple of posters were revelling in their ignorance and I said so. What's the problem with that?



Your comments were fair? They're no fairer than the comments you were railing against, because both you and your interlocutors were doing exactly the same thing, merely from opposite ends of the spectrum - you from a perspective of "art appreciation", theirs from the opposite.  None of you said anything worth saying, all we got was (to paraphrase) was "ner, you're ignorant if you don't share my views", answered with "ner, you're pretentious if you don't share mine". Schoolyard partisan bullshit that says nothing about art, but lots about you.



> And read the fucking thread before canucking the fuck out of it, will you?



I've read the thread.
For about the dozenth time, I'll explain that I have a neurological problem that results in very poor short-term memory, and that if I don't reply to posts as I read them, I've forgotten them by the time I get on to the next page, let alone the end of the thread. I'm not "Canucking", I'm doing what I have to do. If you don't like it, tough.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 23, 2014)

That's the first time I've heard it. Explains a lot.

Yet, I'm puzzled why you have singled me out for making fair comments about how some people love to revel in their ignorance. I'm not the only person to say such things here.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> The increasing status of artists was a Renaissance thing though?






Pickman's model said:


> which was never true about eg michaelangelo, caravaggio, donatello, holbein, fuseli, etc etc ad nauseam.
> 
> do you know anything about art history or are you simply a _poseur_?




Firstly the famous Renaissance artists were highly skilled, trained apprentices to other "masters". They knew their skill and craft. 
Secondly the best were commissioned by wealthy patrons and told what their subject matter would be. They were famous because their patrons were famous. At the time their "status" came from their patron not their art. Believe it or not there could havr been hundreds of painters as good as Caravaggio at the time. His patronage made him.

Regarding the art itself, the lay out of a painting was a skill..a craft..there were guides and techniques which were employed by all artists. 
The great masters were trained by masters and in their turn trained other masters. Everyone learned how to draw. .how to paint..every part of creating a painting or sculpture was taught and learned.

The Renaissance artists' "fame" during the Renaissance was as a direct result of the status and wealth of their patrons and not as a result of their personalities or their inner angst or feelings ... in fact they were very careful about not allowing their commissioned work to deviate from the themes requested...although some did personalise some of their work and even poked fun at their patrons once they were established and  had developed a marketability.... But the artist's personality, inner life, emotions etc didnt come into it at all. 

If there was anyone painting today to the standard and skill level of Caravaggio, I'd love to see them exhibiting in the Tate.. but would they be hanging with the likes of Hirst et al? Or would the art world "establishment" want that stIyle? 

I feel that the established art world wants something different.
Maybe that's not a bad thing.  I don't know.  All I do know is that I have great respect for amazing talent. I know how challenging it is to make a good painting and it frustrates me to see something like 400 dead butterflies stuck to a board and some chancer who calls it art is deemed to be amazing and brilliant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath you waffle on about patrons as though there were no art patrons today and we lived in a democracy. however, you undermine your point about people being able to do their own thing when you say you feel the established arts world plays a role in dictating taste. newsflash: patrons have not disappeared, they just operate more subtly and are generally less overt in their control of taste.

there's a reason abstract art operates as it does. in fact there're a couple. on the one hand it's very hard to push a subversive political message through abstract art as opposed to realistic art; on the other hand abstract art operates as art for the elite, as its stylised form excludes 'the masses'.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> bubblesmcgrath you waffle on about patrons as though there were no art patrons today and we lived in a democracy. however, you undermine your point about people being able to do their own thing when you say you feel the established arts world plays a role in dictating taste. newsflash: patrons have not disappeared, they just operate more subtly and are generally less overt in their control of taste.
> 
> there's a reason abstract art operates as it does. in fact there're a couple. on the one hand it's very hard to push a subversive political message through abstract art as opposed to realistic art; on the other hand abstract art operates as art for the elite, as its stylised form excludes 'the masses'.




And you've just made my point for me. Modern art is controlled. 
The styles reaching the Tate walls are controlled.....


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And you've just made my point for me. Modern art is controlled.
> The styles reaching the Tate walls are controlled.....


yes. it's an art gallery. it is a controlled environment.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. it's an art gallery. it is a controlled environment.



Oxymoron


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's Model said:
			
		

> there's a reason abstract art operates as it does. in fact there're a couple. on the one hand it's very hard to push a subversive political message through abstract art as opposed to realistic art; on the other hand abstract art operates as art for the elite, as its stylised form excludes 'the masses'.


Paging Dr Herbz. This is what you could have said.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 23, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Paging Dr Herbz. This is what you could have said.


Why would I want to say that when what I actually meant was "You're a deluded bullshitter"?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> If there was anyone painting today to the standard and skill level of Caravaggio, I'd love to see them exhibiting in the Tate.. but would they be hanging with the likes of Hirst et al? Or would the art world "establishment" want that stIyle?


the reason this kind of painting has died somewhat is because its no longer seen as boundary pushing  - there are lots of painters who can and do paint at this level...i saw an interesting pic at the portrait gallery a couple of years ago for example, for a modern take on this. Huge canvas this, maybe 4m tall?






its like with classical music - people dont compose like beethoven so much anymore because its been done to death, not because they cant... some people still do though


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2014)

no boobs in abstract art, another point against it.


----------



## cesare (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath The wealthy Renaissance patrons had a civic duty to adorn buildings, their prestige was tied up in what they did for the civic good. The artists benefited not just from being paid for the commissions but also the public recognition. I don't think it's right to characterise (if that was your intention) the Renaissance artists as some kind of post-medieval crafts people purely carrying out commissions. The greats artists were famous and held individual status in their own right.

It's the patrons/buyers that have become more elitist in what they will pay for, they no longer link prestige to carrying out or commissioning works of civic good on the same scale; additionally the point about subversion that Pickman's model made, the decline of the importance of religious art and architecture in the West, the growth of individualism and mostly the growth of capitalism. All this is reflected in art and is not just down to the artists.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 23, 2014)

...also there is a wave of oil painters out there today, painting in a realistic style with a twist. i dont know who but i know it exists


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

ska invita said:


> the reason this kind of painting has died is because its no longer seen as boundary pushing  - there are lots of painters who can and do paint at this level...i saw an interesting pic at the portrait gallery a couple of years ago for example, for a modern take on this. Huge canvas this, maybe 4m tall?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's no Carravagio.
There's no depth of colour because there is no system of painting in glazes.
People don't paint like Carravagio because they can't...the skills and techniques are not being taught or utilised. Carravagio painted in layets and layers of glazes of colour.  He blocked in on black. People paint the best way they can and learn a skill set but very few really have the skills or kniwledge of someone like Carravagio.
To equate the style of painting in that picture above with anything Carravaggio did is a misnomer.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

ska invita said:


> ...also there is a wave of oil painters out there today, painting in a realistic style with a twist. i dont know who but i know it exists



Yes there are indeed.
And it would be great to see some represented more....


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Oxymoron


eh? they choose what pictures to hang. it's not like some sort of chaotick environment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> no boobs in abstract art, another point against it.


lots of boo-boos in it though


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> bubblesmcgrath The wealthy Renaissance patrons had a civic duty to adorn buildings, their prestige was tied up in what they did for the civic good. The artists benefited not just from being paid for the commissions but also the public recognition. I don't think it's right to characterise (if that was your intention) the Renaissance artists as some kind of post-medieval crafts people purely carrying out commissions. The greats artists were famous and held individual status in their own right.
> 
> It's the patrons/buyers that have become more elitist in what they will pay for, they no longer link prestige to carrying out or commissioning works of civic good on the same scale; additionally the point about subversion that Pickman's model made, the decline of the importance of religious art and architecture in the West, the growth of individualism and mostly the growth of capitalism. All this is reflected in art and is not just down to the artists.



The Renaissance patrons were royalty and religious leaders ie popes.
They didn't give a rat's arse for civic good or civic duty. They commissioned art for their own glorification.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> bubblesmcgrath you waffle on about patrons as though there were no art patrons today and we lived in a democracy. however, you undermine your point about people being able to do their own thing when you say you feel the established arts world plays a role in dictating taste. newsflash: patrons have not disappeared, they just operate more subtly and are generally less overt in their control of taste.
> 
> there's a reason abstract art operates as it does. in fact there're a couple. on the one hand it's very hard to push a subversive political message through abstract art as opposed to realistic art; on the other hand abstract art operates as art for the elite, as its stylised form excludes 'the masses'.




Also, as I alluded to before, why bother with painting to represent reality when we have photography?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> That's no Carravagio.
> There's no depth of colour because there is no system of painting in glazes.
> People don't paint like Carravagio because they can't...the skills and techniques are not being taught or utilised. Carravagio painted in layets and layers of glazes of colour.  He blocked in on black. People paint the best way they can and learn a skill set but very few really have the skills or kniwledge of someone like Carravagio.
> To equate the style of painting in that picture above with anything Carravaggio did is a misnomer.


okay i didnt realise you were being that specific - i dont know whats going on in the oil painting world but my point is its not from a lack of skill.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 23, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Also, as I alluded to before, why bother with painting to represent reality when we have photography?


why should we take photos when painters can do it better? 

HA  take that! pow!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> eh? they choose what pictures to hang. it's not like some sort of chaotick environment.



The art chosen for modern galleries. I know of numbers of galleries where they will exclude certain styles of art...deliberately. They choose abstract formats and the more obtuse the better. Installation art will get pride of place over anything representational.
No matter how exceptional a piece is if it's the "wrong style" it will not be hung.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> bubblesmcgrath The wealthy Renaissance patrons had a civic duty to adorn buildings, their prestige was tied up in what they did for the civic good. The artists benefited not just from being paid for the commissions but also the public recognition. I don't think it's right to characterise (if that was your intention) the Renaissance artists as some kind of post-medieval crafts people purely carrying out commissions. The greats artists were famous and held individual status in their own right.
> 
> It's the patrons/buyers that have become more elitist in what they will pay for, they no longer link prestige to carrying out or commissioning works of civic good on the same scale; additionally the point about subversion that Pickman's model made, the decline of the importance of religious art and architecture in the West, the growth of individualism and mostly the growth of capitalism. All this is reflected in art and is not just down to the artists.



I read an interesting book several years ago, arguing that "art"  as we understand it today is a relatively modern invention. Art in the past existed for different reasons than it does today; for religious reasons, reasons of prestige, symbols of power and wealth etc. Creating the Culture of Art I think it was called.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

ska invita said:


> why should we take photos when painters can do it better?
> 
> HA  take that! pow!



Do they? Matter of opinion I suppose. Photography is certainly cheaper and more accessible. Anyone can have their photo taken.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Also, as I alluded to before, why bother with painting to represent reality when we have photography?


i don't think you always want to represent reality.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The art chosen for modern galleries. I know of numbers of galleries where they will exclude certain styles of art...deliberately. They choose abstract formats and the more obtuse the better. Installation art will get pride of place over anything representational.
> No matter how exceptional a piece is if it's the "wrong style" it will not be hung.


yes, it's a controlled environment.


----------



## purenarcotic (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair, I feel the same about a lot of conceptual art, but I accept that *may* be due to me not "getting" the premises of conceptual art, or not *wanting* to get the premises of conceptual art - to me, while an unmade bed may well be a layering of the personal history of the artist, it just looks like an unmade bed with spunky sheets!



Oh sure, I accept it's all and all, it just does nowt for me.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

ska invita said:


> okay i didnt realise you were being that specific - i dont know whats going on in the oil painting world but my point is its not from a lack of skill.



The thing is..it IS about lack of skill or rather loss of skills.. skills are and have been lost...very lovely skills..
This is why we have mediocre art and yet we're being told it is fantastic. 
It takes years to learn how glazes work. How translucency works. How and why Turner laid down water based paints first and then painted over in oils. It seems that everything learned is gradually being lost...and the art world is doing very little to counter this.
These are skills that are disappearing and we are being left with artists who paint blobs and the world says "wow". 
Caravaggio layered up to 60 glazes in a painting. ...the depth of colours in his work is astounding. The light and dark is perfection.


----------



## cesare (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The Renaissance patrons were royalty and religious leaders ie popes.
> They didn't give a rat's arse for civic good or civic duty. They commissioned art for their own glorification.


Ruling families were expected to direct and fund large scale religious and civic works.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The thing is..it IS about lack of skill or rather loss of skills.. skills are and have been lost...very lovely skills..
> This is why we have mediocre art and yet we're being told it is fantastic.
> It takes years to learn how glazes work. How translucency works. How and why Turner laid down water based paints first and then painted over in oils. It seems that everything learned is gradually being lost...and the art world is doing very little to counter this.
> These are skills that are disappearing and we are being left with artists who paint blobs and the world says "wow".
> Caravaggio layered up to 60 glazes in a painting. ...the depth of colours in his work is astounding. The light and dark is perfection.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The Renaissance patrons were royalty and religious leaders ie popes.
> They didn't give a rat's arse for civic good or civic duty. They commissioned art for their own glorification.


what i like about you is you're not ashamed to parade your ignorance.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> Ruling families were expected to direct and fund large scale religious and civic works.



The Medicis commissioned art to gain and maintain control in the republic of Florence. Their commissions were to promote the church and yes they also had an interest in promoting civic pride not so much as a civic duty though. .. Their minds were on trade routes, merchants, wealth, power and control.
And one of the ways they showed their wealth and power was through their patronage of certain artists.


----------



## cesare (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The Medicis commissioned art to gain and maintain control in the republic of Florence. Their commissions were to promote the church and yes they also had an interest in promoting civic pride not so much as a civic duty though. .. Their minds were on trade routes, merchants, wealth, power and control.
> And one of the ways they showed their wealth and power was through their patronage of certain artists.


I wasn't talking about their motivation but the expectations of them. We simply don't have the same expectations of the ruling class now, the ruling class are building upon a lengthy period of capitalism not trying to assert themselves over a previous republic.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what i like about you is you're not ashamed to parade your ignorance.



What I like about you is your complete lack knowledge of the use of the first-person singular nominative case personal pronoun.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What I like about you is your complete lack knowledge of the use of the first-person singular nominative case personal pronoun.


i didn't expect such an excellent example of my point so swiftly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The Medicis commissioned art to gain and maintain control in the republic of Florence. Their commissions were to promote the church and yes they also had an interest in promoting civic pride not so much as a civic duty though. .. Their minds were on trade routes, merchants, wealth, power and control.
> And one of the ways they showed their wealth and power was through their patronage of certain artists.


you do know the medicis were not royalty? fyi: republics do not have royalty.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> I wasn't talking about their motivation but the expectations of them. We simply don't have the same expectations of the ruling class now, the ruling class are building upon a lengthy period of capitalism not trying to assert themselves over a previous republic.



Yes that's true .... 
Florence under the Medicis was an exceptional place though....and motivation for development was coming from the top down.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you do know the medicis were not royalty? fyi: republics do not have royalty.



Yes...I know .. they were ruling nobility.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The Renaissance patrons were royalty and religious leaders ie popes.





bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes...I know .. they were ruling nobility.


yeh right

what about organisations, such as the knights hospitaller, for whom caravaggio did some work (and for whom the knights fiddled their rules, so he could be admitted to their order).


----------



## cesare (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you do know the medicis were not royalty? fyi: republics do not have royalty.


Confusion of nobility with royalty perhaps


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh right
> 
> what about organisations, such as the knights hospitaller, for whom caravaggio did some work (and for whom the knights fiddled their rules, so he could be admitted to their order).



The Medicis had a leg in there too...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The Medicis had a leg in there too...


in where?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> in where?



Figure it out .....


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What I like about you is your complete lack knowledge of the use of the first-person singular nominative case personal pronoun.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Figure it out .....


antonio de medici only one i can find with links to the hospitallers.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

More shit art apparently worth millions. ..


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> antonio de medici only one i can find with links to the hospitallers.



Good on you. ..


----------



## cesare (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes that's true ....
> Florence under the Medicis was an exceptional place though....and motivation for development was coming from the top down.


What I'm doing is explaining why I disagree with your original assertion that the development of selfish/status driven art to where it is now started in the last century. My position is that it started way before then with the Renaissance.


----------



## passenger (Sep 23, 2014)

Andy Warhol


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

cesare said:


> What I'm doing is explaining why I disagree with your original assertion that the development of selfish/status driven art to where it is now started in the last century. My position is that it started way before then with the Renaissance.




I was thinking about it from the artist's perspective. Abstract art is self centered...I mean centered on the artist's self ... it communicates from the internal to the external. It often needs explaining. The culture of personality seems to be more important now and since the last century. 
It could be to do with the fact that the world can view art works now via various media and so artists can become world famous in their own lifetime.


----------



## cesare (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I was thinking about it from the artist's perspective. Abstract art is self centered...I mean centered on the artist's self ... it communicates from the internal to the external. It often needs explaining. The culture of personality seems to be more important now and since the last century.
> It could be to do with the fact that the world can view art works now via various media and so artists can become world famous in their own lifetime.


I think it's linked to politics and economics too.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What I like about you is your complete lack knowledge of the use of the first-person singular nominative case personal pronoun.



Amo, Amas, Amat, Amsomarvellous, Amanartist, Amacunt.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Amo, Amas, Amat, Amsomarvellous, Amanartist, Amacunt.



Is there an echo in here?


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Is there an echo in here?



It's all greek to me.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because photography is a technical discipline?


no, because photographers are chancers.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> It's all greek to me.



And there was me thinking you were Robert De Niro .....talking Italian .....or latin....or baloney...


----------



## discokermit (Sep 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pfft. Go.


you may be right, i don't know. go is far more complex, but is it as beautiful? do people replay famous games of renowned players as they do chess? i don't know because despite learning how to play still didn't have a clue what was going on. even when i won.
i did read something once about go making chess look like a knife fight in a telephone box.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 23, 2014)

discokermit said:


> no, because photographers are chancers.


As are many painters.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 23, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> As are many painters.


no. you buffoon.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2014)

I prefer realistic art myself. I did once sit a tutorial session where a visiting art woman explained how abstract works but its never grabbed me. Each unto their own though. I saw Chris Foss's designs (unused) for some flying skimmers for flash gordon today. Now thats art


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> More shit art apparently worth millions. ..


I like the look of it. Dunno who it's by though cos instead of saying who painted it or what it's called, you have focussed on how much was paid for it. Except you haven't even said how much, just a few million.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I like the look of it. Dunno who it's by though cos instead of saying who painted it or what it's called, you have focussed on how much was paid for it. Except you haven't even said how much, just a few million.





Will mentioning the name of the artist make it a better painting? Will the title help the observer to "appreciate" it more?

It's a green blob called. ...

Wait for it....

Green White

And it is by Ellsworth Kelly...


----------



## chilango (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Will mentioning the name of the artist make it a better painting? Will the title help the observer to "appreciate" it more?
> 
> It's a green blob called. ...
> 
> ...



I quite like it, though a sense of scale, surface, material etc. would add to it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 23, 2014)

I liked it and i wanted to know more


----------



## kittyP (Sep 23, 2014)

It's all subjective innit! 


I am sure it's probably already been said (can't be arsed with whole thread)


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

chilango said:


> I quite like it, though a sense of scale, surface, material etc. would add to it.



66 x 69 in
Green misshapen blob

 oil on white canvas


----------



## chilango (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> 66 x 69 in
> Green misshapen blob
> 
> oil on white canvas



Thanks.

I like it.

It doesn't excite me, but I do like it.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

passenger said:


> Andy Warhol



Personally I'm not all that keen on Warhol, but you can't call it shit. He was commenting on the nature of art in a world of easy reproduction of images.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I was thinking about it from the artist's perspective. Abstract art is self centered...I mean centered on the artist's self ... it communicates from the internal to the external. It often needs explaining. The culture of personality seems to be more important now and since the last century.
> It could be to do with the fact that the world can view art works now via various media and so artists can become world famous in their own lifetime.



Most art work has needed explaining in some sense. Without a knowledge of history, politics or the Bible, most classic art is just a picture, shorn of its meaning.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 23, 2014)

discokermit said:


> no, because photographers are chancers.



I know I am.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 23, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I dunno. The art world does have a line in pretentious crap to justify that connection way beyond that usually found in music and literature. It's that that people tend to take the piss out of, quite reasonably IMO.


Just to answer this, Bono saving the world,  4′33″, Prog rock?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 23, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Most art work has needed explaining in some sense. Without a knowledge of history, politics or the Bible, most classic art is just a picture, shorn of its meaning.



Yes and abstract art often needs to be explained by the artist. .. most of it is personal.

On the other hand most representational art can be appreciated with or without explanation. And the artist doesn't have to provide an explanation as the painting will generally tell a story or "narrative" which is often implied also in the title and this reference can be sourced elsewhere.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 23, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes and abstract art often needs to be explained by the artist. .. most of it is personal.
> 
> On the other hand most representational art can be appreciated with or without explanation. And the artist doesn't have to provide an explanation as the painting will generally tell a story or "narrative" which is often implied also in the title and this reference can be sourced elsewhere.


So you need to put some effort in, why is that a bad thing?


----------



## StoneRoad (Sep 23, 2014)

Not because I'm an atheist, but I really can't stand that tapestry by Sutherland of the seated Christ in Coventry's new cathedral.
The proportions seem all wrong.


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes and abstract art often needs to be explained by the artist. .. most of it is personal.
> 
> On the other hand most representational art can be appreciated with or without explanation. And the artist doesn't have to provide an explanation as the painting will generally tell a story or "narrative" which is often implied also in the title and this reference can be sourced elsewhere.



Nah. 

Much (most?) abstract art can be appreciated in purely aesthetic terms without any need for explanation or context.

Just as representational art can be appreciated in the same way.

The "narrative" in some representational art is often not familiar to the viewer and is in these cases either meaningless or misleading without knowledge of, or research into  social/historical context. 

I don't see any real difference in "accessibility" between abstract and representational art. Both can be viewed and appreciated without explanation, but contextual knowledge  can add to the experience for some viewers.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> So you need to put some effort in, why is that a bad thing?



I can look at a Van Gogh and not know anything about it yet enjoy it and I can appreciate the landscape without knowing where it is. I dont need to know the artist's innermost thoughts or feelings. I can interact with the art. Knowing some more about the background to the painting helps me appreciate the artist and his struggles but doesn't necessarily effect my appreciation of the painting itself.

Most abstract art needs explanation in the form of an oftentimes longwinded notation by the artist (which most write, and some record)  then that explanation becomes an inherent part of appreciating the art. So the art is not the primary focus anymore. The artist's explanation becomes as significant as the artwork. Thereby elevating the artist's self / ego and making the artwork a psychological piece rather than a "conversation" with the observer. The abstract artist can end up tellng the observer the meaning of the painting and then the conversation ends.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> Nah.
> 
> Much (most?) abstract art can be appreciated in purely aesthetic terms without any need for explanation or context.



Without explanation this piece is just what it is..a blob on white canvas. 






The artist's and gallery's explanation is absolutely critical to any attempt at understanding of it....and subsequently appreciating it..

_"Green White_, painted in 1961, is a monumentally scaled canvas that superbly encapsulates Kelly's signature language of abstraction. As Kelly insisted, "In my own work, I have never been interested in painterliness (or what I find is) a personal handwriting, putting marks on canvas. My work is a different way of seeing and making something and which has a different use" (E. Kelly, _Notes of 1969_, reprinted in K. Stiles and P. Selz, _Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art_, Berkeley, 1996, p. 93). The flat, unmodulated surfaces that Kelly favored were a dramatic riposte to the dominant American style of Abstract Expressionism, but Kelly managed to derive a visual force comparable to the most loaded bravura brushwork in his audaciously reduced forms. He frequently worked with two-color compositions, as in the present work, playing with perceptual ambiguity between positive and negative space, and heightening the expressive interaction of his forms.

The curving forms of the two-color composition of _Green-White_ represent an important development in Kelly's _oeuvre_ in which he moved away from rectilinear, hard-edged shapes in favor for a more organic, softer composition. Since his first forays into abstraction while living in Paris in 1949, Kelly worked with shapes derived from life, such as found objects or shadows, using these forms not as biomorphic metaphors, but as pure visual experiences in themselves. As Kelly proclaimed, "Making art has first of all to do with honesty. My first lesson was to see objectively, to erase all 'meaning' of the thing seen. Then only could the real meaning of it be understood and felt" (_Ibid_.). "


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Without explanation this piece is just what it is..a blob on white canvas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What you quoted is simply the sales blurb from Christies.

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/ellsworth-kelly-green-white-5147465-details.aspx

The piece needs no explanation, in order to be appreciated. It is an exercise in form, composition, and colour. Other people up-thread have already expressed a liking for this painting, without any need for explanation.


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

Are you sure you're not conflating abstract art and conceptual art bubblesmcgrath?

Most of what you say can be applied to conceptual art but ime abstract art can (and should) usually be appreciated primarily on aesthetic grounds. 

Additional info is no more or less relevant/useful than for more representational art.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I can look at a Van Gogh and not know anything about it yet enjoy it and I can appreciate the landscape without knowing where it is. I dont need to know the artist's innermost thoughts or feelings. I can interact with the art. Knowing some more about the background to the painting helps me appreciate the artist and his struggles but doesn't necessarily effect my appreciation of the painting itself.
> 
> Most abstract art needs explanation in the form of an oftentimes longwinded notation by the artist (which most write, and some record)  then that explanation becomes an inherent part of appreciating the art. So the art is not the primary focus anymore. The artist's explanation becomes as significant as the artwork. Thereby elevating the artist's self / ego and making the artwork a psychological piece rather than a "conversation" with the observer. The abstract artist can end up tellng the observer the meaning of the painting and then the conversation ends.


To appreciate any art you have to have a frame of reference, you like Van Gogh because he painted scenes from Europe where you're from and which you can relate to. 
Often galleries will put those explanations there to get around the "it's just a few bits of paint" brigade, it's best to look at the painting, then the blurb.


----------



## Chilli.s (Sep 24, 2014)

I love art, pretty much all art. Turner, Caravaggio, Rothco, Herbz. They all deliver in their own way. Its like gigs, I'll go see anything, and take from it whatever speaks to me. Its all entertainment.

One thing that I find helpful is to regard artworks with my own system of valuation. Damien Hurst's dots, nice an all but Ikea did a similar thing and their price was what I'd pay so thats all the value dots have.

Art's fun to make, get a bunch of stuff, paint, wood, metal, clay, camera. Get a bunch of tools, brushes, chisels, welder,plasmacutter,computer, hammer and nails. Have a blast and express yourself. You soon realise turning stuff into something that speaks to people is a process that has many pitfalls. Applying value to raw paint and canvas is hard skilled graft.

Conceptual art can be equally entertaining. Its a lot more about the personality of the artist and how they can fuck, suck, flirt and schmooze their way into a career. Conceptual artists can of course still draw, some very well, and some are great craftsmen too. That shit can be taught in school. Concepts in art are like town planning, anyone can do it but not all end results are great.

Oh yeah, a picture in a book or on a screen of a Rothco painting ain't anything like the real thing. Not even close.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> bubblesmcgrath The wealthy Renaissance patrons had a civic duty to adorn buildings, their prestige was tied up in what they did for the civic good. The artists benefited not just from being paid for the commissions but also the public recognition. I don't think it's right to characterise (if that was your intention) the Renaissance artists as some kind of post-medieval crafts people purely carrying out commissions. The greats artists were famous and held individual status in their own right.
> 
> It's the patrons/buyers that have become more elitist in what they will pay for, they no longer link prestige to carrying out or commissioning works of civic good on the same scale; additionally the point about subversion that Pickman's model made, the decline of the importance of religious art and architecture in the West, the growth of individualism and mostly the growth of capitalism. All this is reflected in art and is not just down to the artists.



Quite - Modern artists tend to go where a living can be made, despite the numerous biographies (as of the YBTs) emphasising how rebellious they were and are.
Your point about civic good is well-made. We now exist in an art culture where public art is, if not sneered at, widely disregarded or labeled as a waste of resources, rather than being viewed as anything "elevating".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The Renaissance patrons were royalty and religious leaders ie popes.
> They didn't give a rat's arse for civic good or civic duty. They commissioned art for their own glorification.



Not true. People like Cosimo de Medici were frighteningly-aware that part of their power resided in having their public like as well as fear them (they remembered the lessons of the Roman empire), and adorning Florence with public art and civic adornment was a way of promoting the City-State, as well as promoting their own interests.


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Quite - Modern artists tend to go where a living can be made, despite the numerous biographies (as of the YBTs) emphasising how rebellious they were and are.
> Your point about civic good is well-made. We now exist in an art culture where public art is, if not sneered at, widely disregarded or labeled as a waste of resources, rather than being viewed as anything "elevating".


I'm glad that sculpture still gets a look in, even if mostly understated. I noticed Hepworth's "Winged Figure" on JL Oxford Street for the first time a few months back


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

Many of the public still want public art and adornment ... I guess we can align that with the increase of street art.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> I'm glad that sculpture still gets a look in, even if mostly understated. I noticed Hepworth's "Winged Figure" on JL Oxford Street for the first time a few months back



Back in the early '80s, when I had time on my hands, I went through a phase of visiting public sculpture in London, everything from Gill's friezes at Broadcasting House to Ayrton's "Icarus" at The Barbican to Hepworth's "Single Form" at Battersea Park to Charles Sergeant Jagger's various soldiers. I spent about a year visiting and photographing various stuff, and I still only scratched the surface.
If I ever had the money and the mobility to get around greater London, I'd do it again, and look after the negatives this time!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> Many of the public still want public art and adornment ... I guess we can align that with the increase of street art.



Mind you, the increase in steel art is not just due to functionality, as there's now only *ONE* casting facility in the entire UK that can handle art castings that are over a couple of square feet.


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Back in the early '80s, when I had time on my hands, I went through a phase of visiting public sculpture in London, everything from Gill's friezes at Broadcasting House to Ayrton's "Icarus" at The Barbican to Hepworth's "Single Form" at Battersea Park to Charles Sergeant Jagger's various soldiers. I spent about a year visiting and photographing various stuff, and I still only scratched the surface.
> If I ever had the money and the mobility to get around greater London, I'd do it again, and look after the negatives this time!


I would *love* to do something like that. Oh no, the negatives gone  I bet that was a blow.


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mind you, the increase in steel art is not just due to functionality, as there's now only *ONE* casting facility in the entire UK that can handle art castings that are over a couple of square feet.


I was thinking street as in Banksy type art but I didn't know about the lack of casting facilities ... is that linked to decline of steel works in general?

Edit: oh, you're meaning bronze?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> I would *love* to do something like that. Oh no, the negatives gone  I bet that was a blow.



They got damp, so a lot of the emulsion came away from the backing - unsalvageable.  I lost loads of clothes too, but losing most of the pics and negatives I took between the ages of 15 and 25 was a worse blow.


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> They got damp, so a lot of the emulsion came away from the backing - unsalvageable.  I lost loads of clothes too, but losing most of the pics and negatives I took between the ages of 15 and 25 was a worse blow.


That's really sad  Did you write up any of your project at the time?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> I was thinking street as in Banksy type art but I didn't know about the lack of casting facilities ... is that linked to decline of steel works in general?
> 
> Edit: oh, you're meaning bronze?



Yep, bronze. Small stuff (maquettes, ornaments) is still done by several UK foundries, but big multi-piece pieces are pretty much a monopoly of one company (out in Essex, IIRC), and their waiting list is supposedly years-long now.


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, bronze. Small stuff (maquettes, ornaments) is still done by several UK foundries, but big multi-piece pieces are pretty much a monopoly of one company (out in Essex, IIRC), and their waiting list is supposedly years-long now.


There's also the bronze foundry in Limehouse Basin quite near me, have you seen that one?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> That's really sad  Did you write up any of your project at the time?



No, and I've become aware over the years of how much I missed, too - everything from funerary monuments to gargoyles!


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, and I've become aware over the years of how much I missed, too - everything from funerary monuments to gargoyles!


It'd be a great project to recreate, maybe directing volunteers


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> To appreciate any art you have to have a frame of reference, you like Van Gogh because he painted scenes from Europe where you're from and which you can relate to.
> Often galleries will put those explanations there to get around the "it's just a few bits of paint" brigade, it's best to look at the painting, then the blurb.



I like Van Gogh because his paintings have passion.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> What you quoted is simply the sales blurb from Christies.
> 
> http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/ellsworth-kelly-green-white-5147465-details.aspx
> 
> The piece needs no explanation, in order to be appreciated. It is an exercise in form, composition, and colour. Other people up-thread have already expressed a liking for this painting, without any need for explanation.



Grand.
I still don't like it


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> To appreciate any art you have to have a frame of reference, you like Van Gogh because he painted scenes from Europe where you're from and which you can relate to.
> Often galleries will put those explanations there to get around the "it's just a few bits of paint" brigade, it's best to look at the painting, then the blurb.





fishfinger said:


> What you quoted is simply the sales blurb from Christies.
> 
> http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/ellsworth-kelly-green-white-5147465-details.aspx
> 
> The piece needs no explanation, in order to be appreciated. It is an exercise in form, composition, and colour. Other people up-thread have already expressed a liking for this painting, without any need for explanation.



It's the blurb that led to the painting selling for over a million dollars. 
Without the explanation and commentary the painting is just what you see. There is no message or emotional quality. There is nothing but a green form. That may be enough for people....dunno.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It's the blurb that led to the painting selling for over a million dollars.
> Without the explanation and commentary the painting is just what you see. There is no message or emotional quality. There is nothing but a green form. That may be enough for people....dunno.


No, it's the history and impact of the artist that made it valuable, same as van gogh.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 24, 2014)

I call this one  'Ger Orf Moi Land'


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, it's the history and impact of the artist that made it valuable, same as van gogh.



  His stated aim was to produce art that was figurative and non compositional...he achieved this.

Here's another. .






And here's what has been written recently about it... 

_"Kelly's_ Painting for a White Wall _(1952) _© Ellsworth Kelly

This severing of the physical link between referent and indexical sign—which amounts to the splitting of the indexical sign from its usual function of communication—is what happens almost by itself in the particular mode of transfer that is cropping, as in _Maillot Jaune_ and_Tricot_. Kelly’s use of cropping has nothing to do with this paean to the subjective and transitory nature of experience—especially since, as one must always remember, what he crops is always flat (if it involves the visual field, and not, as is most often the case, a particular surface in it, it is the visual field as perceived with only one eye). More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that the cropping is itself an involuntary accident, almost like a hiccup or a Freudian slip of the tongue—the sudden “apparition” of a shape as it strikes a chord for being unrecognizable, for being recognized as something the artist consciously knows it is not. Either this shape echoes something already caught in the web of the matrix, or it appeals to Kelly for its potentiality as a score for a new piece, but a score whose material performance in the real world, an “already-made” unperceived by anyone but him, is only the material proof that it can, indeed, exist on its own. The process by which the “already-made” shape is suddenly available to Kelly—while it escapes most of us—is one of defamiliarization, of what the Russian formalists called 
ostranenie...

By Yve Alain Bois  writing for IAS (Institute for Advanced Study) fall edition 2013.


The thing is that Kelly was very up front about his art and it was John Coplans who decided to neglect the figurative inspiration and sources of Kellys art to the extent that in his first writings on Kellys work, he deliberately did not mention them. Preferring to let the abstract nature have foremost mention. It was a few yeats later that Coplans edited his writing and included the figurative origin and inspiration for Kellys art works. 
Kelly was clear that his work was figurative yet the world of militant abstractionism was not keen to hear that and for a while neglected to mention it...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)




----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

I don't like that one (Painting for a white wall). Nor the one after.

Make of that what you will.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> I don't like that one (Painting for a white wall). Nor the one after.
> 
> Make of that what you will.



I don't like it either...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

Dp


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)




----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

Or that


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> There's also the bronze foundry in Limehouse Basin quite near me, have you seen that one?



Is that the bell foundry?


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Is that the bell foundry?


The Bronze Age foundry. Was it the Bell in the past?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I call this one  'Ger Orf Moi Land'



To be fair, it'd have more verisimilitude if you added some crucified "townies" on the metal crosses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> The Bronze Age foundry. Was it the Bell in the past?



No. Apparently the Whitechapel Bell Foundry is still the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (oldest bell founders in Europe - over 400 years old and going strong!).


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

I like Robert Motherwell's Elegy for the Spanish Republic paintings.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...over 400 years old and going strong!).



Shouldn't that be "going DONG!"?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> His stated aim was to produce art that was figurative and non compositional...he achieved this.
> 
> Here's another. .
> 
> ...



Monsieur Bois' description is everything I hate about art criticism and explanations of art. It makes use of language that is made unnecessarily complicated; borrows from semiotics (a linguistic discipline that has nothing directly to do with art) and attempts to "professionalise" or otherwise specialise the appreciation of art by imposing a definition.


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> bubblesmcgrath



Yes?


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes?



What are trying to prove with the images you are posting?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> It'd be a great project to recreate, maybe directing volunteers



I reckon it might make a great Urban project, not just London's public art, but throughout the UK. I know we had a thread on public sculpture before, but it (IIRC) concentrated purely on modern cast sculpture (incl the statue of Eric Morecambe oop north).


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I reckon it might make a great Urban project, not just London's public art, but throughout the UK. I know we had a thread on public sculpture before, but it (IIRC) concentrated purely on modern cast sculpture (incl the statue of Eric Morecambe oop north).


That's a great idea. I think lots of people would want to be involved.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> What are trying to prove with the images you are posting?



What's wrong with the images I'm posting?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> That's a great idea. I think lots of people would want to be involved.



I'd better start a thread then, before I forget!


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd better start a thread then, before I forget!


Go for it!


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What's wrong with the images I'm posting?



I'm not sure why you are posting those particular images.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> I'm not sure why you are posting those particular images.



I'm not sure why you have a difficulty with me posting them. Is there something wrong with them?


----------



## cesare (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm not sure why you have a difficulty with me posting them. Is there something wrong with them?


The cloud and the irises weren't shit


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm not sure why you have a difficulty with me posting them. Is there something wrong with them?



Your recent images look suspiciously like cropped close ups from larger paintings.

They're also, IMHO, aesthetically dull.

You've included no comment or opinion with them.

I feel like I'm waiting for you to deliver the punchline.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

cesare said:


> Go for it!



Done!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> Your recent images look suspiciously like cropped close ups from larger paintings.



Heh, I thought the first one was a close-up of corduroy-covered settee cushions, and the second one was taken with a camera-phone about ten minutes before posting!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> Your recent images look suspiciously like cropped close ups from larger paintings.
> 
> They're also, IMHO, aesthetically dull.
> 
> ...



seeing as the thread title is clear enough my opinion should be obvious.
Why should it matter what they are?
They're abstractions...and they are what they are.....perfectly repectable in the eyes of abstractionism and the world of Hirstian art.

Take them or leave them 

Greta Taxis is responsible for one.


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> seeing as the thread title is clear enough my opinion should be obvious.
> Why should it matter what they are?
> They're abstractions...and they are what they are.....perfectly repectable in the eyes of abstractionism and the world of Hirstian art.
> 
> ...



Is anyone "raving" about these abstractions though?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> Is anyone "raving" about these abstractions though?



Who knows......
They may be the undiscovered art works of a starving artist striving to purge the depths of their angst, post economic crash and depression.


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Who knows......
> They may be the undiscovered art works of a starving artist striving to purge the depths of their angst, post economic crash and depression.



They're not though, are they?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> They're not though, are they?




Who knows...... 
I quite like the cloud and irises too.


----------



## xenon (Sep 24, 2014)

This thread is bollocks...

Again some peple confusing the apparent financial worth of a particular art piece, with it's artistic merit. As if peple generally go into making art motivated by money. Be it painting, music, writing, whatever. What the market, agents, chattering classes do with it creates the price tag.

Talking of artistic merit some of you are implicitly imbuing art with some fetishized notion of an ethereal elevated artefact. A particular piece of art might make you feel something powerful  beyond the mundane, equally it might be dreary, dull. Art of itself doesn't intrinsically have either property. Of course there's loads of shit art, like books, music etc...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> View attachment 61553


what's your point caller?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what's your point caller?



Have you been promoted to answering the phone now?
Cool


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Have you been promoted to answering the phone now?
> Cool


right. so there was no real point you were trying to make with the pictures you posted.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> View attachment 61553



sean scully?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> sean scully?


not the man who used to drink in the moon under water and the moss?


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> not the man who used to drink in the moon under water and the moss?



Don't know where he drank but the Hugh lane gallery on Parnell square has his stuff and they've got Francis Bacon's studio as it was in London. Messy fucker, bits of the Observer and shite all over the place, he should've tidied up and learnt how to draw hands. I like Scully's paintings but they all look like cake or quilts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Don't know where he drank but the Hugh lane gallery on Parnell square has his stuff and they've got Francis Bacon's studio as it was in London. Messy fucker, bits of the Observer and shite all over the place, he should've tidied up and learnt how to draw hands. I like Scully's paintings but they all look like cake or quilts.


your sean scully born 1945. mine born a couple of decades later.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> your sean scully born 1945. mine born a couple of decades later.



Who's that then?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> right. so there was no real point you were trying to make with the pictures you posted.



Clearly...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Clearly...


you can't express your point then but need to pretend it's flown over everyone's heads.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Who's that then?


just a man i knew from the pub


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you can't express your point then but need to pretend it's flown over everyone's heads.



Read the thread title picky...and figure out the point....
Jaysus..do you have to be spoonfed??


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Read the thread title picky...and figure out the point....
> Jaysus..do you have to be spoonfed??


or you could just say what the point is so me and chilango look stupid.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> or you could just say what the point is so me and chilango look stupid.



Chilango got it.....


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Chilango got it.....



I don't get it. What's the point?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Chilango got it.....


humour me. tell me what your point is.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> humour me. tell me what your point is.



It's you! You're the point! Anyway I asked first so fuck off!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> It's you! You're the point! Anyway I asked first so fuck off!


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2014)

We're a long time dead bubblesmcgrath. Not the place for riddles and shenanigans and such. IYKWIM!


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Chilango got it.....



Did I?


----------



## Cpatain Rbubish (Sep 24, 2014)

Somewhere between 0% & 100% of it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> We're a long time dead bubblesmcgrath. Not the place for riddles and shenanigans and such. IYKWIM!



There was no riddle.  I posted shit art.
And I'm very much alive so get away with the "we"...


----------



## chilango (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> There was no riddle.  I posted shit art.
> And I'm very much alive so get away with the "we"...



"Shit art" that nobody raves about (as per the op) 'cos you just made it up for the thread?

Was it initially meant to be some "critique" of abstract art that you've since thought better of?

Because that's how it looks to me...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> humour me. tell me what your point is.





Buckaroo said:


> We're a long time dead bubblesmcgrath. Not the place for riddles and shenanigans and such. IYKWIM!



Maybe the two of ye could give each other the kiss of life


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> "Shit art" that nobody raves about (as per the op) 'cos you just made it up for the thread?
> 
> Was it initially meant to be some "critique" of abstract art that you've since thought better of?
> 
> Because that's how it looks to me...



Greta will be very disappointed in that comment...


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> Did I?





bubblesmcgrath said:


> Maybe the two of ye could give each other the kiss of life




Now that I like! Peace. Love. x

eta flattering Pickers whichever he is


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Now that I like! Peace. Love. x



It can be yours for the princely sum of $360...

http://www.royal-painting.com/htmlopus/oil-painting-8187.html

But it's still shit...


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It can be yours for the princely sum of $360...
> 
> http://www.royal-painting.com/htmlopus/oil-painting-8187.html
> 
> But it's still shit...








That's you that is!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> That's you that is!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 24, 2014)

Fez909 ... how's your Rothko going?


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 24, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


>


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 24, 2014)

This has spurred me to check whether the Museum of Bad Art has anything new. here is one of my favourite old ones.


----------



## nogojones (Sep 24, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> This has spurred me to check whether the Museum of Bad Art has anything new. here is one of my favourite old ones.


Now that I'd have on my wall


----------



## Cpatain Rbubish (Sep 24, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> This has spurred me to check whether the Museum of Bad Art has anything new. here is one of my favourite old ones.





nogojones said:


> Now that I'd have on my wall



Me too, it's already in my head!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

chilango said:


> Is anyone "raving" about these abstractions though?



Only in delirium, in my opinion. Only in delirium.


----------



## Cid (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I can look at a Van Gogh and not know anything about it yet enjoy it and I can appreciate the landscape without knowing where it is. I dont need to know the artist's innermost thoughts or feelings. I can interact with the art. Knowing some more about the background to the painting helps me appreciate the artist and his struggles but doesn't necessarily effect my appreciation of the painting itself.



How can you know how you'd feel about Van Gogh from a position of ignorance? Certainly many of his contemporaries didn't manage to enjoy it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Cid said:


> How can you know how you'd feel about Van Gogh from a position of ignorance? .



How can you ask how I know how I feel?
I know how I feel because I'm human.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> How can you ask how I know how I feel?
> I know how I feel because I'm human.



I think the point being made is that it's impossible to approach a Van Gogh not knowing anything about it.


----------



## moon (Sep 25, 2014)

I don't really get why Lichtenstein is so raved about...


----------



## Cid (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I think the point being made is that it's impossible to approach a Van Gogh not knowing anything about it.



Indeed.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I think the point being made is that it's impossible to approach a Van Gogh not knowing anything about it.



Could you explain what you mean by "approach"?
Are you saying that one cannot appreciate or like or enjoy it?
And what knowledge exactly does one need to know about it before "approaching" it?


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Could you explain what you mean by "approach"?
> Are you saying that one cannot appreciate or like or enjoy it?
> And what knowledge exactly does one need to know about it before "approaching" it?



I think you misunderstand Blagsta's point somewhat.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Could you explain what you mean by "approach"?
> Are you saying that one cannot appreciate or like or enjoy it?
> And what knowledge exactly does one need to know about it before "approaching" it?



You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.



Why not?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.



And when you say "you" who do you mean?
Are you generalising?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Why not?



Because you know it's a Van Gogh.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And when you say "you" who do you mean?
> Are you generalising?



Try reading the entire exchange again.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I think the point being made is that it's impossible to approach a Van Gogh not knowing anything about it.





Blagsta said:


> You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.





Blagsta said:


> Because you know it's a Van Gogh.



Total bullshit.


----------



## moon (Sep 25, 2014)

I first saw this painting when I was about 9 and fell in love with it...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Try reading the entire exchange again.



You're implying that a person cant enjoy or appreciate art if they don't have auxiliary information and knowledge before viewing it?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You're implying that a person cant enjoy or appreciate art if they don't have auxiliary information and knowledge before viewing it?


No.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

moon said:


> I first saw this painting when I was about 9 and fell in love with it...




Me too..only I was 5 and knew nothing about the artist. My aunt had a print on her wall and I loved it from the moment I saw it.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

moon said:


> I first saw this painting when I was about 9 and fell in love with it...




Would you have seen it if it wasn't a Van Gogh?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Me too..only I was 5 and knew nothing about the artist. My aunt had a print on her wall and I loved it from the moment I saw it.



Would your aunt have had it on her wall if it wasn't a Van Gogh?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Would your aunt have had it on her wall if it wasn't a Van Gogh?


Her aunt might have had the original on the wall if it wasn't a Van Gogh.


----------



## moon (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Would you have seen it if it wasn't a Van Gogh?


Probably not. But that's not the point.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

moon said:


> Probably not. But that's not the point.



Of course it's the point.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Because you know it's a Van Gogh.


Unless you don't know it's a Van Gogh... then you probably don't know it's a Van Gogh.


----------



## moon (Sep 25, 2014)

If the same picture was posted randomly on Tumblr, would I still love it?
Probably..


----------



## Cid (Sep 25, 2014)

moon said:


> I first saw this painting when I was about 9 and fell in love with it...



Yes, which says something about exposure to Van Gogh in the west. We're introduced at an early age - we copy sunflowers (badly) in art lessons, he's on Dr Who, he forms an integral part of education about art. He is introduced to us early and accepted as part of the artistic environment.

When he was working this was not the case. When he was working there was little or no 'instinctive' love for his painting, it took time and people who understood what he was doing for his works to become popular. A version of you born in the 18th century and seeing that alongside several 18th century pictures of rooms might well wonder what the hell it was doing there. You cannot see it devoid of context.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Unless you don't know it's a Van Gogh... then you probably don't know it's a Van Gogh.



The point being made is that famous images like Van Gogh paintings will always come with cultural associations. Even if the viewer is not aware of them, these cultural associations will affect how and why and where the image is seen. Nothing exists in a vacuum.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Would you have seen it if it wasn't a Van Gogh?





Blagsta said:


> Would your aunt have had it on her wall if it wasn't a Van Gogh?





Blagsta said:


> You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.



So what about a person who has learning difficulties. ...do you think they can't appreciate a Van Gogh because they might not know who he is? Or that his paintings are famous? 
Do I need to know about the chordal progressions of a symphonic work by Beethoven to approach it? Or appreciate it? Or enjoy it?

No...People can enjoy art like Van Gogh's without knowing anything about him.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

moon said:


> If the same picture was posted randomly on Tumblr, would I still love it?
> Probably..



No way to tell though is there.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> So what about a person who has learning difficulties. ...do you think they can't appreciate a Van Gogh because they might not know who he is? Or that his paintings are famous?
> Do I need to know about the chordal progressions of a symphonic work by Beethoven to approach it? Or appreciate it? Or enjoy it?
> 
> No...People can enjoy art like Van Gogh's without knowing anything about him.




Oh ffs


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Cid said:


> Yes, which says something about exposure to Van Gogh in the west. We're introduced at an early age - we copy sunflowers (badly) in art lessons, he's on Dr Who, he forms an integral part of education about art. He is introduced to us early and accepted as part of the artistic environment.
> 
> When he was working this was not the case. When he was working there was little or no 'instinctive' love for his painting, it took time and people who understood what he was doing for his works to become popular. A version of you born in the 18th century and seeing that alongside several 18th century pictures of rooms might well wonder what the hell it was doing there. You cannot see it devoid of context.



He didn't start painting til he was in his 20's. And only shared his art with a very small group of people. ..



Blagsta said:


> No way to tell though is there.



Bullshit


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Total bullshit.





bubblesmcgrath said:


> I can look at a Van Gogh and not know anything about it yet enjoy it and I can appreciate the landscape without knowing where it is. I dont need to know the artist's innermost thoughts or feelings. I can interact with the art. Knowing some more about the background to the painting helps me appreciate the artist and his struggles but doesn't necessarily effect my appreciation of the painting itself.
> 
> Most abstract art needs explanation in the form of an oftentimes longwinded notation by the artist (which most write, and some record)  then that explanation becomes an inherent part of appreciating the art. So the art is not the primary focus anymore. The artist's explanation becomes as significant as the artwork. Thereby elevating the artist's self / ego and making the artwork a psychological piece rather than a "conversation" with the observer. The abstract artist can end up tellng the observer the meaning of the painting and then the conversation ends.





bubblesmcgrath said:


> I like Van Gogh because his paintings have passion.


ok. but how do you know what you're looking at is a van gogh painting and not something articul8 shat or chucked after a heavy night on the piss? the minute you see 'van gogh' you're going to be in awe of it, regardless of whether it's a theo or a vincent.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Bullshit


 

Go on...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Go on...


oh she will


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> ok. but how do you know what you're looking at is a van gogh painting and not something articul8 shat or chucked after a heavy night on the piss? the minute you see 'van gogh' you're going to be in awe of it, regardless of whether it's a theo or a vincent.



Chicken ...egg ...

Someone liked his paintings didnt they? He's famous as a result of people liking his paintings. ..


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> oh she will



Fuck off


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Chicken ...egg ...
> 
> Someone liked his paintings didnt they? He's famous as a result of people liking his paintings. ..


you say you don't need to know anything about vvg to enjoy his paintings. you have to know his fucking NAME to know you're looking at one of his  and as soon as you see his name - be it a theo van gogh or a vincent - you're going to be in awe of it because you've been told to be in fucking awe of it. it's not like you come to the viewing without preconceptions. you're not enjoying it because you make the decision after seeing it, you're not coming to it knowing nothing of the artist, you're seeing it in the context of lots and lots of people saying 'this is a great painting'. you're not engaging your own critical faculties (i don't think you have any, but doubtless more of that later) you're viewing it with a load of critical baggage round your neck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Fuck off


it's that sort of vacuity which makes me think you lack critical faculties.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

but answer came there none.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> The point being made is that famous images like Van Gogh paintings will always come with cultural associations. Even if the viewer is not aware of them, these cultural associations will affect how and why and where the image is seen. Nothing exists in a vacuum.



Nah.
People liked his art and that's how his art became famous .. 
Appreciation came before fame...
And why assume that people cant appreciate his art for art's sake ?
What a cynical view of art to take to say that Van Gogh is appreciated because he's famous. Maybe just maybe people still get a thrill out of his paintings. 



Pickman's model said:


> you say you don't need to know anything about vvg to enjoy his paintings. you have to know his fucking NAME to know you're looking at one of his  and as soon as you see his name - be it a theo van gogh or a vincent - you're going to be in awe of it because you've been told to be in fucking awe of it. it's not like you come to the viewing without preconceptions. you're not enjoying it because you make the decision after seeing it, you're not coming to it knowing nothing of the artist, you're seeing it in the context of lots and lots of people saying 'this is a great painting'. you're not engaging your own critical faculties (i don't think you have any, but doubtless more of that later) you're viewing it with a load of critical baggage round your neck.



I saw it first when I was five.
I liked it and knew nothing about it or the artist. It was a print 

You're implying that a person needs to have information and knowledge to appreciate the art of Van Gogh ..and by extension any art by anyone.
That is bullshit.
Plenty people who will never read or hear a word about art or learn about an artist will enjoy and appreciate art.
What a narrow minded arsehole you are prickman.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Nah.
> People liked his art and that's how his art became famous ..
> Appreciation came before fame...
> And why assume that people cant appreciate his art for art's sake ?
> ...



You appear to think that you have a privileged cultural viewpoint, that you can approach art shorn completely of its cultural associations.  You don't.  You can't.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> but answer came there none.



Go print your arse on a page and write a monologue about it.
Cos you're only loving the sound of your own voice.



Blagsta said:


> You appear to think that you have a privileged cultural viewpoint, that you can approach art shorn completely of its cultural associations.  You don't.  You can't.



I think you've contradicted your first statement with your second.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I saw it first when I was five.
> I liked it and knew nothing about it or the artist. It was a print
> 
> You're implying that a person needs to have information and knowledge to appreciate the art of Van Gogh ..and by extension any art by anyone.
> ...


what was it you particularly liked about this print?

how will people who will never read or hear a word about art or learn about an artist enjoy or appreciate art?

oh - and people who piss about with usernames only make themselves look stupid, it's not like it's an adult thing to do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Go print your arse on a page and write a monologue about it.
> Cos you're only loving the sound of your own voice.


i was enjoying the absence of yours, sweetling.


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

That's really not what is being said.

Rather that in the Western world in 2014 it's impossible for most people to spproach a Van Gogh from a starting position of a complete blank slate. 

Nothing to do with needing knowledge to enjoy it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> You appear to think that you have a privileged cultural viewpoint, that you can approach art shorn completely of its cultural associations.  You don't.  You can't.



Tell me how did Van Goghs work become so loved?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I think you've contradicted your first statement with your second.



Explain?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Tell me how did Van Goghs work become so loved?


random people saw prints of it and sought it out in later life.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Tell me how did Van Goghs work become so loved?



I don't know, nor is it relevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I saw it first when I was five.
> I liked it and knew nothing about it or the artist. It was a print
> 
> You're implying that a person needs to have information and knowledge to appreciate the art of Van Gogh ..and by extension any art by anyone.
> ...


i'd be grateful if you could point me to where imply what you say i imply. because it seems to me you didn't understand the point i was making.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

chilango said:


> That's really not what is being said.
> 
> Rather that in the Western world in 2014 it's impossible for most people to spproach a Van Gogh from a starting position of a complete blank slate.
> 
> Nothing to do with needing knowledge to enjoy it.





Pickman's model said:


> random people saw prints of it and sought it out in later life.




No.
His art became famous because it was liked by those who saw it.
Blank slate.
People liked it.
And people still do for the same reasons. 
Despite your cynical view of humanity


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No.
> His art became famous because it was liked by those who saw it.
> Blank slate.
> People liked it.
> ...


there was no blank slate. no one has had a blank slate since lascaux was painted.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No.
> His art became famous because it was liked by those who saw it.
> *Blank slate.*
> People liked it.
> ...




You're doing it here - assuming that art exists in a social and historical vacuum.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I don't know, nor is it relevant.



Of course it's relevant. 
You're saying that the only reason I and others like his work is because it's culturally instilled in us to do so.
So I ask again how do you think his art became so appreciated and loved..because when first his work began to be appreciated there was no cultural  imposition of opinion.


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Of course it's relevant.
> You're saying that the only reason I and others like his work is because it's culturally instilled in us to do so.
> So I ask again how do you think his art became so appreciated and loved..because when first his work began to be appreciated there was no cultural  imposition of opinion.



You don't live then, and there, though. You live here and now.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

chilango said:


> That's really not what is being said.
> 
> Rather that in the Western world in 2014 it's impossible for most people to spproach a Van Gogh from a starting position of a complete blank slate.
> 
> Nothing to do with needing knowledge to enjoy it.





Blagsta said:


> You're doing it here - assuming that art exists in a social and historical vacuum.



Your point was that art appreciation as it exists is culturally and historically influenced and that a viewer can't appreciate a Van Gogh without reference to that cultural and historical influence.
If the viewer is unaware of the artists fame and has no idea about cultural and historical influence then they are approaching the art with fresh eyes and mind. A child. A person with learning difficulties. Whoever. The fact is that you can't generalise and assume anything about their reaction and response. It's massively arrogant to assume that everyone in the world has been exposed to the same cultural and historical influences as you and it assumes that everyone has equal access to knowledge, experiences and education


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Of course it's relevant.
> You're saying that the only reason I and others like his work is because it's culturally instilled in us to do so.



No, that's not what has been argued.



bubblesmcgrath said:


> So I ask again how do you think his art became so appreciated and loved..because when first his work began to be appreciated there was no cultural  imposition of opinion.




We're discussing the situation now.  Not then.  But even then, there was no "blank slate".  Van Gogh was part of a community of artists.  He didn't exist in a social vacuum any more than you do.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Your point was that art appreciation as it exists is culturally and historically influenced and that a viewer can't appreciate a Van Gogh without reference to that cultural and historical influence.



Nearly.  You don't have to appreciate Van Gogh.  But you cannot view Van Gogh as an alien.



bubblesmcgrath said:


> If the viewer is unaware of the artists fame and has no idea about cultural and historical influence then they are approaching the art with fresh eyes and mind. A child. A person with learning difficulties. Whoever. The fact is that you can't generalise and assume anything about their reaction and response. It's massively arrogant to assume that everyone in the world has been exposed to the same cultural and historical influences as you and it assumes that everyone has equal access to knowledge, experiences and education




But even that child or person with learning disabilities is only seeing that picture _because it is a Van Gogh._


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Nearly.  You don't have to appreciate Van Gogh.  But you cannot view Van Gogh as an alien.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Straw man


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Straw man



I suggest you go and look up what that means.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 25, 2014)

EEEEEEEUUUUUUNNNNNGGGGHHHH


----------



## Cpatain Rbubish (Sep 25, 2014)

It'll all be burnt when I seize power!

The only 'art' my benign (but vengeful and actually quite strict and unpredictable) dictatorship would allow is...

A. Pictures your kids make
B. Pictures you made as a kid
C. Selfies


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> But even that child or person with learning disabilities is only seeing that picture _because it is a Van Gogh._



So what?
Tell them it's by Jack from down the road.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> So what?
> Tell them it's by Jack from down the road.



Fucking hell, are you really this thick?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> So what?
> Tell them it's by Jack from down the road.


i suppose you've something of a rep for lying


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Your point was that art appreciation as it exists is culturally and historically influenced and that a viewer can't appreciate a Van Gogh without reference to that cultural and historical influence.
> If the viewer is unaware of the artists fame and has no idea about cultural and historical influence then they are approaching the art with fresh eyes and mind. A child. A person with learning difficulties. Whoever. The fact is that you can't generalise and assume anything about their reaction and response. It's massively arrogant to assume that everyone in the world has been exposed to the same cultural and historical influences as you and it assumes that everyone has equal access to knowledge, experiences and education



Children and "people with learning difficulties" don't live in a cultural vacuum either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

chilango said:


> Children and "people with learning difficulties" don't live in a cultural vacuum either.


they do if bubblesmcgrath's got anything to do with it


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> But even that child or person with learning disabilities is only seeing that picture _because it is a Van Gogh._





Blagsta said:


> Fucking hell, are you really this thick?



Lol...I was thinking the same about you.....you do keep coming out with shite ..

You're saying that they only get to see the picture because it's by van gogh.
Well his art and his name are pretty inseparable you know.  But even if they didn't have a clue who he was and failed to notice his name they could still appreciate it.



Pickman's model said:


> i suppose you've something of a rep for lying



?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol...I was thinking the same about you.....you do keep coming out with shite ..
> 
> You're saying that they only get to see the picture because it's by van gogh.
> Well his art and his name are pretty inseparable you know.  But even if they didn't have a clue who he was and failed to notice his name they could still appreciate it.
> ...



I'm saying that totally unknown artists do not get that sort of cultural exposure.  By definition.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 25, 2014)

No one's saying you can't appreciate a Van Gogh. Just that his paintings don't exist in a cultural vacuum.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Your premise is flawed Blagsta.
People regularly see and appreciate art by unknown artists.  They even buy art from artists who are not famous. They do so because they like the piece.
This is how Van Gogh and every famous artist started off. Is it beyond you to accept that people may still have an appreciation for art that comes from enjoying the piece? Or would you persist in insisting on telling someone to their face that they  only like Van Gogh because he's already famous?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Your premise is flawed Blagsta.
> People regularly see and appreciate art by unknown artists.  They even buy art from artists who are not famous. They do so because they like the piece.
> This is how Van Gogh and every famous artist started off. Is it beyond you to accept that people may still have an appreciation for art that comes from enjoying the piece? Or would you persist in insisting on telling someone to their face that they  only like Van Gogh because he's already famous?


That's not what he is saying


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Your premise is flawed Blagsta.
> People regularly see and appreciate art by unknown artists.  They even buy art from artists who are not famous. They do so because they like the piece.
> This is how Van Gogh and every famous artist started off. Is it beyond you to accept that people may still have an appreciation for art that comes from enjoying the piece? Or would you persist in insisting on telling someone to their face that they  only like Van Gogh because he's already famous?


van gogh sold one painting in his lifetime. ergo, by your argument, people did not like his paintings.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> No one's saying you can't appreciate a Van Gogh. Just that his paintings don't exist in a cultural vacuum.



Yeah I know....
Everything exists in a cultural vacuum.
It doesn't mean that the cultural vacuum is responsible for my own response to art.
For example I don't like abstraction. 
Even though it's highly valued culturally and commands attention in the art world.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Your premise is flawed Blagsta.
> People regularly see and appreciate art by unknown artists.  They even buy art from artists who are not famous. They do so because they like the piece.



We weren't talking about unknown artists were we?

Even then, unknown artists don't exist in a vacuum.  They will exist in a community, their work will exist in a relationship with known artists/



bubblesmcgrath said:


> This is how Van Gogh and every famous artist started off. Is it beyond you to accept that people may still have an appreciation for art that comes from enjoying the piece? *Or would you persist in insisting on telling someone to their face that they  only like Van Gogh because he's already famous?*




Talking about straw man arguments...


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yeah I know....
> Everything exists in a cultural vacuum.
> It doesn't mean that the cultural vacuum is responsible for my own response to art.
> For example I don't like abstraction.
> Even though it's highly valued culturally and commands attention in the art world.



You're either trolling or you're not very bright.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yeah I know....
> Everything exists in a cultural vacuum.
> It doesn't mean that the cultural vacuum is responsible for my own response to art.
> For example I don't like abstraction.
> Even though it's highly valued culturally and commands attention in the art world.


No, nothing exists in a vacuum, you prannet.
I'm afraid your response to just about anything is culturally determined.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yeah I know....
> Everything exists in a cultural vacuum.
> It doesn't mean that the cultural vacuum is responsible for my own response to art.
> For example I don't like abstraction.
> Even though it's highly valued culturally and commands attention in the art world.














piet mondrian painted both these paintings. yet you'd certainly reject the second one because you don't know what's going on.

he started painting realistic art but fell under the sway of the theosophists - his later, more famous, paintings an attempt at pure theosophist art. but then you'd not bother with that because of your insistence that art can be enjoyed without trying to understand what the artist was trying to do.

you're more of the 'oh what a lovely picture' dilletante than the 'i was interested so i found out more about the artist and what s/he was trying to do' afficionado.

while it's obviously ok just to like a picture for itself, it's stupid to say 'it's a nice picture and that's all there is to it'. it makes you look like someone who doesn't give a fuck about art except on some utterly superficial level. and tbh none of the people i've met who come from a wide range of backgrounds and like a wide range of art - both in terms of age and in terms of 'school' or 'movement' - see art as 'oh that's lovely' but as cultural messages, often full of allusions.


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Your premise is flawed Blagsta.
> People regularly see and appreciate art by unknown artists.  They even buy art from artists who are not famous. They do so because they like the piece.
> This is how Van Gogh and every famous artist started off. Is it beyond you to accept that people may still have an appreciation for art that comes from enjoying the piece? Or would you persist in insisting on telling someone to their face that they  only like Van Gogh because he's already famous?



You're looking at this very superficially.

It's not (primarily) about Van Gogh's individual fame, nor about people's conscious choices about what they like, or appreciate.

Art has a certain position within our society. That position has evolved, as has what commonly perceived as Art. Styles of Art (and individual artists) have differing degrees of (I hesitate to use this word, but can't think of a better one off the cuff) cultural hegemony. Van Gogh (and others of his ilk) has a far greater degree of this, than most other artists as things stand. Hence the persistent bickering about the "value" of less culturally hegemonic styles such as Abstraction, particularly as abstraction is being promoted into a position of hegemony in a more exclusive section of our culture/society. Hence it's higher "cultural capital" than the more  diffused forms and genres.

I'm sorry about the verbiage, but it's important to clarify that we're not talking about people "choosing to like Van Gogh cos he's famous" but something far more structural than that.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 25, 2014)

People only like Van Gogh's pictures because they think he chopped his ear off and shot himself in the head. Well that's why I like his stuff. Edgy. If Tracey Emin shot herself in the head I'd like her stuff too.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> You're either trolling or you're not very bright.



Says the guy telling people that they can only appreciate a painting because its by a famous artist.


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Says the guy telling people that they can only appreciate a painting because its by a famous artist.



He isn't though, is he?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Says the guy telling people that they can only appreciate a painting because its by a famous artist.


But he's not. You keep asserting this and people keep correcting you, but you blithely carry on as if it hasn't happened.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Says the guy telling people that they can only appreciate a painting because its by a famous artist.



No, that's not what I said.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> piet mondrian painted both these paintings. yet you'd certainly reject the second one because you don't know what's going on.
> 
> he started painting realistic art but fell under the sway of the theosophists - his later, more famous, paintings an attempt at pure theosophist art. but then you'd not bother with that because of your insistence that art can be enjoyed without trying to understand what the artist was trying to do.
> 
> ...




Actually I like Mondrian....and always have ...



chilango said:


> He isn't though, is he?



I think you should read this...



Blagsta said:


> You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.






Blagsta said:


> Because you know it's a Van Gogh.





Blagsta said:


> Would you have seen it if it wasn't a Van Gogh?





Blagsta said:


> Would your aunt have had it on her wall if it wasn't a Van Gogh?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Actually I like Mondrian....and always have ...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should read this...




This is why I think you're either pretending to be thick or are actually thick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Says the guy telling people that they can only appreciate a painting because its by a famous artist.


if you deliberately make yourself look stupid, well done - it's worked.

if you don't mean to make yourself look stupid, perhaps rereading your exchange with Blagsta would be a good idea before continuing to post.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Actually I like Mondrian....and always have ...
> 
> .



A few minutes ago, you didn't like abstraction.


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

Exactly.

He's not saying you "can't appreciate it",  he's saying you can't remove the cultural weight that Van Gogh's paintings have, or pretend that it doesn't matter.

You can still base your opinions on aesthetic qualities or personal taste, but the cultural baggage is still there in the painting regardless.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

chilango said:


> Exactly.
> 
> He's not saying you "can't appreciate it",  he's saying you can't remove the cultural weight that Van Gogh's paintings have, or pretend that it doesn't matter.
> 
> You can still base your opinions on aesthetic qualities or personal taste, but the cultural baggage is still there in the painting regardless.




Even then, aesthetic qualities and personal taste come from somewhere.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

People got their opinions
Where do they come from?
Each day seems like a natural fact
And what we think changes how we act
People got opinions
Where do they come from?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

chilango said:


> Exactly.
> 
> He's not saying you "can't appreciate it",  he's saying you can't remove the cultural weight that Van Gogh's paintings have, or pretend that it doesn't matter..



Actually he did say that...



Cid said:


> How can you know how you'd feel about Van Gogh from a position of ignorance? .






Blagsta said:


> I think the point being made is that it's impossible to approach a Van Gogh not knowing anything about it.





Blagsta said:


> You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Actually he did say that...



fuck off


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Even then, aesthetic qualities and personal taste come from somewhere.



Of course (and this thread is making me want to dig out my barely touched copy of "Distinction"), but I think that that is a step too far for this discussion until the more explicit stuff is acknowledged.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

Too much thinking makes me ill
I think I'll have another gin
A few more drinks it'll be alright

eh bubbles?


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Actually he did say that...



...those quotes don't even say that.

You have this the wrong way around.

He's talking about the "ignorance" being impossible not the "appreciation".


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath have you read John Berger's Ways Of Seeing? It's a load of silly pretentious nonsense about art. You'd love it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Even then, aesthetic qualities and personal taste come from somewhere.



Course they do.
And can appreciate art by famous artists and unknown artists alike.
The fame factor is not important to me. 



chilango said:


> ...those quotes don't even say that.
> 
> You have this the wrong way around.
> 
> He's talking about the "ignorance" being impossible not the "appreciation".



I was talking about appreciation regardless of knowledge....

Two sides of the same coin...possibly


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I was talking about appreciation regardless of knowledge....



...but there is no "regardless of knowledge". That's the point.

In fairness, "knowledge" probably isn't the most useful, or accurate, word for what we're talking about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

moon said:


> I don't really get why Lichtenstein is so raved about...



My art teacher at secondary school explained it as Lichtenstein having subverted a medium (comic-book representation) with which lots of people were familiar, and that the familiarity made the art more acceptable and understandable to them. basically, if an art-form is outside of your experience and/or alien to your culture, then it's supposedly harder to "get".
Not sure whether I entirely buy that as an explanation, but it has *some* utility.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Could you explain what you mean by "approach"?
> Are you saying that one cannot appreciate or like or enjoy it?
> And what knowledge exactly does one need to know about it before "approaching" it?



You need to know the context of the art and how it came about.
Think of it like this - A parent sees a picture their 5-yr old brings home and immediately enthuses about it, because the context is "my childs' painting". They see a picture by another 5-yr old and think "that's crap" because the context from which they view the picture - the place where their understanding of the picture comes from - is different.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 25, 2014)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


>


i saw that in the tate modern and i wanted to like lichtenstein's work but i couldn't. not sure why but not my cup of tea.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You need to know the context of the art and how it came about.
> Think of it like this - A parent sees a picture their 5-yr old brings home and immediately enthuses about it, because the context is "my childs' painting". They see a picture by another 5-yr old and think "that's crap" because the context from which they view the picture - the place where their understanding of the picture comes from - is different.


well put


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...but there is no "regardless of knowledge". That's the point.
> 
> In fairness, "knowledge" probably isn't the most useful, or accurate, word for what we're talking about.



Let's agree to differ.
I am being Devils advocate and my point is or was that art can be appreciated purely for aesthetics without necessarily having to know much about the style or anything about the artist. 
You are talking about global art culture and it's influence on society and the individual. I'm arguing because I really dislike being told that the only reason I like Van Gogh is because he's famous.
I like his art because I enjoy it. I don't like picasso despite his fame..... sharp intake if breath as I wait for people to launch an attack....shoot me.
The thing is I know what you're saying but I really think it's too general to assume that every person is influenced in the same way and to the same degree culturally.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Let's agree to differ.
> I am being Devils advocate and my point is or was that art can be appreciated purely for aesthetics without necessarily having to know much about the style or anything about the artist.
> You are talking about global art culture and it's influence on society and the individual. I'm arguing because I really dislike being told that the only reason I like Van Gogh is because he's famous.
> I like his art because I enjoy it. I don't like picasso despite his fame..... sharp intake if breath as I wait for people to launch an attack....shoot me.
> The thing is I know what you're saying but I really think it's too general to assume that every person is influenced in the same way and to the same degree culturally.


which picasso don't you like? early? cubist? late? pottery, painting, drawing?


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I really dislike being told that the only reason I like Van Gogh is because he's famous.


That's good because no-one is saying that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Chicken ...egg ...
> 
> Someone liked his paintings didnt they? He's famous as a result of people liking his paintings. ..



His art is "famous" because - after his death - people became habituated to the style of his art, and saw it as part of a larger artistic movement, which added context that didn't exist while he was alive.


----------



## Cid (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Course they do.
> And can appreciate art by famous artists and unknown artists alike.
> The fame factor is not important to me.



This is not an argument about fame. You come from a specific cultural background. That background makes certain things prominent. If you had been brought up in Spain you might have seen a Picasso print on your aunt's wall at the age of 5. If you were brought up in Isfahan you would have been surrounded by incredible examples of Islamic abstract art. In China it might be classic landscapes painted with single ink brushstrokes rather than layered paint. Van Gogh would not be a part of your cultural radar in the latter examples. You look at Van Gogh in art galleries filled with the kind of art he responded to, in books or on walls. The context and the contrast is there.




> I was talking about appreciation regardless of knowledge....



This does not exist.


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No.
> His art became famous because it was liked by those who saw it.
> Blank slate.
> People liked it.
> ...



Sorry, but appreciation of Van Gogh was originally bugger-all to do with it being liked by those who saw it, and everything to do with people appreciating his artistic contemporaries (who, besides his brother, were about the only people that owned any of his art), which in turn led them to Van Goghs' work after they'd garnered knowledge of the style from Van Gogh's contemporaries.
Artistic "schools" tend to exist to allow us to step from artistic trend to artistic trend, as though there were some sort of natural progression, but what in fact happens is that the understanding of the work of one school may lead us to understand a related one. Or not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

they don't - too much: but they should


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

they don't too much: but they should


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

Cid said:


> This does not exist.



Oh, it does, but only in a "naive" sense, insofar as you might appreciate a piece of art, but not be able to enunciate why you do beyond "I like the colours and shapes and subject".


----------



## catinthehat (Sep 25, 2014)

I was going to chip in with Berger but I see its been done. The thought of a bunch of people sticking things on skulls in Damien Hurst's workshop leaves me cold as does the likes of Basher Satchi buying up the half the St Martins end of year show and warehousing it till he has a plan to market it.  It does appear to me - as an outsider - to be a world where pretentious bollocks reigns supreme.  I was in a meeting with some people from the Glasgow School of Art last week with a guy explaining that 'in prison, its like in prison, like in prison in your mind' who then showed us a chair he had put upside down in a sink in a prison which was a demonstration of his frustration 'because you don't usually see a chair in a sink'.  On the other hand there was a woman who had been an artist in residence in Glencoe and had spent a year doing walks there with all the different types of people who live and work and visit. She had made these maps for some of the people which depicted the different aspects of the place from the perspective of the different people.

My worst art moment was when I eventually got to see Guernica (sp?) and was standing awestruck in front of it and the person I was with just said 'Crap'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> there was no blank slate. no one has had a blank slate since lascaux was painted.



Lascaux, or Sasaferrato 's graffiti, as I call it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You need to know the context of the art and how it came about.
> .




Do I?
Don't get me wrong. .. I'm asking a question here.
Do I really need to know the context of a painting to appreciate it?
Can I not like it for it's beauty?
Does everything need to be explained and contextualised?
Was I wrong to like the painting below when I was 5? Did I not appreciate it because I was young? I drew it over and over and memorised every part of it. How stupid of me to love a painting without learning all about it and it's style and artist beforehand.
Or should I have analysed it and examined it's cultural context?
I understand perfectly what Blagsta is saying but really does it matter that I liked and enjoyed it despite it's cultural context?




fishfinger said:


> That's good because no-one is saying that.



Yup they are...



Pickman's model said:


> you say you don't need to know anything about vvg to enjoy his paintings. you have to know his fucking NAME to know you're looking at one of his  and as soon as you see his name - be it a theo van gogh or a vincent - you're going to be in awe of it because you've been told to be in fucking awe of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yup they are...


i didn't say that. you said you didn't need to know anything about vvg to enjoy his paintings. i said you needed to know his name to know you're looking at one. which is true, otherwise you might be looking at any auld shite.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sorry, but appreciation of Van Gogh was originally bugger-all to do with it being liked by those who saw it, and everything to do with people appreciating his artistic contemporaries (who, besides his brother, were about the only people that owned any of his art), which in turn led them to Van Goghs' work after they'd garnered knowledge of the style from Van Gogh's contemporaries.
> Artistic "schools" tend to exist to allow us to step from artistic trend to artistic trend, as though there were some sort of natural progression, but what in fact happens is that the understanding of the work of one school may lead us to understand a related one. Or not.



If you read my earlier post you'd see that I did write that he was only seen by very few...and yes I know what his friends did. If they had not liked his art it's doubtful he'd ever have been recognised


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Can I not like it for it's beauty?.



What is beauty?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't say that. you said you didn't need to know anything about vvg to enjoy his paintings. i said you needed to know his name to know you're looking at one. which is true, otherwise you might be looking at any auld shite.



Yeah yeah you were being pedantic .....I know


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yeah yeah you were being pedantic .....I know


i didn't say you only liked him cos he was famous.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yup they are...


No.They.Aren't


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, it does, but only in a "naive" sense, insofar as you might appreciate a piece of art, but not be able to enunciate why you do beyond "I like the colours and shapes and subject".



Yes....Emotional response is a very valid response and lack of enunciation doesn't mean the observer is incapable of appreciation. ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> No.They.Aren't


i've never previously seen a poster do what bubbles is doing and set out to prove themselves thick as pigshit despite other posters telling them they're making themselves look daft.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes....Emotional response is a very valid response and lack of enunciation doesn't mean the observer is incapable of appreciation. ...


yes it does because if you don't or won't understand the context, what the artist is trying to do, how can you be truly appreciating it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes....Emotional response is a very valid response and lack of enunciation doesn't mean the observer is incapable of appreciation. ...


if emotional response is a very valid response you won't object a page or two down the line when you're told to fuck off


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

chilango said:


> What is beauty?



Well for the purpose of this thread it is clearly in the eye of the beholder


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well for the purpose of this thread it is clearly in the eye of the beholder


and how does the beholder determine this beauty of which you witter?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes it does because if you don't or won't understand the context, what the artist is trying to do, how can you be truly appreciating it?


Do you have to understand how an aurora borealis is formed in order to appreciate it?


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well for the purpose of this thread it is clearly in the eye of the beholder



Except it isn't, is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

a beholder recently


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Do you have to understand how an aurora borealis is formed in order to appreciate it?


we're not talking about the northern lights, a natural phenomenon, but about art, a human construction.


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes....Emotional response is a very valid response and lack of enunciation doesn't mean the observer is incapable of appreciation. ...



In the context of Art, "liking" and "appreciating" are not the same - "art appreciation" by definition necessitates an intellectual response informed by acquired knowledge.

Liking a piece of Art doesn't require that.

Both are valid ways of engaging with Art.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> we're not talking about the northern lights, a natural phenomenon, but about art, a human construction.


Do you have to know anything about the architect of a building in order to appreciate the building?


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 25, 2014)

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes it does because if you don't or won't understand the context, what the artist is trying to do, how can you be truly appreciating it?



Circles circles and more circles. 
Which came first? 
Chicken or egg....?
Do I appreciate art because I know about it?
Do I appreciate art because I respond emotionally to it?
Do I have to know about it to like it



chilango said:


> In the context of Art, "liking" and "appreciating" are not the same - "art appreciation" by definition necessitates an intellectual response informed by acquired knowledge.
> 
> Liking a piece of Art doesn't require that.
> 
> Both are valid ways of engaging with Art.



Yes ... I know .. so why is one being given more status than the other?


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes ... I know .. so why is one being given more status than the other?



By who?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Do I?
> Don't get me wrong. .. I'm asking a question here.
> Do I really need to know the context of a painting to appreciate it?
> Can I not like it for it's beauty?
> ...



I think you're confusing different emphases here.
Sure you can "like" a painting, in a naive sense, with no knowledge about it. 
You can only, however, appreciate it if you have knowledge of the art's context. Appreciation requires knowledge.

Think of it this way. You can dislike a piece of art without knowing anything about it, but you can't *critique* it without knowledge about it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes....Emotional response is a very valid response and lack of enunciation doesn't mean the observer is incapable of appreciation. ...



It means exactly that the observer is reacting only on the emotional level, rather than appreciating the art.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i've never previously seen a poster do what bubbles is doing and set out to prove themselves thick as pigshit despite other posters telling them they're making themselves look daft.



You must have forgotten all the times that articul8 has done so, then!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Do you have to understand how an aurora borealis is formed in order to appreciate it?


You need to know that it isn't heavenly fire coming to get you, if you're to be able to live without being scared of it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

chilango said:


> By who?



The last five pages have been a discourse on art appreciation. And an insistence that to "approach" a Van Gogh one requires knowledge and information. Liking it was not enough.

It started like this....



Cid said:


> How can you know how you'd feel about Van Gogh from a position of ignorance? Certainly many of his contemporaries didn't manage to enjoy it.





Blagsta said:


> I think the point being made is that it's impossible to approach a Van Gogh not knowing anything about it.





Blagsta said:


> You can't appreciate a Van Gogh purely as a picture.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The last five pages have been a discourse on art appreciation. And an insistence that to "approach" a Van Gogh one requires knowledge and information. Liking it was not enough.
> 
> It started like this....




A total misrepresentation.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The last five pages have been a discourse on art appreciation. And an insistence that to "approach" a Van Gogh one requires knowledge and information. Liking it was not enough.
> 
> It started like this....


That's literally the complete opposite of what people are saying. Jesus H.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It means exactly that the observer is reacting only on the emotional level, rather than appreciating the art.



The emotional response of the observer is a response to and interaction with the emotional message, quality and depth of the artist's endeavours. 

Consider this....

"The emotions are sometimes so strong that I work without knowing it."
*Vincent Van Gogh*
*

"The people that weep before my paintings are having the same religious experience that I had when I painted it."
Mark Rothko

"True art lies in a reality that is felt."
Odilon Redon



"Art is the concrete representation of our most subtle feelings."
Agnes Martin



"It is important to express oneself... provided the feelings are real and are taken from you own experience."
Berthe Morisot



"By suprematism I mean the supremacy of pure feeling in creative art."
Kasimir Malevich



"A work of art is a world in itself reflecting senses and emotions of the artist's world."
Hans Hoffman
*
Painting is with me but another word for feeling.
*John Constable*



Only love interests me, and I am only in contact with things that revolve around love.
*Marc Chagall*



The artist can know all the technique in the world, but if he feels nothing, it will mean nothing.
*Chen Chi*



Throughout the time in which I am working on a canvas I can feel how I am beginning to love it, with that love which is born of slow comprehension.
*Joan Miro*



Who told you that one paints with colors? One makes use of colors, but one paints with emotions.
*Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin*



A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
*Paul Cezanne

*


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 25, 2014)

http://www.susiegadea.com/index.php/en/quotes-by-artists/on-the-creative-drive/emotion


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

What I'm trying to say...is that response to art is personal. It can be intellectual or emotional or both.
One form of response is not better than the other. They are just different.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> http://www.susiegadea.com/index.php/en/quotes-by-artists/on-the-creative-drive/emotion



..should I have posted the entire page?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What I'm trying to say...is that response to art is personal. It can be intellectual or emotional or both.
> One form of response is not better than the other. They are just different.



And neither of them them exist in isolation from culture.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> And neither of them them exist in isolation from culture.



You agree they are equally valid responses then?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You agree they are equally valid responses then?



That's not what's under discussion. 

You have such a spectacular knack for missing the point that I wonder if it's deliberate.


----------



## chilango (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The last five pages have been a discourse on art appreciation. And an insistence that to "approach" a Van Gogh one requires knowledge and information. Liking it was not enough.
> 
> It started like this....



Again, yet again, you are upside down and back to front on this.

No one is saying that "liking it is not enough".

No one is saying is that you "require knowledge" to "approach a Van Gogh".

No one.

Not even, and especially not, in the quotes you dig out.

No one.

What is being said, repeatedly, is this:

A) It is impossible for the vast majority of people in the Western world to view a Van Gogh with from the position of a blank slate.

B) That to "appreciate" (in the commonly accepted sense of the word when talking about art) requires an intellectual response, supported by acquired knowledge (of context, of technique, of aesthetics etc.). It is, however, perfectly possible to "like" without this. 

Liking and appreciating are not the same. There's loads of work I appreciate that I don't like, and vice versa. However, in both cases I am not approaching the works in a vacuum, but I am carrying cultural baggage that effects both my "liking" and my "appreciating" of any given work. It is impossible for this not to be the case.

Tangentially, Debuffet in his championing of Art Brut (as I'm sure you're aware) was searching the very thing -the blank slate - you claim to possess, yet finding it only in "art by psychotic individuals who existed almost completely outside culture and society". Hence my posting of the Adolf Wolfli picture earlier.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> That's not what's under discussion.
> 
> You have such a spectacular knack for missing the point that I wonder if it's deliberate.





I'm asking this because of earlier comments ...

Ffs.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> That's not what's under discussion.
> 
> You have such a spectacular knack for missing the point that I wonder if it's deliberate.



Jesus Christ I get your point.  I got it when you first made it. ...in response to a discussion on being able to enjoy and interact with art without knowing every smidgeon of information about it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i've never previously seen a poster do what bubbles is doing and set out to prove themselves thick as pigshit despite other posters telling them they're making themselves look daft.





Pickman's model said:


> yes it does because if you don't or won't understand the context, what the artist is trying to do, how can you be truly appreciating it?





Pickman's model said:


> if emotional response is a very valid response you won't object a page or two down the line when you're told to fuck off



What nasty person you are


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What nasty person you are


what a shitty little hypocrite you are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Fuck off


----------



## 8ball (Sep 25, 2014)

I'm a philistine and haven't read the thread but reckon it's a fair bet someone has had a go at Warhol, who I immediately just 'got'.  I loved that soup tin and got it right away.  Like Bob Dylan and H R Geiger.  I'm not sure about this 'is actually shit' business.  i do have an instinct towards snobbery, though -  I do think some stuff *is* just shit.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>



Did you expect a medal for shitstirring then?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 25, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


>



Apols if retreading old ground, but I've never understood this painting.  It looks to me like it's a painting for painters - like if you look at it as a painter you get a sense of the physicality of the act of what resulted in that paint on that canvas and to a painter it is almost more like watching dance than an attempt at a 'picture' in terms of visual representation.  I'm not a painter but the sheer energy of it and the weaving of the layers makes me think maybe that's what's going on.

I know sometimes I can listen to Ira Kaplan playing a guitar solo and it is almost more about physical sensuality more than trying to play a tune.

Is there anything in that or is that just a brain fart?


----------



## pennimania (Sep 25, 2014)

I haven't ploughed through all the thread yet, but I do think anyone who hasn't actually seen a Rothko in real life had best reserve judgement.

I wasn't too keen until I stood in front of them in the Tate. They actually moved me to tears.

The true 'sublime moment' is evoked by the feelings a painting like that evokes in the viewer, but you do have to give it a chance.

The 'unpresentable is presented' then; and each person will feel something different; that is the power of the artist. 

Photoshop can indeed do most things - but still certain artworks have a quality that does something to your insides - I call it the sublime.

Read Lyotard - that's where I got most of this


----------



## pennimania (Sep 26, 2014)

Referring to Pollock, I'm not an expert on his work but again I think his work might be an invocation of the sublime.

The eye travels across his canvases, encountering endless focuses of energy, but you can't make a cohesive understanding of the whole.

Lyotard saw the sublime as a situation mixed with pleasure and pain because you couldn't make a complete comprehension of the subject ( but you knew it was something terrible and wonderful). He thought abstract painting was a particularly useful area for examining this emotion or feeling.

Kant dealt with this stuff too, but I'm not sure I'm clever enough to explain it


----------



## moon (Sep 26, 2014)

I guess at the end of the day it doesn't matter why you love something, the love on its own is enough..
Its something rare and to be cherished when an artwork moves you at that level.
The love I feel for the Van Gogh picture is based almost entirely on his use of colour, the green-orange-gold. It makes me tingle inside. 
I don't need to read an essay in order to appreciate that.


----------



## moon (Sep 26, 2014)

pennimania said:


> Referring to Pollock, I'm not an expert on his work but again I think his work might be an invocation of the sublime.
> 
> The eye travels across his canvases, encountering endless focuses of energy, but you can't make a cohesive understanding of the whole.


Pollocks work is also fractal which could explain some of the energy in it, from a mathematical point of view
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock


----------



## pennimania (Sep 26, 2014)

moon said:


> The love I feel for the Van Gogh picture is based almost entirely on his use of colour, the green-orange-gold. It makes me tingle inside.



Eva Hesse said almost exactly the same thing when talking about Carl Andre's work, she said ' his work does something to my insides', I van give the reference if anyone's really interested 

I think these reactions are all examples of sublime moments, absolutely agree that you don't need to read essays to appreciate that

It's just that I'm writing a dissertation around this stuff and am a bit obsessed right now


----------



## pennimania (Sep 26, 2014)

Can not van - iPad fail


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 26, 2014)

moon said:


> Pollocks work is also fractal which could explain some of the energy in it, from a mathematical point of view
> http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock



I thought it was discovered that the method used to test his paintings for fractals was flawed... that half a dozen random dog-eggs would stand more chance of passing the test?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> His art is "famous" because - after his death - people became habituated to the style of his art, and saw it as part of a larger artistic movement, which added context that didn't exist while he was alive.



Isn't that a retrospective analysis though? I mean don't you think that at the time people *liked* his work and responded emotionally to it? That like a ripple in a pond more people got to see and like the work first and later began to analyse and establish connections between his style and other previous and indeed subsequent styles? 



pennimania said:


> Eva Hesse said almost exactly the same thing when talking about Carl Andre's work, she said ' his work does something to my insides', I van give the reference if anyone's really interested
> 
> I think these reactions are all examples of sublime moments, absolutely agree that you don't need to read essays to appreciate that
> 
> It's just that I'm writing a dissertation around this stuff and am a bit obsessed right now



Thank you. This was and is the point I was making.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

moon said:


> Pollocks work is also fractal which could explain some of the energy in it, from a mathematical point of view
> http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock



He used a system of repeated patterns in different sizes and colours. 
That was not unknown... 

 the fractal theory was debunked a number of times in the past 10 years.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/01/facts-on-pollocks-fractals.html?m=1


----------



## RoyReed (Sep 26, 2014)

pennimania said:


> ...but I do think anyone who hasn't actually seen a Rothko in real life had best reserve judgement.
> 
> I wasn't too keen until I stood in front of them in the Tate. They actually moved me to tears.


Same for me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Did you expect a medal for shitstirring then?


you seem to suffer from something like cognitive dissonance, only in your case you think people are saying one thing when they are saying something rather different. i am saying you're a shitty little hypocrite because you tell people to fuck off then get all huffy when people say you might be told to fuck off in the future.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The emotional response of the observer is a response to and interaction with the emotional message, quality and depth of the artist's endeavours.
> 
> Consider this....
> 
> ...



None of which contradict what I said.
And for fuck's sake, next time don't just google up a reply, use your own words and ideas.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> use your own words and ideas.


she has no ideas of any validity on the subject


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'm a philistine and haven't read the thread but reckon it's a fair bet someone has had a go at Warhol, who I immediately just 'got'.  I loved that soup tin and got it right away.  Like Bob Dylan and H R Geiger.  I'm not sure about this 'is actually shit' business.  i do have an instinct towards snobbery, though -  I do think some stuff *is* just shit.



There's always been a tension between what some people choose to call "high art", and what Adorno and Horkheimer called "mass culture" (i.e. culture that was both "for the masses" and mass-produced). Indeed, they perceived mass culture as a threat to "high art".
Me, I think that Warhol, with his endless iterations of the same object, can easily co-exist alongside the work of the Old Masters, and that "shit" is often in the eye of the beholder - a function of the shit-seer's cultural education.


----------



## heinous seamus (Sep 26, 2014)

I think that Pollock painting looks amazing btw. Sorry, nothing more profound to contribute


----------



## scifisam (Sep 26, 2014)

My daughter is extremely good at art, in the sense of being able to draw things that make people go "ooh," but she will never go to art school. She doesn't want to and she would fail if she went there. That's because she's a terrible, absolutely awful liar: if a wicked witch turned her into a male cow she still couldn't produce enough bullshit to get an art degree these days.* And she's good with writing in the abstract - she writes poetry, etc (has won quite big awards for it) so that's not the issue.

That's the problem with some abstract art. Some of it still makes you go "ooh," but in order to get it exhibited the artist has to write a load of utter codswallop about meaningful it is. Part of the reason they have to write that stuff is because otherwise it's just a piece of white paper and really, literally anyone could do the actual "art" part of it. 

If you have to turn your head to read the little box with the artist's description of the artwork before you appreciate the artwork, then the artwork has failed, IMO. The description should add to the art, not be essential to making you have a response.

I don't include Rothko in this but only because, as many others have said, you have to see his work in real life to get it. I find it interesting, ina good way, that in this internet age one of the most popular artists is one whose art really does not work well on the internet at all. 

Also, I kinda suspect that if the green blob had been posted by Dr Herbz, with him saying it was made by him, those of you who like it wouldn't have. It would have looked like it was sold by Ikea or something (it does). In some contexts I do think it could be lovely - like on the side of a very flat building, but not in spraypaint - but on the internet it really is a blob and looks like something done in MSpaint using the select tool.


*She does lie occasionally. I've mentioned it elsewhere. She's really bad at it. She might as well interpose (lie) in between every other word when she does tell untruths because it's so fucking obvious. An autistic thing, apparently. Like that kid in The Middle.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

scifisam said:


> My daughter is extremely good at art, in the sense of being able to draw things that make people go "ooh," but she will never go to art school. She doesn't want to and she would fail if she went there. That's because she's a terrible, absolutely awful liar: if a wicked witch turned her into a male cow she still couldn't produce enough bullshit to get an art degree these days.* And she's good with writing in the abstract - she writes poetry, etc (has won quite big awards for it) so that's not the issue.
> 
> That's the problem with some abstract art. Some of it still makes you go "ooh," but in order to get it exhibited the artist has to write a load of utter codswallop about meaningful it is. Part of the reason they have to write that stuff is because otherwise it's just a piece of white paper and really, literally anyone could do the actual "art" part of it.
> 
> ...



At art school, and in the art world, you equally have to write reams of justification/explanation about your work if it's representational. It's not a situation unique to abstract work.

This has filtered down to schools with pupils studying art needing to write, and read, to support their work. Depending on the exam board the actual "pictures" might only count for 25% of the mark.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Me, I think that Warhol, with his endless iterations of the same object, can easily co-exist alongside the work of the Old Masters, and that "shit" is often in the eye of the beholder - a function of the shit-seer's cultural education.


 
That said, I really enjoyed _Art Is Dead, Long Live TV_.


----------



## pennimania (Sep 26, 2014)

I think it's very useful to be able to talk about your work.

In my own practice it has helped me move forward with research and define exactly what I'm trying to do. 

And that has opened me up to ideas and possibilities that I might not have considered before; in fact it's been a revelation. 

And as chilango says, it applies to all manner of practice - representational, abstract even craft based stuff like jewellery.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> At art school, and in the art world, you equally have to write reams of justification/explanation about your work if it's representational. It's not a situation unique to abstract work.
> 
> This has filtered down to schools with pupils studying art needing to write, and read, to support their work. Depending on the exam board the actual "pictures" might only count for 25% of the mark.



That's my point - even if the art is representational, and uses high-level art techniques (things like building up glazes, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread), it won't get a high mark without something written down to say "I was inspired by... this represents..." All loads of blah, really. 

Why not say "show an appreciation of perspective in your art," and "demonstrate skill in application of glazes to build up colours"? You know, stuff that actually helps to make the picture have more impact or at least shows more technical skill? It's not like art, at A level and below, is a subject that's impossible to apply objective criteria to that actually relate to art. 

OK, include some research and descriptions, but 75% of the grade? That means that people who are crap at art but good at research get better grades than those who are good at art.

My daughter got a C on her art GCSE. I know she's my daughter, but she deserved better than a C. I'm realistic about her abilties and she creates stuff that's just wonderful to look at. 

I queried the grade and was told that one of the criteria for a B or above was to have a well-organised portfolio. TBF, her art teacher did emphasise that a lot too, but my daughter just kept drawing pretty things that met the specifications and sometimes put them in the wrong places. And it was never clearly explained what having a well-organised portfolio was. Seriously, I read the AQA specifications and it still wasn't clear what you had to actually do.

She literally lost marks, for art, for not being organised enough. That's not art, that's accountancy. She did get an A in English and that's why she was accepted onto art A level. I only hope she can learn to bullshit enough for a good grade, but I dislike the idea of teaching my daughter to bullshit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2014)

scifisam said:


> That's my point - even if the art is representational, and uses high-level art techniques (things like building up glazes, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread), it won't get a high mark without something written down to say "I was inspired by... this represents..." All loads of blah, really.
> 
> Why not say "show an appreciation of perspective in your art," and "demonstrate skill in application of glazes to build up colours"? You know, stuff that actually helps to make the picture have more impact or at least shows more technical skill? It's not like art, at A level and below, is a subject that's impossible to apply objective criteria to that actually relate to art.
> 
> ...


if she studies art she'll have to bullshit.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> At art school, and in the art world, you equally have to write reams of justification/explanation about your work if it's representational. It's not a situation unique to abstract work.
> 
> This has filtered down to schools with pupils studying art needing to write, and read, to support their work. Depending on the exam board the actual "pictures" might only count for 25% of the mark.


 
This is extremely silly.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> This is extremely silly.



Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if she studies art she'll have to bullshit.



Agreed. That's why she's not going to do it past A-level.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

scifisam said:


> That's my point - even if the art is representational, and uses high-level art techniques (things like building up glazes, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread), it won't get a high mark without something written down to say "I was inspired by... this represents..." All loads of blah, really.
> 
> Why not say "show an appreciation of perspective in your art," and "demonstrate skill in application of glazes to build up colours"? You know, stuff that actually helps to make the picture have more impact or at least shows more technical skill? It's not like art, at A level and below, is a subject that's impossible to apply objective criteria to that actually relate to art.
> 
> ...



It doesn't have to be bullshit though, it should be being able to contextualise your work and express this in an academic manner using the specialist vocabulary of the discipline.

Which, sadly, often leads to bullshit.

I'm not sure how I feel about it to be honest.

I think it's a very useful, and important skill, but it does alienate many non-academic students who otherwise thrive in art classes.

But then the education system sucks all round, this is just one manifestation of it.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Agreed. That's why she's not going to do it past A-level.


 
Maybe she could get a dispensation to back up her work in the medium of interpretive dance.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> It doesn't have to be bullshit though, it should be being to contextualise your work and express this in an academic manner using the specialist vocabulary of the discipline.


 
Cue that Grayson Perry anecdote about an artist's written work being accused of "the wrong kind of unreadability".


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

scifisam said:


> That's my point - even if the art is representational, and uses high-level art techniques (things like building up glazes, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread), it won't get a high mark without something written down to say "I was inspired by... this represents..." All loads of blah, really.



not at all ime. because the _process_ is important in so much work - showing your working, explaining the route you covered to arrive at this place, informing about elements of the work that may have gone into its construction but which aren't obvious in the final piece. because _good_ art work always has a story behind it. even if that story is purely technical or aesthetic - totally subjective - but _original_ work will always have that underpinning, can always be explained by its maker, even in a single sentence.

eta: i'm working on an artist statement atm, it's really not as easy at it looks


----------



## Cid (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Isn't that a retrospective analysis though? I mean don't you think that at the time people *liked* his work and responded emotionally to it? That like a ripple in a pond more people got to see and like the work first and later began to analyse and establish connections between his style and other previous and indeed subsequent styles?



Some people liked his work. Remember that he's working in an environment where 20-30 years of impressionism have already changed the Paris art establishment. And, while he may have serious mental health issues, his brother is an art dealer. He has exhibitions during his lifetime, but his work isn't really picked up (partly why he starts studying colour). Post-impressionist artists and critics continue to push his work and smaller galleries/dealers keep it going, but it's not a case of a sort of ripple of instinctive appreciation - they explain why they like it, they explain it (see Aurier's essay on him). 

This is not to say that you can't have an immediate, visceral reaction to an artwork. However that reaction is to some extent conditioned. We live in an environment where Van Gogh is so much a part of life that he will be one of the first paintings you see, one of the first you learn about. A couple of examples by way of illustration: I had a probably somewhat mediocre painting of a ship on my wall for most of my childhood... It's a schooner on wooden boards, probably some family link I suppose. I really like that painting. I don't think it's particularly good (I'm no expert on paintings of schooners on wooden boards), but it has always been there - it was one of the first pieces of art I saw. The same goes for a painting of a sheep that my mum's had as long as I can remember (that actually is quite good - sort of impressionist thing of the head - the eye is great). These are not paintings that are in any way famous, but they are paintings that I might otherwise walk past in any gallery.

Your argument was that you can love Van Gogh instinctively, without knowing anything about him whereas abstract art requires explanation. My issue with that is that you can't know how you would react to Van Gogh if you didn't have a very specific cultural background. Your world is one where the ideas of Van Gogh have been accepted, and where his paintings can form part of the fabric of normal life. As a child seeing a very specific piece of his entire output - Bedroom in Arles - there are some things that will stand out. I think the bright simplicity of the scene is something that a child will have an instinctive appreciation for, colours and life etc. Especially when contrasted with the other kinds of art people put on there walls. A lot of his work wouldn't provoke that reaction - not his darker stuff, not his take on Japanese woodcuts etc. There are many other works by other painters that might give the same reaction, but they are not hanging on your aunt's wall.

You C&P'd some artist quotations upthread, about the importance of emotion in art. More than half of those artists are painters who work with varying degrees of abstraction. They are not writing lengthy justifications for their art and I'm willing to bet that if you pop over to the Tate modern tomorrow for a look at Malevich there you won't find a lengthy explanation justifying the positioning of specific forms. You'll get a general summary giving the social context at the time; explaining attitudes to art in pre/early-revolutionary Russia and you'll get a brief description of what suprematism is - i.e filling in a cultural backdrop that you do not have. I think the same goes for Pollock, Rothko and many others.  

My grandmother was a modernist architect, worked for Goldfinger. One of her friends was a guy called HT Cadbury-Brown (designed the RCA, worked on festival of Britain) and I used to go to his house quite a lot when visiting her and after she died. The art he had on his walls included everything from woodcuts of Palladian building plans to posters from various exhibitions. By the door he had a print of a Matisse cut-out. I loved that picture - one of the very simple blue and white ones. That primacy of one colour, the simplicity of it but the impression of motion and vitality. This was not an intellectual reaction, it was based on a combination of context and the ability of the artist.  

In summary what I am saying is that you are wrong when you say you can't have an emotional reaction to modern art. That your reaction to Van Gogh is partly conditioned by the social context he is set in. The two relate because not many people are exposed to modern art in the same way that they are to Van Gogh. It takes some level of engagement to see what the artist is trying to achieve. Someone born in Kyoto might take one look at Van Gogh painting Japanese woodcuts and say 'this guy really doesn't understand art' - it requires some level of commitment to understand the context that the painter is working in. In the case of Van Gogh that context is so much a part of your life that you saw his work when you were 5. I am not talking about the kind of elaborate justifications you might see today (very much in two minds about that), just taking a few small steps to think about what context the painter is working in. Art is not made to be directly visually appealing, it's there to present some kind of interpretation. You might as well write off Goya because his figures are ugly.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> not at all ime. because the _process_ is important in so much work - showing your working, explaining the route you covered to arrive at this place, informing about elements of the work that may have gone into its construction but which aren't obvious in the final piece. because _good_ art work always has a story behind it. even if that story is purely technical or aesthetic - totally subjective - but _original_ work will always have that underpinning, can always be explained by its maker, even in a single sentence.


 
Gah - reminds me of school maths where you had to scribble down a page of workings for something perfectly obvious.
An art teacher worth their salt should be able to tell the merits of a piece from the piece, no?


----------



## scifisam (Sep 26, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> not at all ime. because the _process_ is important in so much work - showing your working, explaining the route you covered to arrive at this place, informing about elements of the work that may have gone into its construction but which aren't obvious in the final piece. because _good_ art work always has a story behind it. even if that story is purely technical or aesthetic - totally subjective - but _original_ work will always have that underpinning, can always be explained by its maker, even in a single sentence.



It's good to hear it working for you. I kinda got the impression, though, that you had found the course hard before you specialised. 

I know good art work always has a story behind it and that is a really good way of putting it, and one that I shall put to my daughter.  

It's just that the story seems to count more than the art. And, more than that, phrasing the story in a specific way seems to count more than the art, at least when it comes to grades.

And really good representional art should not need a story, at least for the consumers. The art should be the story. That's why it exists, to tell stories that words cannot tell. If you have to add words, you've failed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2014)

pennimania said:


> I think it's very useful to be able to talk about your work.
> 
> In my own practice it has helped me move forward with research and define exactly what I'm trying to do.
> 
> ...



I think that talking, explanation and explication are great, and help further understanding and appreciation.
What annoys me is how often, under the influence of gallery-owners, collectors and critics, explanation is not engaged in. Instead mystification comes into play, and the artist and co-conspirators attempt to create a meaning for the artwork that maximises its' mystique, and therefore the potential for publicity and sale.
To me, that's not explanation, it's copywriting.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> An art teacher worth their salt should be able to tell the merits of a piece from the piece, no?



but part of what they're judging us on is our ability to develop original work, to present it in a professional manner, to write the blurb that's *required* if you're ever going to exhibit work. personally i'd rather it was *my* words up there than some curator's interpretation - that's my chance to explain the work a little more to the viewer, to give them pointers on what to pay attention to etc...

and they're judging us on how successfully we meet our own intentions. so they need to know what we were _hoping_ to convey in the work and they can judge us exactly by how clearly that intention/emotion/whatever comes across.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> Maybe she could get a dispensation to back up her work in the medium of interpretive dance.



You sick bastard!


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

scifisam said:


> If you have to add words, you've failed.



i reckon i could fully justify to my tutors to decide to leave everything untitled and refuse to provide bio/statements, if i felt the need, if my intention was purely the object.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> not at all ime. because the _process_ is important in so much work - showing your working, explaining the route you covered to arrive at this place, informing about elements of the work that may have gone into its construction but which aren't obvious in the final piece. because _good_ art work always has a story behind it. even if that story is purely technical or aesthetic - totally subjective - but _original_ work will always have that underpinning, can always be explained by its maker, even in a single sentence.



So, basically proving you're an artist, rather than an artisan?


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, basically proving you're an artist, rather than an artisan?



a lot of work is derivative, some of it accidentally but a lot of it out of pure copying/fashion. i figure talking the talk is what distinguishes the art from the merchandise.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> but part of what they're judging us on is our ability to develop original work, to present it in a professional manner, to write the blurb that's *required* if you're ever going to exhibit work. personally i'd rather it was *my* words up there than some curator's interpretation - that's my chance to explain the work a little more to the viewer, to give them pointers on what to pay attention to etc...


 
That sounds more like salesmanship.  A definite advantage if you want your art to be appreciated while you're still alive, but I'm not convinced it should have any bearing on the assessment of the art.   



wayward bob said:


> and they're judging us on how successfully we meet our own intentions. so they need to know what we were _hoping_ to convey in the work and they can judge us exactly by how clearly that intention/emotion/whatever comes across.


 
Cool - so I could get a First in Art with one of my paintings so long as I explain that I was attempting to convey a half-arsed watercolour of an anatomically inaccurate sheep?


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

scifisam if she ever wants to talk about art school with someone who's in it i'd be happy to go over my experience. bear in mind i'm fucking loving it, so not the most impartial input


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 26, 2014)

scifisam said:


> It's good to hear it working for you. I kinda got the impression, though, that you had found the course hard before you specialised.
> 
> I know good art work always has a story behind it and that is a really good way of putting it, and one that I shall put to my daughter.
> 
> ...




Presumably when you're studying art, you have to be able to show that you understand art - its history, context, meaning, influence on your own practice etc.


----------



## Cid (Sep 26, 2014)

Also scifisam she might want to consider something more applied; my sister loved doing (at Brighton), illustration also well worth a thought.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 26, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> i reckon i could fully justify to my tutors to decide to leave everything untitled and refuse to provide bio/statements, if i felt the need, if my intention was purely the object.



Wouldn't you have to put something in writing - well-phrased writing, at that - to justifify that? Or even speak to them about it in words; I mean to say, there is no way you could just submit something and say "here it is."

And at A level you'd just fail.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 26, 2014)

Cid said:


> Also scifisam she might want to consider something more applied; my sister loved doing graphic design (at Brighton), illustration also well worth a thought.



If you study graphic design (I got a BA in multimedia design), you still have to show your process and study cultural context and meaning.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 26, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Presumably when you're studying art, you have to be able to show that you understand art - its history, context, meaning, influence on your own practice etc.



Of course. I said as much.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'm not convinced it should have any bearing on the assessment of the art.



our tutors job isn't just to judge us on the (subjective) quality of the work. it's about _training_ us to work as jobbing artists - to find the opportunities, to apply for them, to write the blurb they usually ask for. perhaps my course is different from fine art, it's newly developed and training us to be *makers* above all else, but it's very strongly vocational and part of that is being able to talk the talk. it just is. all it takes is having genuine creative ideas rather than just blagging it.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> our tutors job isn't just to judge us on the (subjective) quality of the work. it's about _training_ us to work as jobbing artists - to find the opportunities, to apply for them, to write the blurb they usually ask for. perhaps my course is different from fine art, it's newly developed and training us to be *makers* above all else, but it's very strongly vocational and part of that is being able to talk the talk. it just is. all it takes is having genuine creative ideas rather than just blagging it.


 
I'm not too familiar with it all but what do you mean by 'maker'? 
Is that similar to the people Damian Hirst calls his 'fabricators'?


----------



## Cid (Sep 26, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> If you study graphic design (I got a BA in multimedia design), you still have to show your process and study cultural context and meaning.



Certainly, but it can be easier to structure than with fine art.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> If you study graphic design (I got a BA in multimedia design), you still have to show your process and study cultural context and meaning.


 
Do you get a choice of media to do that in?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 26, 2014)

Cid said:


> Certainly, but it can be easier to structure than with fine art.



Yeah, I guess that's true.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> Do you get a choice of media to do that in?



It was basically web design, but I did some photography and video too.  Pretty useless degree tbh.  The tutors were wanking over Flash (this was '99 - '02), which I hated (still do).


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> It was basically web design, but I did some photography and video too.  Pretty useless degree tbh.  The tutors were wanking over Flash (this was '99 - '02), which I hated (still do).


 
I actually meant did you get a choice of media for your justification for your work.  Has something superseded Flash in terms of that kind of tool - I always found it a bugger to use.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'm not too familiar with it all but what do you mean by 'maker'?
> Is that similar to the people Damian Hirst calls his 'fabricators'?



full degree title is artist/designer: maker. it's about realising our ideas in the flesh, whether that's through traditional workshop skills - enamelling, bronze casting, woodwork, welding, dye, stitch - or through digital methods - 3d modelling and print, rendering, laser cutting/etching - and skilling us up enough that we can keep up a personal practice after we graduate - so outsourcing production and/or being self-sufficient with our own equipment. working on my summer project atm i'm drawing up plans for a solar powered laser cutter :thumbs : crossed with a spirograph


----------



## moon (Sep 26, 2014)

I read somewhere that many of today's successful artists are those who did not go to art school..


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> I actually meant did you get a choice of media for your justification for your work.  Has something superseded Flash in terms of that kind of tool - I always found it a bugger to use.



iirc, we had to submit work ups of several ideas and show the progression from lots of  initial ideas to one finished product.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> I actually meant did you get a choice of media for your justification for your work.  Has something superseded Flash in terms of that kind of tool - I always found it a bugger to use.



Fuck knows about Flash btw, I've ended up working as a mental health nurse


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

moon said:


> I read somewhere that many of today's successful artists are those who did not go to art school..


 
I think that sort of thing happens in a lot of fields these days.  People fall into something from somewhere else and bring something new with them.


----------



## moon (Sep 26, 2014)

wayward bob 
you might find this interview interesting, it's about a woman who made significant and successful changes to a niche craft industry, that many people are reaping the benefits from.
http://svgcuts.com/blog/2011/07/18/cut-the-craft-interview-with-chris-vander-woude-and-more/


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> iirc, we had to submit work ups of several ideas and show the progression from lots of  initial ideas to one finished product.


 
That sounds like the sort of thing you could do as an animation.  Like in DVD extras where you get progressions of concept artwork etc.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> full degree title is artist/designer: maker. it's about realising our ideas in the flesh, whether that's through traditional workshop skills - enamelling, bronze casting, woodwork, welding, dye, stitch - or through digital methods - 3d modelling and print, rendering, laser cutting/etching - and skilling us up enough that we can keep up a personal practice after we graduate - so outsourcing production and/or being self-sufficient with our own equipment. working on my summer project atm i'm drawing up plans for a solar powered laser cutter :thumbs : crossed with a spirograph


 
That sounds cool.  So everything from making film sets to product design is open from there.

Everything else you've said makes more sense to me in that context since you have considerations of cost, choice of materials etc. etc., arriving at a final decision after various mock-ups etc.

As opposed to being a hermit sat up a tree with bones in his beard painting furiously and producing something people in Islington dinner parties will rave about in 200 years.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> a beholder recently




that was probably 30 years ago tbh.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Why not say "show an appreciation of perspective in your art," and "demonstrate skill in application of glazes to build up colours"? You know, stuff that actually helps to make the picture have more impact or at least shows more technical skill? It's not like art, at A level and below, is a subject that's impossible to apply objective criteria to that actually relate to art.



this is how we're marked - equal weighting to ideas/skills/context. i think some of her fears about art school are misplaced - above everything they want to facilitate our practice, get our work out there, have confidence and marketable practical skills, they don't want to stifle any creativity they genuinely want to foster our abilities.

(tbf my perspective on this has changed on my current course compared to the one i did in first year - find the *right* course and she could really blossom if she decided she wanted to )


----------



## Cid (Sep 26, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah, I guess that's true.



I studied (and dropped out of) architecture at a highly conceptual school (UCL/Bartlett). It was an absolute nightmare trying to work out which justifications were 'right', what the tutors would accept etc. I did get used to it, but even there you had at least some framework you could work from. Find site, immerse yourself in history of it, look at sight lines, how people walk around it etc. The more conceptual projects (not buildings) I had more difficulty with because there really didn't seem to be much point behind them.

Sister art school (er, not 'my sister's school' before it gets confusing) was the Slade. My god. I hung out there occasionally with a friend who had a heavy art background (mine is more design). Walls of unintelligible crap (and I do mean crap quite a lot of the time). Just seemed a huge pile of post-rationalisation and justification... I have a few friends who are fine artists; one works at Goldsmith's as a technician now. I really like his work - he's a sort of concrete specialist - simple forms but very well executed. Lovely texture etc. My other friend is high concept. I don't really get her art. She's great and extremely intelligent, but it doesn't appeal to me and the intellectual justifications just seem too obtuse.

Graphic design I think my sister had a few frustrations with some of the conceptual side, but when you have a degree of structure around it and are able to develop your own style in relation to that I think it can make it easier. I think she might have preferred illustration (which is why I suggested it to sam) as there's a bit more hand work and less need to have a fairly diverse knowledge of inputs (GD you obviously learn about typography, video etc as well) but she got a good grade (2/1 I think - difficult to get at Brighton) and has a fucking brilliant lifestyle out of it (doesn't make a lot of money, but works from her laptop so can just travel a lot).


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 26, 2014)

Cid said:


> I studied (and dropped out of) architecture at a highly conceptual school (UCL/Bartlett). It was an absolute nightmare trying to work out which justifications were 'right', what the tutors would accept etc. I did get used to it, but even there you had at least some framework you could work from. Find site, immerse yourself in history of it, look at sight lines, how people walk around it etc. The more conceptual projects (not buildings) I had more difficulty with because there really didn't seem to be much point behind them.
> 
> Sister art school (er, not 'my sister's school' before it gets confusing) was the Slade. My god. I hung out there occasionally with a friend who had a heavy art background (mine is more design). Walls of unintelligible crap (and I do mean crap quite a lot of the time). Just seemed a huge pile of post-rationalisation and justification... I have a few friends who are fine artists; one works at Goldsmith's as a technician now. I really like his work - he's a sort of concrete specialist - simple forms but very well executed. Lovely texture etc. My other friend is high concept. I don't really get her art. She's great and extremely intelligent, but it doesn't appeal to me and the intellectual justifications just seem too obtuse.
> 
> Graphic design I think my sister had a few frustrations with some of the conceptual side, but when you have a degree of structure around it and are able to develop your own style in relation to that I think it can make it easier. I think she might have preferred illustration (which is why I suggested it to sam) as there's a bit more hand work and less need to have a fairly diverse knowledge of inputs (GD you obviously learn about typography, video etc as well) but she got a good grade (2/1 I think - difficult to get at Brighton) and has a fucking brilliant lifestyle out of it (doesn't make a lot of money, but works from her laptop so can just travel a lot).



Yours sounds a very similar experience to mine.  I dropped out of a ceramic design degree for much the same reasons.  Being asked things like "why is it red?" or "what influenced your vessels shape?" all the time drove me mad.

The fine art lot I hung around with (and still do!) produced ten tons of verbal garbage in an attempt to justify whatever they were doing.  Most of it crap.  One of my friends got a first, not because she was good, but because she worked out the game.  Those are her words as well.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Wouldn't you have to put something in writing - well-phrased writing, at that - to justifify that? Or even speak to them about it in words; I mean to say, there is no way you could just submit something and say "here it is."



sorry just picking up points on rereading  our assessments aren't usually done in our absence. we generally have a chance to *present* and discuss the work with the tutors/our peers. but even when they're judging the final work they read our blogs alongside - so the technical nitty-gritty, project development, references etc. goes in there - anything we'd otherwise talk about in a face-to-face assessment.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> A definite advantage if you want your art to be appreciated while you're still alive...



missed this  yeah, call me a weirdo but i'd really like to earn some kind of living out of it


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> One of my friends got a first, not because she was good, but because she worked out the game.  Those are her words as well.



i got a first last year. _because i'm good_


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 26, 2014)

I got a first at software engineering for the same reason


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> None of which contradict what I said.
> And for fuck's sake, next time don't just google up a reply, use your own words and ideas.



I did...and then backed it up with a quote.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> she has no ideas of any validity on the subject



What have you contributed to the thread bar picking at posts? And being a nasty little prick?
Nothing.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lascaux, or Sasaferrato 's graffiti, as I call it.



Aye, I did say at the time, that a wee bit less red would have been better. 

Wonderful paintings though.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

Cid said:


> In summary .. you are wrong when you say you can't have an emotional reaction to modern art..




I appreciate your lengthy post and agree with most of it completely. 
But for this^^ .. I didn't say you cant have an emotional reaction to modern art. My point was that emotional reaction / response to art (any kind) can be enough. And valid.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 26, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Do you have to understand how an aurora borealis is formed in order to appreciate it?



No. Nor do you have to understand the artists 'motivation' in order to appreciate the art. There is an awful lot of pretentious bollocks talked about art. If it has to be 'explained', then it is likely to be pretentious bollocks on the part of the artist, Hirst's sheep, Emin's bed, and Pollock's dribbles from the top of a stepladder, fall into that category. 

I've spent a lot of time over the years looking at art, my all time favourite picture is this:






I love its serenity. I love it's composition and use of perspective and chiaroscuro. It hangs in the National Gallery, and is absolutely stunning. Just recently I heard on the radio why the Virgin is so often depicted in a blue robe, the pigment is lapis lazuli, very expensive, and therefore the highest honour the artist could bestow.

Van Gogh's 'Sunflowers' (of which I've seen four), sell for millions, yet they were something that he dashed off, to brighten up the house because a friend was due to visit. No more, no less.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes it does because if you don't or won't understand the context, what the artist is trying to do, how can you be truly appreciating it?



If the artist needs to 'explain' it, they are being a pretentious prick.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 26, 2014)

Oh Christ, not again


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

I know of a "modern abstractionist" painter / artist who is selling very well after ditching traditional landscape art in favour of painting "batshit art" (their own words). This artist got a young art student to write apraisals for the artworks and these were handed on to galleries etc. The artwork is selling very well.... I thought it dishonest and asked why they felt the need to do it? Money and making a living were the answers.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Oh Christ, not again



People have very different opinions.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, it does, but only in a "naive" sense, insofar as you might appreciate a piece of art, but not be able to enunciate why you do beyond "I like the colours and shapes and subject".



I disagree. (There's a surprise ). There are paintings whose magnificence just stops you in you tracks. Like this one:






It is a huge painting, and it's only when you see the painting in the flesh, you see that the wee blob in front of the train is a hare. I love Turner, the collection in the Tate Gallery is well worth a visit. The 'golden flare' of his later work, is reckoned to be because his colour perception had been altered by advanced cataracts.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Money and making a living were the answers.



so fucking shoot them


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I like Van Gogh because his paintings have passion.



Me too - i did a project on him when i was 14, and he inspired me to do 'Flowers' as my project for Junior Cert (Ireland's GCSEs). I recall  my art teacher suggested doing lots of pink and yellow on a RED background - odd (and I avoided the pink) but did lots of red on red, and greys and army green ferns. My main focus thorny flowers in the Rocky Mountains, the more gruesome, the better. I worked really hard and got an A - very proud of that!!


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Grand.
> I still don't like it



Cant stand the Ellsworth Kelly either - i mean, up close you wonder whether there really is detail and layering involved, cant see it online.

Can say this: with painting green, grey is a great backwash colour, so maybe achieving that shade of green is some sort of breakthrough?? I dont know..


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> His stated aim was to produce art that was figurative and non compositional...he achieved this.
> 
> Here's another. .
> 
> ...



i think perception of art is about feeling.  You ask, does it respond to me or not? I try to avoid (but to my chagrin, enjoy) reading 'art analysis' as its like telling you how to feel - which cant be taught.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, it's the history and impact of the artist that made it valuable, same as van gogh.



that may have made it valuable, but doesnt mean its _good._ Remember Tracy Emin??? I think she is great but some think she is shit....


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What's wrong with the images I'm posting?



There's nothing 'wrong' with the images you are posting - art is so subjective, no right or wrong.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> "Shit art" that nobody raves about (as per the op) 'cos you just made it up for the thread?
> 
> Was it initially meant to be some "critique" of abstract art that you've since thought better of?
> 
> Because that's how it looks to me...



shut up! Art speaks for itself. Bubbles can post what she wants and doesnt have to explain herself, or provide these 'critiques' you seek...


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that talking, explanation and explication are great, and help further understanding and appreciation.
> What annoys me is how often, under the influence of gallery-owners, collectors and critics, explanation is not engaged in. Instead mystification comes into play, and the artist and co-conspirators attempt to create a meaning for the artwork that maximises its' mystique, and therefore the potential for publicity and sale.
> To me, that's not explanation, it's copywriting.



Amen.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> No. Nor do you have to understand the artists 'motivation' in order to appreciate the art. There is an awful lot of pretentious bollocks talked about art. If it has to be 'explained', then it is likely to be pretentious bollocks on the part of the artist, Hirst's sheep, Emin's bed, and Pollock's dribbles from the top of a stepladder, fall into that category.
> 
> I've spent a lot of time over the years looking at art, my all time favourite picture is this:
> 
> ...



I love this. Have visited 'Lourdes', Medugorje, and other religious places where the Virgin Mary is celebrated somewhat. With all due respect, the art and statues are so gaudy - very bad. But above all, my favourites of the Madonna are the serene, solemn ones. I love 'La Pieta,' There is a religion shop in Dublin called Veritas, and I swear, its hard to find a really good wooden statue of the Madonna that is kind of...._dignified._ Maybe I should go back to Italy for that....


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I appreciate your lengthy post and agree with most of it completely.
> But for this^^ .. I didn't say you cant have an emotional reaction to modern art. My point was that emotional reaction / response to art (any kind) can be enough. And valid.



you made a perfectly reasonable point, i think art just riles people somewhat, as we all interpret it differently.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I know of a "modern abstractionist" painter / artist who is selling very well after ditching traditional landscape art in favour of painting "batshit art" (their own words). This artist got a young art student to write apraisals for the artworks and these were handed on to galleries etc. The artwork is selling very well.... I thought it dishonest and asked why they felt the need to do it? Money and making a living were the answers.



I know a really good contemporary artist in Brixton who sometimes has to produce 'commercial' art to make ends meet (the kind of awful stuff you see inside a bank, for example.) its still good but he just freelances that stuff to make a living, which is okay i think. I am not sure i would do it myself if i had the talent (which i dont!)


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> i reckon i could fully justify to my tutors to decide to leave everything untitled and refuse to provide bio/statements, if i felt the need, if my intention was purely the object.


Once, many years ago, as a very bolshy art student, I'd gotten so sick of the art world and it's demands that I produced a piece of work that I refused to exhibit, I refused to document and my "justification" was written in Welsh (a language I knew my tutor didn't speak) and placed inside a sealed envelope that my tutor wasn't "allowed" to open.

Sadly, this gesture became the work.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> An art teacher worth their salt should be able to tell the merits of a piece from the piece, no?



The art teacher can. The examiners? The moderators? The foster inspectors? The art teacher's line manager?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What have you contributed to the thread bar picking at posts? And being a nasty little prick?
> Nothing.


once again you don't seem to have read my posts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> People have very different opinions.


but the thing about opinions is what leads you to them. if you have an opinion based on nothing but prejudices which people can easily kick away you may wish to give your opinion a better foundation.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> but the thing about opinions is what leads you to them. if you have an opinion based on nothing but prejudices which people can easily kick away you may wish to give your opinion a better foundation.



not with art - art is about feelings, Pickman. I didnt see any 'prejudices' there either...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> No. Nor do you have to understand the artists 'motivation' in order to appreciate the art. There is an awful lot of pretentious bollocks talked about art. If it has to be 'explained', then it is likely to be pretentious bollocks on the part of the artist, Hirst's sheep, Emin's bed, and Pollock's dribbles from the top of a stepladder, fall into that category.
> 
> I've spent a lot of time over the years looking at art, my all time favourite picture is this:
> 
> ...


obviously people can see a picture like that and enjoy it. one one level. but as you suggest, without knowing something of the painting your enjoyment and understanding is limited. to take an example, hogarth's paintings are filled with little allusions, which if you see them without knowing of the context will entirely elude you. the same thing with, for example, pictures of st sebastian. sebastian one of the saints prayed to during times of plague, and the number of arrows perforating him gives you some idea of the background to the painting - lots of arrows = painted during a time of plague.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> not with art - art is about feelings, Pickman. I didnt see any 'prejudices' there either...


no, art is not about feelings unless you're a lovey-dovey hippy. art is about communication.

oh - and mine was a general comment about opinions, if you're going to hold one you may as well make it one worth holding.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, art is not about feelings unless you're a lovey-dovey hippy. art is about communication.



Art is about feeling AND communication, but ultimately feeling. It shouldnt be over analysed, i dont think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> Art is about feeling AND communication, but ultimately feeling. It shouldnt be over analysed, i dont think.


i don't think anyone's talking about over-analysing it. i'm simply saying that if you approach a picture with no prior knowledge of it it should be no surprise that your understanding of it is at best partial and important elements may escape you. for example, hogarth's roast beef of auld england picture






is in fact a rather nasty little piece of work with its anti-french, anti-catholic and anti-scottish elements.

and in terms of abstract art i've already referred above to mondrian's theosophy, knowledge of which deepens an appreciation and allows an understanding of his famous rectangles. without that it's simply a nice pattern.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

thats a great picture.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

Here, have an abstract I painted this week (partly inspired by this thread):



chilango said:


> View attachment 61646
> 
> Requiem for the English Middle Classes
> Acrylic on repurposed canvas
> 50x50cm


----------



## Cheesypoof (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> Here, have an abstract I painted this week (partly inspired by this thread):



i think thats great.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> i think thats great.



Thank you.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Sep 26, 2014)

Anish Kapoor. His exhibition at the RA a few years ago was the most vacuous over-rated piece of crap I've ever been stupid enough to pay to see. The best thing in that show was actually placed in the courtyard - which anyone could see free. He's got nothing to say but because he says nothing in such a BIG FUCKING WAY he dupes people into thinikng he must be meaningful and important - like he clearly did the government who were seduced enough to let him build that hideous thing at the Olympics. Total charlatan.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> Here, have an abstract I painted this week (partly inspired by this thread):


surely that's the wrong way up


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2014)

Dr. Furface said:


> Anish Kapoor. His exhibition at the RA a few years ago was the most vacuous over-rated piece of crap I've ever been stupid enough to pay to see. The best thing in that show was actually placed in the courtyard - which anyone could see free. He's got nothing to say but because he says nothing in such a BIG FUCKING WAY he dupes people into thinikng he must be meaningful and important - like he clearly did the government who were seduced enough to let him build that hideous thing at the Olympics. Total charlatan - and that's being complimentary.


back in the 1980s i was told a story about an artist from the 1970s, whose name i forget. this man had started to make a name for himself and some big gallery had given him a load of money to do a piece for them. anyway, he blew the lot on wine and women or somesuch until he was down to the last £10 and a week to go. he was wandering round somewhere - let's assume it was newcastle - and saw in a junkshop window a big coil of rope. a 'bingo!' went off in his head and he bought it. it was tarry auld ship's rope and he cut it in half and laid out the pieces at the gallery and everyone was well impressed.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> The art teacher can. The examiners? The moderators? The foster inspectors? The art teacher's line manager?



If they can't deal with it maybe they should go work in the biochemistry department.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> If they can't deal with it maybe they should go work in the biochemistry department.



What?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> What?



Undergrad biochem: right and wrong answers.  Even more so than maths or physics ime.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> Undergrad biochem: right and wrong answers.  Even more so than maths or physics ime.



You want to try turning the Key Stage 3 National Curriculum in Art into something quantifiable? 


Please?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> You want to try turning the Key Stage 3 National Curriculum in Art into something quantifiable?
> 
> Please?



Sure, but it might bear an uncanny resemblance to biochemistry.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

8ball said:


> Sure, but it might bear an uncanny resemblance to biochemistry.



That would be a work of alchemy indeed!


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> he was wandering round somewhere - let's assume it was newcastle - and saw in a junkshop window a big coil of rope. a 'bingo!' went off in his head and he bought it. it was tarry auld ship's rope and he cut it in half and laid out the pieces at the gallery and everyone was well impressed.



old rope :thumbs :


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> Once, many years ago, as a very bolshy art student, I'd gotten so sick of the art world and it's demands that I produced a piece of work that I refused to exhibit, I refused to document and my "justification" was written in Welsh (a language I knew my tutor didn't speak) and placed inside a sealed envelope that my tutor wasn't "allowed" to open.
> 
> Sadly, this gesture became the work.



That says it all really, doesn't it. Your tutor should have been hanged with a rope made from his/her own entrails. 

There is talent about. When I used to go up to parent's evening at my daughter's school, the art displayed along the corridor walls was amazing. There was one portrait that struck me so much, that I did look into trying to buy it. Sadly, it wasn't for sale.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> That says it all really, doesn't it. Your tutor should have been hanged with a rope made from his/her own entrails.
> 
> There is talent about. When I used to go up to parent's evening at my daughter's school, the art displayed along the corridor walls was amazing. There was one portrait that struck me so much, that I did look into trying to buy it. Sadly, it wasn't for sale.



Nah. My tutor was ace. I was being a dick.

...turned out being a dick was easily recuperated.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> surely that's the wrong way up


Wrong way round.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> obviously people can see a picture like that and enjoy it. one one level. but as you suggest, without knowing something of the painting your enjoyment and understanding is limited. to take an example, hogarth's paintings are filled with little allusions, which if you see them without knowing of the context will entirely elude you. the same thing with, for example, pictures of st sebastian. sebastian one of the saints prayed to during times of plague, and the number of arrows perforating him gives you some idea of the background to the painting - lots of arrows = painted during a time of plague.



When I first saw that painting, it drew me from across the room. I didn't know who the artist was, didn't know anything about it. I was ten at the time. When I went back to the National Gallery, 20 years later, I was able to go straight to where it was, from memory. The next time I went, a couple of years after that, I went to the room, looked at the spot... it wasn't there. The curator saw me looking, smiled, and told me where it was. When I asked how he knew which picture I was looking for, he replied that he re-directed people to it on a daily basis. I bought a large print from the National Gallery shop,it hangs on my computer room wall. (Alongside my original 'Larry' cartoon, a gift from my daughter's partner. He is a cartoonist, and friend of 'Larry'.)


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> back in the 1980s i was told a story about an artist from the 1970s, whose name i forget. this man had started to make a name for himself and some big gallery had given him a load of money to do a piece for them. anyway, he blew the lot on wine and women or somesuch until he was down to the last £10 and a week to go. he was wandering round somewhere - let's assume it was newcastle - and saw in a junkshop window a big coil of rope. a 'bingo!' went off in his head and he bought it. it was tarry auld ship's rope and he cut it in half and laid out the pieces at the gallery and everyone was well impressed.



Have you ever seen Cellini's bronze 'Perseus with the head of Medusa'? One of the feet is deformed. What happened was that he was paid for the materials, and went on the piss with the money. When he finally had to cast it, he didn't have enough tin, so used all the pewter plates in the house to get the metal to melt. When he poured it, it cooled too rapidly, and didn't quite reach the toes. Quite a character, he produced the most exquisite work.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 26, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think anyone's talking about over-analysing it. i'm simply saying that if you approach a picture with no prior knowledge of it it should be no surprise that your understanding of it is at best partial and important elements may escape you. for example, hogarth's roast beef of auld england picture
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Corrected it for you.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> Here, have an abstract I painted this week (partly inspired by this thread):



Liking the coffee cup stain 

Kidding...


I'm half way through my homage to Rothko ... three hours into it and it's the most boring activity...

I'm just glad I decided to use acrylics instead of alkyds cos this will be over quicker. 
9 layers of paint so far.
18 colours / tones
14 brushes
6 types of brush stroke

It looks shit.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Liking the coffee cup stain
> 
> Kidding...
> 
> ...



 I've painted with coffee before...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> I've painted with coffee before...




I painted with tea


----------



## starfish (Sep 26, 2014)

Pretty much all of Jack Vettrianos work if you listen to people who claim to know about art. Its popular, sells in its thousands but is it actually any good. 
I like it btw.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2014)

starfish said:


> Pretty much all of Jack Vettrianos work if you listen to people who claim to know about art. Its popular, sells in its thousands but is it actually any good.
> I like it btw.



I really don't like it.

...but haven't investigated it beyond my initial dislike. I accidentally went to an exhibition of his work. Really not my thing.

But there you go.


----------



## starfish (Sep 26, 2014)

chilango said:


> I really don't like it.
> 
> ...but haven't investigated it beyond my initial dislike. I accidentally went to an exhibition of his work. Really not my thing.
> 
> But there you go.


Fair play. A lot of people do, a lot of people dont. It is hugely simplistic & he cant do eyes or hands very well but it is hugely popular. We went to his exhibition at the Kelvingrove Art Gallery in January & it was jammed. I think its a perfect example of the thread title.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 26, 2014)

Vettriano famously uses stock image catalogues instead of models and it shows, to me his figures look incredibly wooden. But if people like stuff like that then I'd never call it rubbish. It's simple, undemanding and a bit quirky - it's pop really.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 26, 2014)

starfish said:


> Pretty much all of Jack Vettrianos work if you listen to people who claim to know about art. Its popular, sells in its thousands but is it actually any good.
> I like it btw.





Andrew Hertford said:


> Vettriano famously uses stock image catalogues instead of models and it shows, to me his figures look incredibly wooden. But if people like stuff like that then I'd never call it rubbish. It's simple, undemanding and a bit quirky - it's pop really.



he might still be on the iplayer: what do artists do all day. fascinating series, and made me realise quite how much *painters* have it made  yeah vettriano is supposedly the same as colouring-by-numbers. and tbf it's not hard to replicate - but he did it first - he has that popular success that will always kind of ease the fact he'll never be accepted by the "art school" world. so what?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

Taken on camera phone. ..so a bit dark.
Anyway. ..it looks great close up..


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 26, 2014)

Slightly better pic.
Anyhoo...it's been 5 hours and I don't know how Rothko did it....I mean it was the most boring depressing painting I've been privileged to work on. 
The last hour I wanted to splash paint over it. Very restrictive and tight ...
It's totally shite and I'll gladly sell it for a chocolate croissant.


----------



## chilango (Sep 27, 2014)

Abstract painting is hard.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

chilango said:


> Abstract painting is hard.



No..it's not that it was hard..it's just there was no light relief at all as it went on. It was draining and by the time it was "finished" (not sure it is), I was starving. 
Anyway. ..... I'm going to try another with a brighter palate today. The telly died last night and I've no new books so it'll be a day of painting.
I'm thinking pinks yellows and whites for today.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Ps. ..... a neighbour offered to buy it last night....lol...
"Grand" said I. "What do you want to pay for it?"
"I'll give you €100 and a pavlova", said she.
"Done". Said I. "I'll take the pavlova and you keep the euros".


She makes an excellent pavlova


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

I'm calling it "crossing the line". It's an expression of the transcendental movement from life to death...a journey down to the underworld. The red is the horizon splitting day and night, joy and sadness,  the journey from the external  inward towards the darkest places in the soul.


----------



## chilango (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No..it's not that it was hard..it's just there was no light relief at all as it went on. It was draining and by the time it was "finished" (not sure it is), I was starving.
> Anyway. ..... I'm going to try another with a brighter palate today. The telly died last night and I've no new books so it'll be a day of painting.
> I'm thinking pinks yellows and whites for today.



Well, it sounds hard from your postings!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> View attachment 61680
> 
> Taken on camera phone. ..so a bit dark.
> Anyway. ..it looks great close up..


What was the point of that exercise?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

chilango said:


> Well, it sounds hard from your postings!



There was nothing hard about any of the work involved. A realist landscape would be "harder" , as in more technically difficult. I spend on average 90 hours on a landscspe of similar size. The Rothko homage was just not as enjoyable to paint...and that's my personal experience and perspective. 




Orang Utan said:


> What was the point of that exercise?



Fez909 and myself said earlier in the thread that we'd do it...
So I did.
What's the point in you asking that question ?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What was the point of that exercise?





Fez909 said:


> Right then you bag of cunts. I'm gonna paint a Rothko.
> 
> I have an unused canvas sat in my living room and some paints and an easel (kindly donated by two lovely Urbz) and I've been wondering wtf to paint for ages.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 27, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What was the point of that exercise?


watch out or you'll get an abusive pm


----------



## chilango (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> There was nothing hard about any of the work involved. A realist landscape would be "harder" , as in more technically difficult. I spend on average 90 hours on a landscspe of similar size. The Rothko homage was just not as enjoyable to paint...and that's my personal experience and perspective.



Fair enough.

My point I guess is that there's more to the difficulty or "hardness" of painting than technique (or fine motor skills). Y'know all the other, less tangible, stuff that the artist puts into making a work succeed.

I hope you would agree that your Rothko homage isn't a particularly successful piece of Art?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

chilango said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> My point I guess is that there's more to the difficulty or "hardness" of painting than technique (or fine motor skills). Y'know all the other, less tangible, stuff that the artist puts into making a work succeed.
> 
> I hope you would agree that your Rothko homage isn't a particularly successful piece of Art?



You'd have to see it close up to critique it properly 

And the neighbour loves it


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Dry and in daylight... I'm looking forward to the pavlova


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 27, 2014)

For me, the colours and sizes of the rectangles are wrong. It's not easy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> View attachment 61688
> 
> Dry and in daylight... I'm looking forward to the pavlova


Are you trying to say that's as good as a Rothko?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Are you trying to say that's as good as a Rothko?



Lol.... irony is lost on you.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> For me, the colours and sizes of the rectangles are wrong. It's not easy.



Homage to....not replica... and his rectangles were very varied in size...


I'm off to paint another homage to....


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol.... irony is lost on you.


You type those words but you don't know what they mean


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> You type those words but you don't know what they mean



Dear me...such bitterness in your attitude...may I suggest you take up paintimg?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 27, 2014)




----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


>



That's brilliantly funny Dr Herbz 
Your own work?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Half way through second one ... more enjoyable this time....


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> That's brilliantly funny Dr Herbz
> Your own work?


I wish I'd thought of it first but unfortunately not. I found it via Google.


----------



## chilango (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Half way through second one ... more enjoyable this time....
> 
> 
> View attachment 61691



I much prefer that one


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

chilango said:


> I much prefer that one



Ta.... I'm enjoying the colours much more. .. definitely not as depressing as the first one.


----------



## Cid (Sep 27, 2014)

I like the proportions on the second better too, at least in terms of the thinner borders/boundaries. Not sure about the white stripe. Wouldn't be averse to having its like on my wall though. If I had more walls.

You up for posting any of your landscapes?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

This is glazed...so apologies for the refection of the lamp shade lol...
Plus I cropped my name out... so it's a bit bigger than this 
 

And I'm still working on this one...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Nother..


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

More abstraction....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Cid said:


> I like the proportions on the second better too, at least in terms of the thinner borders/boundaries. Not sure about the white stripe. Wouldn't be averse to having its like on my wall though. If I had more walls.




It needed the white imo...to pull the eye up away from the "horizon" and into the red..


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 27, 2014)

I'd stick to landscapes bubbles, the Rothko attempts are dreadful. (Look, I'm an artist myself, it's better to hear the truth, right? )

I quite like the reflection of the lampshade.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I'd stick to landscapes bubbles, the Rothko attempts are dreadful. (Look, I'm an artist myself, it's better to hear the truth, right? )
> 
> I quite like the reflection of the lampshade.



Lol
I'm playing 
Plus I've sold the first one already...albeit for a pavlova


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)




----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 27, 2014)

Warhol was playing, Hirst is playing, but they still made great art.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Warhol was playing, Hirst is playing, but they still made great art.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 27, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Warhol was playing, Hirst is playing, but they still made great art.


No, they didn't.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Going to leave this as is


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Warhol was playing, Hirst is playing, but they still made great art.



They weren't playing. They were seriously seriarse.
As for Hirst? Butterfly killer


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> View attachment 61723
> 
> Going to leave this as is



This one's actually sort of nice. But IMO you can fuck off with your attitude about art. 

You just kind of proved the point that best retort to everyone who says (while looking at a famous piece)

"I could have done that myself" 

 is, of course "Yeah, but you DIDN'T" 

So, in this case you did....sort of, but you essentially failed. we can tell the originals are much better, and by your description you didn't feel passionate about or even understand the process of what you were doing and _why, _thereby proving that no, not anyone could have done that. in most cases, only the artist could have done what they did because they're the one who was moved to create something. 
I am not making much sense but yeah, your experiment was a big FAIL imo.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> This one's actually sort of nice. But IMO you can fuck off with your attitude about art.
> 
> You just kind of proved the point that best retort to everyone who says (while looking at a famous piece)
> 
> ...



Lol...
I said already they're shit and I still think his are shit too only a lot more expensive shit..


Btw this was Fez909 's experiment.  I just joined in for the lolz


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol...
> I said already they're shit and I still think his are shit too only a lot more expensive shit..
> 
> 
> Btw this was Fez909 's experiment.  I just joined in for the lolz



OOh, no way!!! how dissappointing... Fez909 I'm going to come over there and kick your ass!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> OOh, no way!!! how dissappointing... Fez909 I'm going to come over there and kick your ass!



Still waiting for Fez's...


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 27, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> OOh, no way!!! how dissappointing... Fez909 I'm going to come over there and kick your ass!


Well hold your foot for the time being. I'm still planning to do mine. Have been out and bought some brushes this afternoon and some white spirit. I've researched Rothko's methods and I'm going to try to paint in the same way (though I doubt I'll have time to do it properly - due to the drying time between layers). So yeah, I am taking this seriously and giving it a semi-proper shot.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Well hold your foot for the time being. I'm still planning to do mine. Have been out and bought some brushes this afternoon and some white spirit. I've researched Rothko's methods and I'm going to try to paint in the same way (though I doubt I'll have time to do it properly - due to the drying time between layers). So yeah, I am taking this seriously and giving it a semi-proper shot.





It'd be great if a few more took on the challenge


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 27, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Well hold your foot for the time being. I'm still planning to do mine. Have been out and bought some brushes this afternoon and some white spirit. I've researched Rothko's methods and I'm going to try to paint in the same way (though I doubt I'll have time to do it properly - due to the drying time between layers). So yeah, I am taking this seriously and giving it a semi-proper shot.



whoa, hardcore! 

you know, you could always try painting something original too (or instead)


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 27, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> whoa, hardcore!
> 
> you know, you could always try painting something original too (or instead)


It is going to be original. I'm not copying one of his pieces...just his methods/style.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 27, 2014)

actually, this is a great exercise, I think. If I find myself teaching again at some point, I may do this as one of the first lessons (i.e. try to replicate a piece of modern art that "looks like a 5 yr old could do it/ I could have done it myself/ etc")


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> It is going to be original. I'm not copying one of his pieces...just his methods/style.



Yup.... my thoughts too.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> actually, this is a great exercise, I think. If I find myself teaching again at some point, I may do this as one of the first lessons (i.e. try to replicate a piece of modern art that "looks like a 5 yr old could do it/ I could have done it myself/ etc")



Go on..give it a go yourself 
I enjoyed it once I changed to a brighter colour palate


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Go on..give it a go yourself
> I enjoyed it once I changed to a brighter colour palate



I have no desire whatsoever! 
I do, however, know that many things that look really simple are much harder than they look. I've been trying to come up with a series of easy-to-do abstract paintings for an alternative to those "paint and sip night" things where they do those god-awful tropical beach scenes etc, and even as an experienced painter it's been very difficult and I've had to abandon a lot of ideas because I know it would be too complicated for me to explain the technique, that is, if I can even figure out how to do it myself first.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I have no desire whatsoever!
> I do, however, know that many things that look really simple are much harder than they look. I've been trying to come up with a series of easy-to-do abstract paintings for an alternative to those "paint and sip night" things where they do those god-awful tropical beach scenes etc, and even as an experienced painter it's been very difficult and I've had to abandon a lot of ideas because I know it would be too complicated for me to explain the technique, that is, if I can even figure out how to do it myself first.



Sure 
I know what you mean... those three paintings are the first abstract expressionist paintings I've ever tried and I'm painting a long time. I learned a lot whilst painting them believe it or not.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 27, 2014)

to all the people who hammered on about the astronomical prices of art in the beginning of the thread, think of it this way: things like autographs, scraps of paper the Beatles left on the floor, ancient broken pottery, highly compressed carbon and all kind of things sell for millions of dollars. 
It's often more about the idea of something and what it represents rather than its practical value as an object. These pieces by Rothko, etc, represent cultural and artistic breakthroughs, changes in our way of seeing and thinking about the world, and for those reasons and others they have great historical value and much more on top of just being things to look at. 
Maybe you don't "get it" but if you can't see that we're a society that lives to infuse objects with a whole lot of subjective worth, value, and meaning you must not be paying attention.


----------



## chilango (Sep 27, 2014)

Hints of Marx's "use value" and "exchange value"?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 27, 2014)

chilango said:


> Hints of Marx's "use value" and "exchange value"?



I don't know what that means  

but in any case, the sad thing is that there are people with enough extra money lying around to buy these things (unless they're an educational organization such as a museum) and not that they've been valued as being worth that much money.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Well hold your foot for the time being. I'm still planning to do mine. Have been out and bought some brushes this afternoon and some white spirit. I've researched Rothko's methods and I'm going to try to paint in the same way (though I doubt I'll have time to do it properly - due to the drying time between layers). So yeah, I am taking this seriously and giving it a semi-proper shot.



Are ypu going to use oils then?
I might try that too. The acrylic dries a bit too fast ...


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 27, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Are ypu going to use oils then?
> I might try that too. The acrylic dries a bit too fast ...


That's the plan. I don't think acrylic can be thinned with white spirit can it?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 27, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> to all the people who hammered on about the astronomical prices of art in the beginning of the thread, think of it this way: things like autographs, scraps of paper the Beatles left on the floor, ancient broken pottery, highly compressed carbon and all kind of things sell for millions of dollars.
> It's often more about the idea of something and what it represents rather than its practical value as an object. These pieces by Rothko, etc, represent cultural and artistic breakthroughs, changes in our way of seeing and thinking about the world, and for those reasons and others they have great historical value and much more on top of just being things to look at.
> Maybe you don't "get it" but if you can't see that we're a society that lives to infuse objects with a whole lot of subjective worth, value, and meaning you must not be paying attention.



I get it...I just think the money "value"  is obscene.



Fez909 said:


> That's the plan. I don't think acrylic can be thinned with white spirit can it?



No but I wondered if you were using oils or alkyds...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I don't particularly like it. It looks like some sort of Mondrian knock-off. As to what it's worth - whatever someone is prepared to pay for it.



This is the whole problem that I have with the buying of art.
Someone like Emin pours their inner life out and produces art that is entirely personal and it is elevated to the status of great art by particular galleries.
Of course the stories behind her art are moving....but without the story her bed is a messy bed. You spoke earlier about the nature of consumerism and art ...


fishfinger said:


> Maybe that was a bad term for me to use. What I meant, is that they are not a throw-away mass produced items.



I agree with this ^^
For me a great artwork should stand the test of time. In a number of ways. It should continue to be relevant and communicate intimately with the onlooker.It also should in so far as possible be long lived. A Caravaggio for example will still resonate with the modern person. I cant help but doubt that Emin will stand the test of time in the same way. Hirst will, in my view, be a footnote. A representative of the egoist movement. An example of the move from great art to consumer art.

Rothko is different imo. His art is extremely honest and very far removed from egoism. Saying that, the sheer scale of his paintings is really significant in appreciating his work. The idea that you stand 18 inches away and become immersed in his fields of colour is brilliant. Your peripheral vision soaks up colour. So a small 60 x 50 cm version wont have the same effect. And that is what his art is about. It's the effect of the colours he chooses to combine, on the viewer. The colour speaks for itself and to me his art is one of the most honest forms because he doesnt involve his ego and it's all about the observers experience. Yeah...I have to say I like them....despite my disgust at the obscene monetary value placed on them. I think at some stage I'd like to paint an entire wall of a room in the style of Rothko...and bask in the colours.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> When I painted "what the fuck are you looking at?" on a canvas they took it off the wall and threw it in the skip.  When tracy emin wrote the above on a bit of paper it's in the tate.
> 
> That's art.



And this is what is wrong with the world of 21st century and late 20th century art. There you are pouring your feelings out on canvas and your feelings are less valued than a named artist's? The inequality is ridiculous. Revolution please?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> This one's actually sort of nice. But IMO you can fuck off with your attitude about art.
> 
> You just kind of proved the point that best retort to everyone who says (while looking at a famous piece)
> 
> ...



I never actually said what you seem to think I said....and I understand perfectly what Rothko did .. how he did it and the skill involved. Anyone who paints regularly understands what he did. As for my homage pictures. .they are the first of many. I'll be exploring colour fields for a while. I think the first one in dark colours depressed me because of the particular colours used. So in a way I can resonate with the emotional quality of Rothkos work even more closely now because the effects of trying to paint in his style did effect me personally. It feels like you have judged me as a person and dismissed me without knowing or understanding me at all and that you can judge a piece of art without experiencing an intimate understanding of the artist..or their innermost thoughts and feelings. 

People never really fully divulge who they are. Layers and layers need to be unfurled. Maybe that thought is one to peruse whilst you make assumptions about a person based on posts on the internet


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

Cid said:


> I like the proportions on the second better too, at least in terms of the thinner borders/boundaries. Not sure about the white stripe. Wouldn't be averse to having its like on my wall though. If I had more walls.
> 
> You up for posting any of your landscapes?



One I painted a few years ago...the buyer wanted it glazed and I photographed it afterwards....hence the sun....


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I never actually said what you seem to think I said....and I understand perfectly what Rothko did .. how he did it and the skill involved. Anyone who paints regularly understands what he did. As for my homage pictures. .they are the first of many. I'll be exploring colour fields for a while. I think the first one in dark colours depressed me because of the particular colours used. So in a way I can resonate with the emotional quality of Rothkos work even more closely now because the effects of trying to paint in his style did effect me personally. It feels like you have judged me as a person and dismissed me without knowing or understanding me at all and that you can judge a piece of art without experiencing an intimate understanding of the artist..or their innermost thoughts and feelings.
> 
> People never really fully divulge who they are. Layers and layers need to be unfurled. Maybe that thought is one to peruse whilst you make assumptions about a person based on posts on the internet



It's just that I've heard much of what you said, almost verbatim, by plenty of others in the past. sometimes people are more transparent than they imagine themselves to be.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 28, 2014)

complaining about the state of the "art world" and how unfair it is is not a revolutionary act, imo. 
celebrating art and making it and encouraging it _is_. we have too much of the former and not enough of the latter. 
the "art world" doesn't need more people to hate it or ignore it or think it's inaccessible. 

it's not. art is all kinds of things. some of it needs a prior understanding of context to be appreciated, some can be appreciated for what it is at face value, some is participatory and meant to be enjoyed as such. 
there's no need to discount one form over another. if you think there's a lack of balance irt visual art and how people are taught to enjoy it, then go out there and try to encourage people to get involved more with the type of art you do enjoy. 
that's how I see it anyway. no need to tear anybody else down, really.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> complaining about the state of the "art world" and how unfair it is is not a revolutionary act, imo.
> celebrating art and making it and encouraging it _is_. we have too much of the former and not enough of the latter.
> the "art world" doesn't need more people to hate it or ignore it or think it's inaccessible.
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to be revolutionary 
Who's "tearing anyone down"?
The majority of art bought by the majority of the art buying population is art they enjoy..art they can afford....art they're happy to hang on a wall and like for years of their lives.
The majestic kings and Queens of art in the Tate etc sell to a tiny percentage of the world's population. 
I'm not tearing Hirst down. His art is exclusively for the extortionately wealthy. I couldn't tear him down with a JCB... lol... 
As for discountimg forms of art...well people like what they like and I believe I'm free to be selective in my enjoyment of art just as anyone is. I can decide for myself what I like and I don't think I'd tell anyone what to like in art... I'm not anti modern art ... I'm anti con artists and there are some in the art world just like any other business.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> It's just that I've heard much of what you said, almost verbatim, by plenty of others in the past. sometimes people are more transparent than they imagine themselves to be.




I think you misheard me and heard those other voices instead. Tbh it's easy to dismiss someone by saying you've heard it all before but as I already said I believe you misinterpreted what I was saying.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I think you misheard me and heard those other voices instead. Tbh it's easy to dismiss someone by saying you've heard it all before but as I already said I believe you misinterpreted what I was saying.



I haven't read the whole thread, but it seemed like you were saying that art should be able to be appreciated at face value for it to have value, and that it shouldn't require an explanation, and so on.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm not trying to be revolutionary
> Who's "tearing anyone down"?
> The majority of art bought by the majority of the art buying population is art they enjoy..art they can afford....art they're happy to hang on a wall and like for years of their lives.
> The majestic kings and Queens of art in the Tate etc sell to a tiny percentage of the world's population.
> ...



yes, you're free to be selective, certainly. I just get annoyed with sentiments that focus more on the negative rather than the positive about art and artists. Because I think it's too easy to criticize and be negative, and that there's really more of a problem with lack of appreciation on the whole than too much appreciation for certain types of art. this is what I am taking issue with.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> yes, you're free to be selective, certainly. I just get annoyed with sentiments that focus more on the negative rather than the positive about art and artists. Because I think it's too easy to criticize and be negative, and that there's really more of a problem with lack of appreciation on the whole than too much appreciation for certain types of art. this is what I am taking issue with.



I think overall you'll find that this thread was representative of many views on the enjoyment of art, its appreciation,  and a robust critique of the higher eschelons of certain types of modern art. The art world will survive and threads like these start debate and lead to discussion which can only be a good thing


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but it seemed like you were saying that art should be able to be appreciated at face value for it to have value, and that it shouldn't require an explanation, and so on.



Not really... you see that's making an objective of art appreciation.  I was more inclned to mean the subjective emotional response of an art experience...from the personal viewpoint. And that the personal response is as valid a response as the objective "appreciation" of a piece.
To explain...I've an MA in music. Before I learned how to compose I could listen to music and enjoy it for its musical quality and how it made me feel. After I learned how to write music and studied music theory my brain was more inclined to analyse the music. .chordal progressions..transpositions etc.
I have to stop myself doing it and there are times when I just want to enjoy again. It's a right brain left brain thing


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I think overall you'll find that this thread was representative of many views on the enjoyment of art, its appreciation,  and a robust critique of the higher eschelons of certain types of modern art. The art world will survive and threads like these start debate and lead to discussion which can only be a good thing



the problem, as I see it, is balance, though. I appreciated many of the comments on the thread, it's just a shame that it was started with such a negative premise.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Not really... you see that's making an objective of art appreciation.  I was more inclned to mean the subjective emotional response of an art experience...from the personal viewpoint. And that the personal response is as valid a response as the objective "appreciation" of a piece.
> To explain...I've an MA in music. Before I learned how to compose I could listen to music and enjoy it for its musical quality and how it made me feel. After I learned how to write music and studied music theory my brain was more inclined to analyse the music. .chordal progressions..transpositions etc.
> I have to stop myself doing it and there are times when I just want to enjoy again. It's a right brain left brain thing



so, what you're saying is, there are different ways of appreciating the arts, and that they vary according to one's experience and understanding of a particular medium, and that the various ways are not mutually exclusive? 

yeah, I'm glad you realized that! 

I have to go now, but good for you


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> the problem, as I see it, is balance, though. I appreciated many of the comments on the thread, it's just a shame that it was started with such a negative premise.



The title?
It was a  similar thread title to a number of threads along the same lines on music, literature etc.
That's all really


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> so, what you're saying is, there are different ways of appreciating the arts, and that they vary according to one's experience and understanding of a particular medium, and that the various ways are not mutually exclusive?
> 
> yeah, I'm glad you realized that!
> 
> I have to go now, but good for you



I realised it a very long time ago 
See you .. and enjoy your evening


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The title?
> It was a  similar thread title to a number of threads along the same lines on music, literature etc.
> That's all really



unfortunately, art is a different thing. far more people read and listen to music regularly than seek out visual art experiences.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I realised it a very long time ago
> See you .. and enjoy your evening



you too


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> unfortunately, art is a different thing. far more people read and listen to music regularly than seek out visual art experiences.



Not sure I'd isolate visual art from other arts. .. 
Visual art is everywhere..from the graphic art on a tin of soup to the design of a patterned rug etc. ....but then again maybe I'm looking for it.


----------



## coley (Sep 28, 2014)

Thon Rothko, helluva an artist




Con artist that is


----------



## moon (Sep 28, 2014)

I went to Deptford X and the Creekside open studios today and was seriously underwhelmed, I think consuming art online is much better, even though you only really experience a minute amount of what the art actually offers in terms of pigments and light etc etc.
Plus it's so much more inclusive...


----------



## moon (Sep 28, 2014)

Nothing..


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

moon said:


> I think consuming art online is much better, even though you only really experience a minute amount of what the art actually offers in terms of pigments and light etc etc.
> Plus it's so much more inclusive...



Yup..
I love the way the internet has allowed access famous paintings in galleries all over the world. It's great that art is more accessible now than it has ever been. 

I also really like that anyone can show their art online


----------



## coley (Sep 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yup..
> I love the way the internet has allowed access famous paintings in galleries all over the world. It's great that art is more accessible now than it has ever been.
> 
> I also really like that anyone can show their art online



What's your favourite painting?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 28, 2014)

coley said:


> What's your favourite painting?



Not an easy choice....I have some personal paintings that have huge sentimental value to me. Painted by a member of my family... I would put them top on my list of favourites. 
But if you mean art painted by well know artists my two absolute favourite artists (can't choose only one)are...Monet and Van Gogh. And I would find it difficult to choose only one painting  
I love Van Gogh's Bedroom at Arles paintings and also Monet's  Water Lillies paintings. I know they're classics and known worldwide and are printed on everuthing from lamp shades to mugs ... but....... 


What's yours ?


----------



## coley (Sep 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Not an easy choice....I have some personal paintings that have huge sentimental value to me. Painted by a member of my family... I would put them top on my list of favourites.
> But if you mean art painted by well know artists my two absolute favourite artists (can't choose only one)are...Monet and Van Gogh. And I would find it difficult to choose only one painting
> I love Van Gogh's Bedroom at Arles paintings and also Monet's  Water Lillies paintings. I know they're classics and known worldwide and are printed on everuthing from lamp shades to mugs ... but.......
> 
> ...



Aye VGs bedroom trumps Emins, (in my philistine view) my favourite has got to be the fighting temaraire by Turner, the light, brushwork, and general ambience speaks to me on a number of levels, I know this sounds bliddy pretentious from some bugger that knows nowt about art, but, as somebody earlier said, its about feelings _and_ communication and turner usually hits the spot


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 28, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Not sure I'd isolate visual art from other arts. ..
> Visual art is everywhere..from the graphic art on a tin of soup to the design of a patterned rug etc. ....but then again maybe I'm looking for it.



It's just that one the whole it's not appreciated/ consumed anywhere near as much as modern music or film or writing. This is a pretty well-documented fact, although all of the arts disciplines have suffered in terms of not being taught as much in schools and therefore not respected/ understood/ appreciated. I feel like art is very tricky because although people like it, we aren't really given a lot of opportunities to understand it and think about it.

A friend of mine (she's an artist & so am I) were talking about two recent shows we put on...hers was of her own work and mine was of other people's and she went under cover to see what people said and mostly it was "I don't get it" and my experience of putting on lots of shows for the general public is that most people, for the most part don't have a sense of how to look at art really, or know how to talk about it and discern different features.

They know when they _do_ like something, but often not _why_. I feel like with music, film, and literature, we're much more trained to analyze it and look at it critically and understand why it's good/ why we like it, etc, and much more comfortable doing so. 

I am aware that things I say on this topic can come across as elitist/ whatever but I assure you, I don't mean it that way. Just that we need more appreciation, and less griping.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Sep 29, 2014)

Schrodinger's Giraffe


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 29, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Schrodinger's Giraffe



Like that a lot


----------



## moon (Sep 29, 2014)

This thread has made me look at Rothko again... 
I can see now how complex his paintings are, the layers upon layers of paint applied and knocked back or removed. They must have taken ages to make.
His edges are really interesting too as they barely exist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 29, 2014)

Two of my favourite paintings, both by the same artist - Paul Nash





"We are Building a New World"






"Totes Meer" (Dead Sea)

They're my favourite paintings because in my opinion they say more about the futility of war than ten thousand words can.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Sep 29, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> back in the 1980s i was told a story about an artist from the 1970s, whose name i forget. this man had started to make a name for himself and some big gallery had given him a load of money to do a piece for them. anyway, he blew the lot on wine and women or somesuch until he was down to the last £10 and a week to go. he was wandering round somewhere - let's assume it was newcastle - and saw in a junkshop window a big coil of rope. a 'bingo!' went off in his head and he bought it. it was tarry auld ship's rope and he cut it in half and laid out the pieces at the gallery and everyone was well impressed.



I saw an exhibit of paintings by an Australian artist.  It consisted entirely of slides of the paintings, placed in plastic holders, and affixed to the wall with tacks.  The artist admitted that he'd done that because the shipping costs of the real paintings were excessive.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're my favourite paintings because in my opinion they say more about the futility of war than ten thousand words can.


 






Another view of war...and genocide. 
I really like this .... 
Tracking Down Guiltless Doves...
Arshile Gorky.

 ...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 29, 2014)

Stanton Macdonald-Wright. ..Conception Synchromy 1914..

Like this a lot too.....


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Two of my favourite paintings, both by the same artist - Paul Nash
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is a display that shows a Paul Nash painting outside the staffroom at the school I work at. It's one of the reasons I chuck any communiqués from the armed forces about recruitment from schools straight in the bin.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 29, 2014)

Cheeseburger in Paradise...Jim Warren..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> There is a display that shows a Paul Nash painting outside the staffroom at the school I work at. It's one of the reasons I chuck any communiqués from the armed forces about recruitment from schools straight in the bin.



Good for you!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 30, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I saw an exhibit of paintings by an Australian artist.  It consisted entirely of slides of the paintings, placed in plastic holders, and affixed to the wall with tacks.  The artist admitted that he'd done that because the shipping costs of the real paintings were excessive.



I remember seeing a painting by a friend of mine who happens to be an honorary RHA member now. At the time he was painting abstract work. I went to view an exhibition of his and noticed that one of the paintings was hung upside down.  The painting was completely abstract and showed a large dark mass in the middle of colour
 I said it to the gallery representative / manager who looked aghast snd declared "no..I'm sure it's hung properly". I restated that it was definitely hung upside down. A few days later the artist phoned me to thank me for spotting the mistake. After a few moments he said "how did you know? I didn't show it to anyone before the exhibition".
To which I replied "the drips were going up the canvas"

True story


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 30, 2014)

Hollywood Hitman...
By Rasher.






Lonesome Boatman
Genius painter imo...


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Hollywood Hitman...
> By Rasher.
> 
> 
> ...



Does absolutely nothing for me.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

You'd need to see them in reality...and appreciate the context of each one..... 
They're excellent paintings by a guy who is self taught.


----------



## Epona (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


>



See I would quite like that, were it not for the chair that is covering most of the woman's lower half.  To me, it pulls attention in the picture in an undesirable way, away from the subjects.  Because of that, it does not strike me as being great composition.  I actually wonder if it's there as a cover up to something that went wrong, because it seems out of place and too prominent.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Epona said:


> See I would quite like that, were it not for the chair that is covering most of the woman's lower half.  To me, it pulls attention in the picture in an undesirable way, away from the subjects.  Because of that, it does not strike me as being great composition.  I actually wonder if it's there as a cover up to something that went wrong, because it seems out of place and too prominent.




It might be there because it was there...


Here's another....it's called Reflections..


----------



## Epona (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It might be there because it was there...



We now have cameras for that, and if I saw a photo taken from that angle with a chair obscuring half of the subject, I would still call it bad composition.  (Unless the entire point of the photo or painting was a comment about chair uniformity and placement in airport food courts).


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Epona said:


> We now have cameras for that, and if I saw a photo taken from that angle with a chair obscuring half of the subject, I would still call it bad composition.



See
..I kind of dont agree with over composing either photos or paintings. 
But I respect ypur opinion 
Thanks...


----------



## Epona (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> See
> ..I kind of dont agree with over composing either photos or paintings.
> But I respect ypur opinion
> Thanks...



Sorry, I did edit that last sentence onto my post as you were replying.  It's just not to my taste, I do quite like some of the other stuff you posted though


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Epona said:


> Sorry, I did edit that last sentence onto my post as you were replying.  It's just not to my taste, I do quite like some of the other stuff you posted though



I like the fact a guy who was turned down by art colleges in Dublin, got to where he is now. He persisted in painting what he wanted to paint and his style is evolving rapidly.





I Need A Drink.


----------



## moon (Oct 1, 2014)

Epona said:


> We now have cameras for that, and if I saw a photo taken from that angle with a chair obscuring half of the subject, I would still call it bad composition.  (Unless the entire point of the photo or painting was a comment about chair uniformity and placement in airport food courts).


'Wrongness' can be interesting though.. Vermeer's girl with pearl earing and girl with red hat paintings do not have eyebrows, neither does the Mona Lisa..


----------



## Epona (Oct 1, 2014)

moon said:


> 'Wrongness' can be interesting though.. Vermeer's girl with pearl earing and girl with red hat paintings do not have eyebrows, neither does the Mona Lisa..



They were removed by over-enthusiastic conservation efforts.


----------



## moon (Oct 1, 2014)

Didn't seem to harm the popularity though


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You'd need to see them in reality...and appreciate the context of each one.....


O RLY? Contradicting yourself again. 


BTW those paintings are dreadful. Candidates for the Bad Art Museum.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> O RLY? Contradicting yourself again.
> 
> 
> BTW those paintings are dreadful. Candidates for the Bad Art Museum.




Lol...
No. 
I was echoing the views given earlier in the thread...in a tongue in cheek fashion..

And you are of course entitled to your opinion on art.  but Mark Kavanagh aka Rashers has made his mark on the art world and is highly respected..despite your low opinion of the paintings displayed here


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Epona said:


> They were removed by over-enthusiastic conservation efforts.



I thought the style of the time was to pluck off eyebrows ?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> O RLY? Contradicting yourself again.
> 
> 
> BTW those paintings are dreadful. Candidates for the Bad Art Museum.




Go on.
Paint something


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Go on.
> Paint something


I can't paint to save me life.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I can't paint to save me life.



You'll go far then...


----------



## Epona (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I thought the style of the time was to pluck off eyebrows ?



Good grief - no, Mona Lisa's eyebrows were cleaned off as part of an "oh shit, it's gone a bit tits up" conservation/cleaning attempt.  The original painting had eyebrows.  I thought everyone knew this?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You'll go far then...


I don't ever intend to paint or create visual art. I just like looking at it sometimes


----------



## chilango (Oct 1, 2014)

I don't like them either. (The paintings bubbles posted).


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 1, 2014)

Epona said:


> Good grief - no, Mona Lisa's eyebrows were cleaned off as part of an "oh shit, it's gone a bit tits up" conservation/cleaning attempt.  The original painting had eyebrows.  I thought everyone knew this?



I didn't know that....it seems like light eyebrows really were in fashion for a long time, as well as high foreheads and sort of bulgy eyes


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> I don't like them either. (The paintings bubbles posted).



What .....?.....all of them?


----------



## Epona (Oct 1, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I didn't know that....it seems like light eyebrows really were in fashion for a long time, as well as high foreheads and sort of bulgy eyes



French collectors in the Napoleonic era and Victorian Brits were also a bit nuts about hacking willies off classical statues, that doesn't mean that ancient Greeks and Romans didn't have willies.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I didn't know that....it seems like light eyebrows really were in fashion for a long time, as well as high foreheads and sort of bulgy eyes




Kind of thought the same. So many portraits show women of that time with very light or no eyebrows, and plucked hairlines to emphasise a high forehead ...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't ever intend to paint or create visual art. I just like looking at it sometimes



You're missing out on an experience


----------



## Buckaroo (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lonesome Boatman
> Genius painter imo...



Nice, the boat is like a fish!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Nice, the boat is like a fish!




Absolutely one of my favourite pieces of music 
Thanks for that


----------



## chilango (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What .....?.....all of them?



Yeah.

They all leave me utterly cold.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

http://www.beautyblitz.com/history-eyebrows#slide-6


*"Ye Olde EyebrowesWENDY RODEWALD-SULZ*
Skinny brows were all the rage during medieval times in Europe, when women favored a pale, eggheaded look and plucked their hairlines to achieve it. The fashion continued through the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, whose bare brow and tweezed hairline enhanced the domed forehead and pallid complexion she painted with toxic white lead-based ceruse. During the 1600s, people rubbed walnut oil onto their children's eyebrows to inhibit hair growth."


Ne'er a fringe nor a raised eyebrow...
Thankfully the style didn't make a return lol


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> Yeah.
> 
> They all leave me utterly cold.



Gorky, MacDonald Wright and Warren?
Or just Kavanagh?


----------



## chilango (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Gorky, MacDonald Wright and Warren?
> Or just Kavanagh?



I was specifically thinking of the Kavanaghs. But as you've asked, I don't much like the others either.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> I was specifically thinking of the Kavanaghs. But as you've asked, I don't much like the others either.



We can't all like the same art 
Here's a Picasso to cheer you up..


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 1, 2014)

I can't say I really like anything you've posted either. It's not that I don't like it, they just seem more like illustrations and not artwork I would typically look at and go "wow!"


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I can't say I really like anything you've posted either. It's not that I don't like it, they just seem more like illustrations and not artwork I would typically look at and go "wow!"



Well he's a figurative artist...
Not an abstract artist.
Different styles ..
Different tastes


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well he's a figurative artist...
> Not an abstract artist.
> Different styles ..
> Different tastes



I like plenty of figurative artists, very much so. 

but yeah, I agree, which is why it's kind of ridiculous to start threads like this?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I like plenty of figurative artists, very much so.
> 
> but yeah, I agree, which is why it's kind of ridiculous to start threads like this?



Not really though.. 
By your own admission you effectively think Kavanagh, Gorky, Warren are not worth a "wow" (roughly translated as 'shit')
Yet they're raved about  
So I'd say the thread is fine..


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2014)

There's something empty about the Kavangh paintings. Glossy 90s brochure pictures. People with no character.

I also don't like the style or composition.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Cid said:


> There's something empty about the Kavangh paintings. Glossy 90s brochure pictures. People with no character.
> 
> I also don't like the style or composition.



Yes ..... one of his recurring themes is the cold hardness of consumerism and the bleakness of modern society.
He has other art that is quite warm and soft...


----------



## chilango (Oct 1, 2014)

Cid said:


> There's something empty about the Kavangh paintings. Glossy 90s brochure pictures. People with no character.



Yet that is the most interesting thing about those paintings IMO.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Not really though..
> By your own admission you effectively think Kavanagh, Gorky, Warren are not worth a "wow" (roughly translated as 'shit')
> Yet they're raved about
> So I'd say the thread is fine..



except that I would never say that (something was shit). I find the whole idea of doing so really very pretentious.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> except that I would never say that (something was shit). I find the whole idea of doing so really very pretentious.



Oh well...
I don't think it's pretentious at all.
We'll agree to differ..


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Oh well...
> I don't think it's pretentious at all.
> We'll agree to differ..



well, why "it's shit" rather than "I don't like it"? there's a big difference


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes ..... one of his recurring themes is the cold hardness of consumerism and the bleakness of modern society.
> He has other art that is quite warm and soft...





chilango said:


> Yet that is the most interesting thing about those paintings IMO.



True I suppose... I did have a look at his website btw bubbles, I don't think any of them felt particularly warm.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> well, why "it's shit" rather than "I don't like it"? there's a big difference



Because sometimes a piece of art really is shit...whether I like it or not is irrelevant. 
I like my homage to Rothko but I know it's shit...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Cid said:


> True I suppose... I did have a look at his website btw bubbles, I don't think any of them felt particularly warm.



He's not got all his work on his website. Only one exhibition is on his site...I think it's called "from womb to the grave?"
Plenty other paintings of his are in other galleries....


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Because sometimes a piece of art really is shit...whether I like it or not is irrelevant.
> I like my homage to Rothko but I know it's shit...



well, that may be true (that your painting is shit), mostly because you copied someone else's work (or tried to copy it)


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Because sometimes a piece of art really is shit...whether I like it or not is irrelevant.
> I like my homage to Rothko but I know it's shit...



Yes, but most of the artists on this thread aren't shit.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> well, that may be true, mostly because you copied someone else's work (or tried to copy it)



Actually I didn't copy any of his work. You won't find any one of his the same as it. I deliberately used an extra band of colour.  
I painted a field painting in the style of Rothko.
Big difference ...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Cid said:


> Yes, but most of the artists on this thread aren't shit.



I'm debating the point made re the thread title.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Cid said:


> Yes, but most of the artists on this thread aren't shit.



So saying "I like x" is enough? 
Because saying "I don't like Y" seems to mean more than "it's shit".

I'm off for a walk. ..


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2014)

Since you started the thread perhaps you'd like to explain what you meant by 'actually shit'?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Cid said:


> Since you started the thread perhaps you'd like to explain what you meant by 'actually shit'?



What?
The title as already said is one of a series of titles of similar names....there are similar threads on..
Music
Records
Film


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Shit means shit


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What?
> The title as already said is one of a series of titles of similar names....there are similar threads on..
> Music
> Records
> Film



Ah yeah, forgot for a moment. But shit is purely subjective. Put the 'actually' before it and it adds an element of objectivity. I might think Kavangh is shit, but that's not the same as saying that his work is objectively bad, that it any liking of it is deluded. To look at it in the context of the book thread there are some authors who are clearly utterly shit but retain a following. Ayn Rand's utterly turgid writing and poorly thought-out ideas have a shitness that goes beyond mere opinion.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Because sometimes a piece of art really is shit...whether I like it or not is irrelevant.
> I like my homage to Rothko but I know it's shit...


Yet you are proud enough to put one on your profile


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Artist's Shit... by Piero Manzoni..


This is actually shit 


http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/manzoni-artists-shit-t07667


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Yet you are proud enough to put one on your profile



And you have an orangutan......oh .. you silly ape


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And you have an orangutan......oh .. you silly ape


That's the work of a friend of mine who put it on a t-shirt. I like it. I don't think it's shit either.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> That's the work of a friend of mine who put it on a t-shirt. I like it. I don't think it's shit either.




You wear it ?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You wear it ?


No. I just liked the image so put it on my profile. I would have when I was younger though.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> No. I just liked the image so put it on my profile. I would have when I was younger though.



Are you very old?

Or is there a strict dress code in you?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Are you very old?
> 
> Or is there a strict dress code in you?


I'm just over 40. What are you on about?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm just over 40. What are you on about?



Just wondered why you don't wear it ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Just wondered why you don't wear it ...


Cos it's a bit daft to wear a t-shirt that refers to your board name when most people don't have a clue what it refers to. I would have loved that ten years ago, but not now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2014)

I see we're 31 pages in. But the OP quite neatly sums up their problem here. 

The price tag. 

Forget about the price tags. Then you might get more joy from art with price tags of millions and art with no price tag at all.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I see we're 31 pages in. But the OP quite neatly sums up their problem here.
> 
> The price tag.
> 
> Forget about the price tags. Then you might get more joy from art with price tags of millions and art with no price tag at all.






bubblesmcgrath said:


> Artist's Shit... by Piero Manzoni..
> 
> 
> This is actually shit
> ...



Even if this were handed to me for nothing it would be shit and shit.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Cos it's a bit daft to wear a t-shirt that refers to your board name when most people don't have a clue what it refers to. I would have loved that ten years ago, but not now.



Oh.
I thought it was just an orangutan..
But I can see your predicament clearly now...


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

What do you mean? Joseph Beuys? He's brilliant. Seriously fuck off with your willful ignorance.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

DOUBLE PENETRATION


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Oh.
> I thought it was just an orangutan..
> But I can see your predicament clearly now...


Wtf is wrong with you? What are you even saying? You respond to sensible posts by making a trivial observation that can be deniable as just a joke or a bit of silliness. How can anyone hope to have a sensible discussion about this with you?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What do you mean? Joseph Beuys? He's brilliant. Seriously fuck off with your willful ignorance.





Orang Utan said:


> Cos it's a bit daft to wear a t-shirt that refers to your board name when most people don't have a clue what it refers to. I would have loved that ten years ago, but not now.



You're the one saying this ^^^.
You associated it with your board name.  Nobody outside the board would associate it with your avatar or board name. ..so why not wear it?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Wtf is wrong with you? What are you even saying? You respond to sensible posts by making a trivial observation that can be deniable as just a joke or a bit of silliness. How can anyone hope to have a sensible discussion about this with you?



Ffs...you'd argue with your own head in a paper bag


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You're the one saying this ^^^.
> You associated it with your board name.  Nobody outside the board would associate it with your avatar or board name. ..so why not wear it?


Cos some people would know and cos I no longer enjoj (so much) clothes with much in the way of pictures or writing on them anymore. That is a young man's game.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Ffs...you'd argue with your own head in a paper bag


QED.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> QED.


See, even your liking of this post proves the high artistry of your abject bellendry on this thread.


----------



## chilango (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What do you mean? Joseph Beuys? He's brilliant. Seriously fuck off with your willful ignorance.



I like Joseph Beuys unsurprisingly enough.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> See, even your liking of this post proves the high artistry of your abject bellendry on this thread.



I've " liked " posts because I appreciated the fact that people got involved in the thread.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've " liked " posts because I appreciated the fact that people got involved in the thread.


 you're doing it wrong.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 1, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> you're doing it wrong.



Well I felt it was a polite way to appreciate the many contributions to the thread ... if I agreed or disagreed with a post I quoted and / or replied. 
I'm happy enough with my liking contributions


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Wtf is wrong with you? What are you even saying? You respond to sensible posts by making a trivial observation that can be deniable as just a joke or a bit of silliness. How can anyone hope to have a sensible discussion about this with you?



You're the one poking fun at avatars. 
And going on about your fucking arty t shirt designed by someone famous that you don't wear anymore....because someone might recognise your fucking avatar.....what pathetic shite....
And..
Fuck off with your "DOUBLE PENETRATION" ..You're a rude nasty  argumentative old fart! 
You dont like the way I "like" contributions from posters to my thread? Stick your t shirt up your fat old arse!


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

Someone got out the wrong side of the bed this morning! And you misread/misunderstood what i said again. Wasn't poking fun, just pointing out hypocrisy. I never claimed the t-shirt was arty or that the friend who designed it in Photoshop was famous. And I never even had the t-shirt. Stop making stuff up.
BTW 'double penetration' refers to an accidental double post.


----------



## Voley (Oct 2, 2014)

I hope neither of you are genuinely angry and are enjoying verbally kicking the shit out of each other. I've just been hooting with laughter over the last few pages and I'll feel a bit guilty if either of you are truly fucked off.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

Not I!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Voley said:


> I hope neither of you are genuinely angry and are enjoying verbally kicking the shit out of each other. I've just been hooting with laughter over the last few pages and I'll feel a bit guilty if either of you are truly fucked off.



Of course I enjoy verbally kicking the shit out of him.....he wears stripey socks and has an allergy to giving sweets to children who are related to him.... 
Now it appears the boring old fart doesn't even own the orangutan t -shirt....

Anyway. ..here's more shit art that's actually shit 





Venus De Milo ...Zhu Cheng


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Grethell Rassis uses the excrements of the people who commission her works of art -not her own ...


----------



## weltweit (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It might be there because it was there...
> 
> 
> Here's another....it's called Reflections..



I really like that one!


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

just FUCK OFF bubblesmcgrath ! seriously! nobody cares!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 2, 2014)

People who moan about modern art being shit invariably have really shit taste in art.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> just FUCK OFF bubblesmcgrath ! seriously! nobody cares!


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


>



do you honestly think people are enjoying your posts on this thread?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> People who moan about modern art being shit invariably have really shit taste in art.



Generalising there. And making assumptions.



littlebabyjesus said:


> People who moan about modern art being shit invariably have really shit taste in art.



I take it you're not a fan ofMartin von Ostrowski's then?



Miss Caphat said:


> do you honestly think people are enjoying your posts on this thread?



No idea...but yours of late are rather aggressive and snide...and I have to say from my perspective they're rather unenjoyably anal.
I don't hold it against you though..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 2, 2014)

I could have predicted the kind of shit you would post as stuff you like.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I really like that one!


 Yeah...he spent the best part of a year paintimg up to 13 hours a day...it's really brilliant irl. 8ft tall and the colours are spectacular


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I could have predicted the kind of shit you would post as stuff you like.




Mystic Meg speaks


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> do you honestly think people are enjoying your posts on this thread?


or indeed any thread.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Generalising there. And making assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



they're "aggressive and snide" because you don't seem to be learning anything from the discussion, you just keep trying to hide the fact that you feel exactly the same as you did when you started the thread.

as an artist and proponent of the arts your attitude really irks me because it's very juvenile, ignorant, and like you're tearing down other artists...which as you claim to be an artist yourself I find really disgusting and unfortunate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> People who moan about modern art being shit invariably have really shit taste in art.


much modern art of course IS shit. just as much art of any period is shit.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> or indeed any thread.



Jumping right in there eh?
Always at the ready with a snide remark.
But I'll give you cudos for your painting


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> much modern art of course IS shit. just as much art of any period is shit.


Sure. But this particular kind of moaning invariably come from people who like art that has pretty much zero emotional content. People who see art as decoration.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Jumping right in there eh?
> Always at the ready with a snide remark.
> But I'll give you cudos for your painting


i'd prefer it if you gave me kudos, and i'm not "jumping in there" as i've posted considerably already on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure. But this particular kind of moaning invariably come from people who like art that has pretty much zero emotional content. People who see art as decoration.


"all art is utterly useless" - oscar wilde


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> they're "aggressive and snide" because you don't seem to be learning anything from the discussion, you just keep trying to hide the fact that you feel exactly the same as you did when you started the thread.
> 
> as an artist and proponent of the arts your attitude really irks me because it's very juvenile, ignorant, and like you're tearing down other artists...which as you claim to be an artist yourself I find really disgusting and unfortunate.




Who did I tear down? 
And with what?
You're seriously telling me a can of shit at the Tate is worthy of the title art.
I think it's shit in a tin.
Get over yourself


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd prefer it if you gave me kudos, and i'm not "jumping in there" as i've posted considerably already on this thread.



Fair enough ...


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Who did I tear down?
> And with what?
> You're seriously telling me a can of shit at the Tate is worthy of the title art.
> I think it's shit in a tin.
> Get over yourself



I've already explained exactly what I mean in detail, and why this is important. I'm sorry you're too dense to understand.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure. But this particular kind of moaning invariably come from people who like art that has pretty much zero emotional content. People who see art as decoration.




you've obviously consulted with the world.....fair play


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure. But this particular kind of moaning invariably come from people who like art that has pretty much zero emotional content. People who see art as decoration.



I stopped posting on Art forums a few years back as they were dominated by people denouncing conceptual art (usually lumping Abstract art in with it) bemoaning the "low status" of representational art in the art world and endlessly championing fine motor skills as the sole denominator of "good art". 

This thread has reminded far too much of that.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I've already explained exactly what I mean in detail, and why this is important. I'm sorry you're too dense to understand.



Lol
I know exactly what you mean.
I just don't happen to agree with you.
For the very reason that the art world exalts a tin of shit.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> much modern art of course IS shit. just as much art of any period is shit.


At least 99% of it... IMHO

But you don't have to be a great artist to be considered great. You just have to be a great bullshitter or have a story that art bullshitters think they can sell.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

chilango said:


> I stopped posting on Art forums a few years back as they were dominated by people denouncing conceptual art (usually lumping Abstract art in with it) bemoaning the "low status" of representational art in the art world and endlessly championing fine motor skills as the sole denominator of "good art".
> 
> This thread has reminded far too much of that.



Should I ecpect to hear a swish as you leave the thread with your hand dramatically touching your brow?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol
> I know exactly what you mean.
> I just don't happen to agree with you.
> For the very reason that the art world exalts a tin of shit.



"Grumble, grumble...kids these days with their long hair and their tins of shit" "I thought I told you to get offa my lawn!"


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Should I ecpect to hear a swish as you leave the thread with your hand dramatically touching your brow?


the swish you'll hear is his nagaika


----------



## Gromit (Oct 2, 2014)

chilango said:


> I stopped posting on Art forums a few years back as they were dominated by people denouncing conceptual art (usually lumping Abstract art in with it) bemoaning the "low status" of representational art in the art world and endlessly championing fine motor skills as the sole denominator of "good art".
> 
> This thread has reminded far too much of that.



The Internet joys of people posting definitive opinion about subjective subject matter. 

In a nutshell your music / art / sport choices are wrong because they differ from mine.


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

Gromit said:


> The Internet joys of people posting definitive opinion about subjective subject matter.
> 
> In a nutshell your music / art / sport choices are wrong because they differ from mine.



...not really.


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Should I ecpect to hear a swish as you leave the thread with your hand dramatically touching your brow?



No.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

chilango said:


> ...not really.



I think he meant that's what is wrong with this thread and the people on your art forums declaring something to be "good art" ..took me a second too.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


>







.... looks like he'd have been more likely to invite the kids onto his lawn 



Pickman's model said:


> the swish you'll hear is his nagaika



He does seem a bit over domineering. You may have a point there Picky.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

well, bubblesmcgrath  you've done it! You've successfully made us aware that some art actually consists of shit, and that this method of creating is a thing that is done sometimes by a small number of people in order to make a statement and that you find this very silly. Congratulations!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I think he meant that's what is wrong with this thread and the people on your art forums declaring something to be "good art" ..took me a second too.



It's more likely he meant that people are entitled to their opinions without being told they're wromg to hold them.
You've persisted in telling me .. explaining to me..(in a patronising way) that art ..all art has to be respected.
I like all sorts of art but you decided I was anti modern art. Where you got that idea I do not know. I like what I like regardless of it's age, style or it's creator. But nobody will ever convince me that a tin of shit is high art. No context..no story..no bull will ever convince me that a painting using the artist's semen is fascinatingly brilliant. ..please understand this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It's more likely he meant that people are entitled to their opinions without being told they're wromg to hold them.
> You've persisted in telling me .. explaining to me..(in a patronising way) that art ..all art has to be respected.
> I like all sorts of art but you decided I was anti modern art. Where you got that idea I do not know. I like what I like regardless of it's age, style or it's creator. But nobody will ever convince me that a tin of shit is high art. No context..no story..no bull will ever convince me that a painting using the artist's semen is fascinatingly brilliant. ..please understand this?


you say you like all sorts of art. so you like shit art as well as decent art. what sorts of shit art do you like?


----------



## Gromit (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I think he meant that's what is wrong with this thread and the people on your art forums declaring something to be "good art" ..took me a second too.



Actually it was a poem about ocelots and their struggle against pornification.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you say you like all sorts of art. so you like shit art as well as decent art. what sorts of shit art do you like?



I think you'll find I "liked" yours. 
I like all sorts of styles but that doesn't mean I like everything..


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

i'm looking forward to bubblesmcgrath's next effort, shit people rave about that's actually art


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I think you'll find I "liked" yours.
> I like all sorts of styles but that doesn't mean I like everything..


you're saying my art's shit but it took at least as much skill as the pieces of yours you've put forward in this thread.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It's more likely he meant that people are entitled to their opinions without being told they're wromg to hold them.
> You've persisted in telling me .. explaining to me..(in a patronising way) that art ..all art has to be respected.
> I like all sorts of art but you decided I was anti modern art. Where you got that idea I do not know. I like what I like regardless of it's age, style or it's creator. But nobody will ever convince me that a tin of shit is high art. No context..no story..no bull will ever convince me that a painting using the artist's semen is fascinatingly brilliant. ..please understand this?



1. I never said all art needs to be respected. My main point was it hurts art and artists as a whole to perpetuate negative associations with certain forms of art, and this thread pretty much is a celebration of those negative associations and stereotypes (in the way you intended it). I said that art should be celebrated, and that we should encourage participation...not for artwork you don't like obviously, that would be odd, but for the artwork you DO like...i.e. focus on the positive rather than the negative.

2. see above post. to elaborate, you're focusing on the extreme edge of conceptual art, to prove some sort of point that's been done to death already, and which nobody cares to keep rehashing, mmkay?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you're saying my art's shit but it took at least as much skill as the pieces of yours you've put forward in this thread.



Probably ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Of course I enjoy verbally kicking the shit out of him.....he wears stripey socks and has an allergy to giving sweets to children who are related to him....
> Now it appears the boring old fart doesn't even own the orangutan t -shirt....
> 
> Anyway. ..here's more shit art that's actually shit
> ...


You don't really have any right to bring up stuff from other threads. And you certainly don't have any right to accuse other people as nasty pieces of work when you make posts like that.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> 1. I never said all art needs to be respected. My main point was it hurts art and artists as a whole to perpetuate negative associations with certain forms of art, and this thread pretty much is a celebration of those negative associations and stereotypes (in the way you intended it). I said that art should be celebrated, and that we should encourage participation...not for artwork you don't like obviously, that would be odd, but for the artwork you DO like...i.e. focus on the positive rather than the negative.
> 
> 2. see above post. to elaborate, you're focusing on the extreme edge of conceptual art, to prove some sort of point that's been done to death already, and which nobody cares to keep rehashing, mmkay?



Dear me...I think you're confusing the discussion with some point scoring nonsense.
Where have I personally hurt any artist or the "arts" ? I've posted some of the best examples of excellent art the last century offered....and a few from this century.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> You don't really have any right to bring up stuff from other threads. And you certainly don't have any right to accuse other people as nasty pieces of work when you make posts like that.



Ah now come on...ou...fair is fair..
I was being tongue in cheek.

Don't deny that a fair few of your comments to me were not said in jest. They were nasty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Ah now come on...ou...fair is fair..
> I was being tongue in cheek.
> 
> Don't deny that a fair few of your comments to me were not said in jest. They were nasty.


strange how you're always "tongue in cheek" and everyone else is always "nasty"


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Ah now come on...ou...fair is fair..
> I was being tongue in cheek.
> 
> Don't deny that a fair few of your comments to me were not said in jest. They were nasty.


I'm sorry but they were mostly earnest insults, hardly nasty. 
I just don't see what I wear has to do with anything on this thread. And you seem to have fictional ideas about me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm sorry but they were mostly earnest insults, hardly nasty.
> I just don't see what I wear has to do with anything on this thread. And you seem to have fictional ideas about me.


any relationship bubblesmcgrath has with reality is purely coincidental.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Dear me...I think you're confusing the discussion with some point scoring nonsense.
> Where have I personally hurt any artist or the "arts" ? I've posted some of the best examples of excellent art the last century offered....and a few from this century.



If you could look outside of yourself (because it's not about you) and put your need to save face aside, you would see that I'm actually being sincere, as is everyone else. 
And why do you keep asking me to explain what I've just explained. I told you precisely why this type of thing hurts art/ artists about 12 times now


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> And why do you keep asking me to explain what I've just explained. I told you precisely why this type of thing hurts art/ artists about 12 times now







"two short planks" recently


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm looking forward to bubblesmcgrath's next effort, shit people rave about that's actually art



You must have missed the tin of shit from the Tate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You must have missed the tin of shit from the Tate.


are you saying the container's the art or the contents of the container?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> If you could look outside of yourself (because it's not about you) and put your need to save face aside, you would see that I'm actually being sincere, as is everyone else.
> And why do you keep asking me to explain what I've just explained. I told you precisely why this type of thing hurts art/ artists about 12 times now



I've not asked you to explain. 
You just keep choosing to do so despite being told that it's not necessary.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> are you saying the container's the art or the contents of the container?



I'm answering your previous question. If you look back you'll see the art work I referenced.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've not asked you to explain.
> You just keep choosing to do so despite being told that it's not necessary.



You just asked me to explain! In the very post I quoted!



and I'm going to try one more time because I really don't think you get it



a) a lot of art these days is more conceptual/abstract

b) people sometimes find this a little intimidating, perpetuated by the fact that we're not really exposed to much theory & critique about art the way we are with other more popular media (music, film, etc)

c) it's very easy to write modern art off (and this includes/ included impressionism, cubism, etc) as pretentious shit, the work of con artists and hacks, etc

d) all this really accomplishes is a perpetuation of stereotypes and people deciding not to participate /engage in the world of art, it  gives a very good excuse to avoid it altogether, even if you're just saying it about a handful of artists it can very easily translate to _all_ modern / conceptual / abstract artists.
In a way, this just reinforces elitism and very small numbers of people dictating what is (good) art


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> If you could look outside of yourself (because it's not about you) and put your need to save face aside, you would see that I'm actually being sincere, as is everyone else.
> And why do you keep asking me to explain what I've just explained. I told you precisely why this type of thing hurts art/ artists about 12 times now



Enjoying a piece of art is a completely personal thing. .....you should know that. Didn't you say something to that effect earlier in the thread?
You may well be sincere but you fail to accept that I am also sincere and see what is going on in the current art world. I'm not going to pretend I like a piece of art just to prop up a "positive association" with a particular style of art. There are some amazing modern artists in every sphere of the world of art who paint in many styles. You seem to think I've knocked them all. That's your perception. I doubt this thread or any attitude expressed in it have damaged the art world in the least.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Enjoying a piece of art is a completely personal thing. .....you should know that. Didn't you say something to that effect earlier in the thread?
> You may well be sincere but you fail to accept that I am also sincere and see what is going on in the current art world. I'm not going to pretend I like a piece of art just to prop up a "positive association" with a particular style of art. There are some amazing modern artists in every sphere of the world of art who paint in many styles. You seem to think I've knocked them all. That's your perception. I doubt this thread or any attitude expressed in it have damaged the art world in the least.



I never said you had to lie or prop up anything! Just that there is an excess of negativity already, which is turning people away, so instead of adding to it, choose to celebrate what you DO like and expose people to it! That pretty much sums up all I've said


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> 1. I never said all art needs to be respected. My main point was it hurts art and artists as a whole to perpetuate negative associations with certain forms of art, and this thread pretty much is a celebration of those negative associations and stereotypes (in the way you intended it). I said that art should be celebrated, and that we should encourage participation...not for artwork you don't like obviously, that would be odd, but for the artwork you DO like...i.e. focus on the positive rather than the negative.



Why? Why ignore the shite that's being passed off as art and only focus on the decent stuff? This is the reason these bluffers are getting away with it, because people are being told what they should like and they're blindly agreeing or are too scared to say anything for fear of being lambasted and/or mocked for not 'getting' it.

Seems the art world is the only place you're not allowed say something is shit... apart from maybe North Korea


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> You just asked me to explain! In the very post I quoted!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dear God woman!!
For the last time...I did not ask you to explain! And I have not written modern art off...I posted plenty of my owm favourite abstract expressionist works and figurative modern works. And have liked plenty modern art pieces posted on this very thread.
I know the modern as in  the current art world. I know how it works.
I know the shit that goes on....the lickarsing about...the croneyism.
The building of egos. The "mixing in the right circles"..the obscene nonsense that goes on to get noticed by the right people...the efforts to paint in a style nobody has tried before which is usually something someone has tried before. ..

Please stop patronising me?
And recognise and realise that shit art exists...whether you like it or not and that some shit art has made it into some very exclusive galleries for the wrong reasons. And please do not misconstrue this response to your statement as a critique of all moderm abstract art.

We are all entitled to our views. Mine come from experience and knowledge (despite what you may think of me)
And I'm sorry but my virws are as sincerely held as yours (despite the fact you disbelieve this).
You asking..demanding me to "go outside myself" and "stop trying to save face" is rather patronising if I'm being honest. .which I am. You decided I was being flippant because I dont share your views. You decided I was thick and stupid because I disagree that all art has to be celebrated.
I'm neither thick nor anti modern art.

I'll leave you with this....

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Why? Why ignore the shite that's being passed off as art and only focus on the decent stuff? This is the reason these bluffers are getting away with it, because people are being told what they should like and they're blindly agreeing or are too scared to say anything for fear of being lambasted and/or mocked for not 'getting' it.
> 
> Seems the art world is the only place you're not allowed say something is shit... apart from maybe North Korea



what you just said - those are the negative associations which get circulated, and which are largely exaggerated and untrue. conceptual art requires use of the viewer's imagination, it's not for everyone and it's HARDLY the only type of art being sold or bought out there, so it's really sort of a straw man, and focusing on this one little area of the art world therefore is pretty silly if you love art. 
Nobody ever said "You can't say this" it's more like "do you really want to keep repeating this tired old cliche?"


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Dear God woman!!
> For the last time...I did not ask you to explain!



sigh. actually, you did, in the very quote I was responding to, which I already mentioned. 
 I can no longer take anything you say seriously and didn't even read the rest of your post. this is ridiculous


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> what you just said - those are the negative associations which get circulated, and which are largely exaggerated and untrue. conceptual art requires use of the viewer's imagination, it's not for everyone and it's HARDLY the only type of art being sold or bought out there, so it's really sort of a straw man, and focusing on this one little area of the art world therefore is pretty silly if you love art.
> Nobody ever said "You can't say this" it's more like "do you really want to keep repeating this tired old cliche?"


It's the extremes of anything that stand out. Really good art and really shit art are what people are going to talk about, and when something really shit sells for big money, people are going to question it and the validity of those involved in the process.

I've never liked the Conservative party. I think they're a bunch of cunts... but some people do like them and agree with their politics. Should I say nothing for fear of upsetting those who support and agree with them?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and my opinion is that most modern art is shit. Maybe not as shit as Tory politics but shit, nonetheless.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> what you just said - those are the negative associations which get circulated, and which are largely exaggerated and untrue. conceptual art requires use of the viewer's imagination, it's not for everyone and it's HARDLY the only type of art being sold or bought out there, so it's really sort of a straw man, and focusing on this one little area of the art world therefore is pretty silly if you love art.
> Nobody ever said "You can't say this" it's more like "do you really want to keep repeating this tired old cliche?"



99.9% of art sold is something that people fall in love with and can afford.
It's an investment piece thay they'll hope to like for many years. It's something they think long and hard about spending money on. It could be  the difference between having a summer holiday or not. Or buying a new telly or not.
Modern abstractionism is not in the same league. You must know this?
It is absolutely an elitist singular market. 



bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've not asked you to explain.
> You just keep choosing to do so despite being told that it's not necessary.





Miss Caphat said:


> sigh. actually, you did, in the very quote I was responding to, which I already mentioned.
> I can no longer take anything you say seriously and didn't even read the rest of your post. this is ridiculous



I think you may need to read the quote you quoted.
I said "I've not asked you to explain"

Let's call it a day.
I'm in need of some food.
And the art world will survive in the meantime


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

I like this:


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

...and this:


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

This too:


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 2, 2014)

I like this...


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I like this...


Do you like it better than the original?,


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Do you like it better than the original?,



I like it because it's topical and it made me smile... but I wouldn't consider it worthy of a place on my wall. Then again, I wouldn't hang a Dali print either, but if it was a choice between this and a Dali, I'd choose the Dali


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 2, 2014)

chilango said:


> This too:



What do you like about it?


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> What do you like about it?



I like that it's an erased drawing. It's intriguing. What was there? What's left? Traces, remnants, clues, fragments. I find that interesting. But then I like blanks, I like ruins, I like destruction. I like empty spaces.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Dear God woman!!
> For the last time...I did not ask you to explain! And I have not written modern art off...I posted plenty of my owm favourite abstract expressionist works and figurative modern works. And have liked plenty modern art pieces posted on this very thread.


The reason many people on this thread are trying to explain it to you is because you manifestly don't get it. The pieces you post up for the most part are not shit, you just don't get it and I'm thinking your incapable of getting it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> The reason many people on this thread are trying to explain it to you is because you manifestly don't get it. The pieces you post up for the most part are not shit, you just don't get it and I'm thinking your incapable of getting it.



The pieces I posted are not shit..and I think if you read the thread with your brain instead of your prejudicial attitude you'd see that.
I posted Warren , Gorky, Stanton McDonald Wright ...where did I say they were shit?

I've been pretty clear about the Tate shit in a tin being shit and a few other art works made from shit and semen and I dont think a whole lot of the two paintings in my OP....but I've I not generalised.
And you've all had an opportunity to voice your opinions which you have done and yet you decide your opinions are not enough so you attempt to denegrate me and insult my intelligence?
I get abstractionism. I get expressionism.  I get cubism. I get every bit of art on this thread. I could write litanies of positivity about them if I chose to. But the thread is posing a discussion point for people to come to their own conclusions.
So far it's not getting anywhere because instead of discussing why certain pieces of art are deserving of their status, you and others  (including me when provoked ) are just slinging insults..

Read the thread ... think about it....then post something worthwhile and meaningful about your favourite misunderstood artwork.

Convince those who think it is shit that it is not.

Show an argument that proves the tin of shit in the Tate is brilliant.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The pieces I posted are not shit..and I think if you read the thread with your brain instead of your prejudicial attitude you'd see that.
> I posted Warren , Gorky, Stanton McDonald Wright ...where did I say they were shit?
> 
> I've been pretty clear about the Tate shit in a tin being shit and a few other art works made from shit and semen and I dont think a whole lot of the two paintings in my OP....but I've I not generalised.
> ...


And in a single post you say that you get it but don't understand why the tin of shit is brilliant.....


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 2, 2014)

Is this worthy of wall space?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> And in a single post you say that you get it but don't understand why the tin of shit is brilliant.....



I'm asking you to say why you think it's brilliant.  Not  to quote some critic.
Not to quote the Tate.
But to say why you personally believe it is a brilliant piece of art. Say why you'd be happy to have it in your home.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm asking you to say why you think it's brilliant.  Not  to quote some critic.
> Not to quote the Tate.
> But to say why you personally believe it is a brilliant piece of art. Say why you'd be happy to have it in your home.


No, you're saying it's shit, you're making a judgement about it, you have to post up the reasons why you think so.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, you're saying it's shit, you're making a judgement about it, you have to post up the reasons why you think so.



It is shit...in a tin.
You think it's brilliant so go on....
Why is it brilliant?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

What is wrong with making art out of shit? 
The Joseph Beuys shit in a can was a work of genius, but ffs this is sixth form art appreciation. I'm a total Philistine when it comes to art, but even I understand some of the concepts behind nonrepresentational art. Does satire not have a place in art? Do you really only want to look at pictures of things?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It is shit...in a tin.
> You think it's brilliant so go on....
> Why is it brilliant?


No, you posted it up as bad art, did you not?. Explain yourself.


----------



## bmd (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm asking you to say why you think it's brilliant.  Not  to quote some critic.
> Not to quote the Tate.
> But to say why you personally believe it is a brilliant piece of art. Say why you'd be happy to have it in your home.



You think it's shit. Why do you think it's shit? I would actually want to engage with this thread, instead of you, if I didn't see you being all over the place, twisting words into meanings that you clearly didn't mean, instead of allowing that some people who don't agree with you could have a point.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, you posted it up as bad art, did you not?. Explain yourself.



I posted it as "actually shit" art.
And OU...would you want some guy's shit in a tin in your house as a piece of art? Honestly?


----------



## heinous seamus (Oct 2, 2014)

Make art not war


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I posted it as "actually shit" art.
> And OU...would you want some guy's shit in a tin in your house as a piece of art? Honestly?


So you don't think it's bad art then?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

bmd said:


> You think it's shit. Why do you think it's shit? I would actually want to engage with this thread, instead of you, if I didn't see you being all over the place, twisting words into meanings that you clearly didn't mean, instead of allowing that some people who don't agree with you could have a point.



I'm being Devils advocate. I'm asking why this shit in a tin and other art is so important. 
Go on....engage with the thread.
.....talk about the shit in a tin....tell the thread why it is amazing.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> So you don't think it's bad art then?



I'm asking you why you think it is good art. 
If you have an opinion that declares it to be brilliant then I'd like to hear why and how you came to that conclusion. Or was it a case of you deciding after being told it was good art? Did cultural influences effect you?  Did your initial reaction vary with your later thoughts once someone told you it was good? Or did you read that it was brilliant?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 2, 2014)

Devils advocate now ffs.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm asking you why you think it is good art?


No you're not, you posted it up as an example of bad art, therefore you have to explain this. You seem to have a lot of trouble with the concept of discussion forums.


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

Can people stop assuming "liking" or "appreciating" a piece of art means you want it in your house/on your wall?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Devils advocate now ffs.



So still nothing from you.
You declare it to be brilliant. 
But you have no other comment that throws light on its brilliance. 
Nothing about society and corruption.
Nothing about the era it came from. 
Or the state of Germany at the time.
Or the artist?
Just "it's brilliant"
And you expect it to stick?
It is shit in a tin....you've still to state why you think it is brilliant.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

chilango said:


> Can people stop assuming "liking" or "appreciating" a piece of art means you want it in your house/on your wall?



Where would you put it then?


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

Also I'll tell you why Manzoni's "Artist's Shit" is so good bubblesmcgrath. Because in that simple gesture and object he manages to communicate a critique of the artworld and the cult of the artist far more succinctly and with more clarity than most who attempt to do so.


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Where would you put it then?


 Why would I put it anywhere?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 2, 2014)

chilango said:


> Also I'll tell you why Manzoni's "Artist's Shit" is so good bubblesmcgrath. Because in that simple gesture and object he manages to communicate a critique of the artworld and the cult of the artist far more succinctly and with more clarity than most who attempt to do so.



Nope.
That's not what he was about.
And not what the 90 cans of his own shit were about either.

They are about the intimacy of the artistic creation. The interplay of the product of the artist's body and the consumer. The creative act ...consumption and expulsion...branding...marketting and consumerism.
That's what he said ....mind you his inspiration was less convincing.  His father told him his art was shit.


----------



## chilango (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Nope.
> That's not what he was about.
> And not what the 90 cans of his own shit were about either.
> 
> ...



Doesn't matter though, does it?

As the viewer I'm free to like it on my own terms, aren't i?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 2, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It's the extremes of anything that stand out. Really good art and really shit art are what people are going to talk about, and when something really shit sells for big money, people are going to question it and the validity of those involved in the process.
> 
> I've never liked the Conservative party. I think they're a bunch of cunts... but some people do like them and agree with their politics. Should I say nothing for fear of upsetting those who support and agree with them?
> 
> Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and my opinion is that most modern art is shit. Maybe not as shit as Tory politics but shit, nonetheless.



not going into the political thing because that's a bit too far-fetched for me, sorry.

you are definitely entitled to your opinion. there's no question about that whatsoever.

but when _do_ you hear people talking about art that they really liked? is it anywhere near as often as you hear people talking about music or films or television they really like?
and if not, why do you think that is?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Where would you put it then?


in your dinner


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Is this worthy of wall space?


I'm interested but I want to know more. 

What's with the frame? That's one thing I don't get about art in galleries.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I posted it as "actually shit" art.
> And OU...would you want some guy's shit in a tin in your house as a piece of art? Honestly?


Of course not. So is your assessment of good art something you'd want to hang on a wall in your house?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

chilango said:


> Also I'll tell you why Manzoni's "Artist's Shit" is so good bubblesmcgrath. Because in that simple gesture and object he manages to communicate a critique of the artworld and the cult of the artist far more succinctly and with more clarity than most who attempt to do so.


Oops. I thought it was Beuys. Just been reading about him n all.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 2, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> not going into the political thing because that's a bit too far-fetched for me, sorry.
> 
> you are definitely entitled to your opinion. there's no question about that whatsoever.
> 
> ...



I think a lot more people listen to music than look at art... but let's take music as an example. We all know Justin Bieber is shit... yet he's loaded, so people must be buying his shit. Does this make it not shit?



Orang Utan said:


> I'm interested but I want to know more.
> 
> What's with the frame? That's one thing I don't get about art in galleries.



I don't know what's with the frame. Looks a bit overkill to me. Maybe the frame forms part of the 'art'?

I kinda like it but I can't put my finger on why. I think it might be because my eyes keep wandering around the picture, looking for something to like


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

Is Justin Bieber shit though? I don't know. I've not heard any of his music.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

People are MUCH more vituperative about music than they are about art though. It's far more intolerable for people to consider that other people like music they hate than it is for art. I wish I could remember what I have read that talks about this.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 2, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> People are MUCH more vituperative about music than they are about art though. It's far more intolerable for people to consider that other people like music they hate than it is for art. I wish I could remember what I have read that talks about this.


I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. I'll cite this thread as evidence


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 2, 2014)

Hmm. I personally don't care if you like Rothko, Manzoni, Beuys etc. I only get annoyed when you dismiss it as shit without making the effort to look beyond the aesthetics of having a nice painting on your wall. I would probably get even more annoyed if you said that Coil's Time Machines was shit cos it didn't have the melodies and harmonies of Beach Boys' Pet Sounds.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 3, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


>



Would this ^^^  be considered conceptual or abstract art?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 3, 2014)

Why does it matter? I dunno. You have presented it without saying who made it and what it is called. I still don't know if the frame is part of the work. You clearly don't think context is important but it is.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Why does it matter? I dunno. You have presented it without saying who made it and what it is called. I still don't know if the frame is part of the work. You clearly don't think context is important but it is.


It was in an art gallery I visited in France a few years ago but I can't remember who it was by.
The blurb said it was painted using the pigment from various autumn leaves.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I think a lot more people listen to music than look at art... but let's take music as an example. We all know Justin Bieber is shit... yet he's loaded, so people must be buying his shit. Does this make it not shit?



Fair point, but I guess my point was sort of that we know music so well, for the most part, and have such a better developed understanding of music for the most part, that when we hear a Justin Beiber song once or twice, and note his persona and the dickish things he does, it seems much more a fair ruling,
than for example, to read an article about Mapplethorpe's (?) exhibit where he depicted Christ in urine and grumble about how "our tax dollars are being used to support this hogwash!"*, or something, without understanding the context or why it might be important, etc. 

I don't mean to imply that you/ we're all a bunch of art ignoramuses, but I certainly don't know much myself even after being involved with visual art my whole life (but not really studying it as a whole, if that makes sense). I guess what I'm saying is in the interest of balance, I would trust an art historian or someone who knew the whole story more than someone with an amateur interest in art, though amateurs and kids, etc, can all have very interesting things to say about artworks. 


*which really was a huge thing here in the US, it caused a severe drop in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, iirc.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 3, 2014)

Hmm, I know more way about Mapplethorpe than Bieber. I would recognise him quicker in the street (and follow him to see if I could gatecrash any party he went to)

BTW Andres Serrano did the Piss Christ photo, not Mapplethorpe. It's a lovely photo just to look at.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 3, 2014)

Actually, Piss Christ is a good example of looking at art in context. Before you know how it was composed, you could look at it purely aesthetically, as it is rather beautiful. But it's a picture of Christ. Your reaction to and knowledge of Christ and how he is traditionally depicted depends entirely on your upbringing. Many people are used to seeing Christ looking tormented on the cross (Catholics at any rate) but plunging the horror of the crucifix into a warm yellow aura transforms him into the beatific serene Christ that we see in other depictions of Christ. This is all before we know that yellow glow is just the artist's piss.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 3, 2014)

Sorry that was shit. Time for bed.Up in five hours.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

I really like that piece Orang Utan 

I wonder if we'll proceed to the discovery that artwork made of piss is vastly superior to artwork made of shit?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

one more thought while we're on the subject...if there was an equivalent of a piece of artwork to a Justin Bieber song, it would probably be something like this...


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 3, 2014)

In my going to bed manoeuvres, I have managed to knock over a clothes detergent bottle that had no lid on it (I didn't leave it there). It was a few minutes before I noticed, and although I cleaned up most of the gunk, I do not have enough time to clear it up properly. That part of the carpet is going to be so much cleaner than the rest when I do clean it properly tomorrow

I may take a photo of it if it is interesting or beautiful enough. And then it shall be art and and a big fuck you to Dr Herbz and Bubbles McGrath. I hope it looks like a middle finger, just so even they can understand what it's really about.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

chilango said:


> Why would I put it anywhere?



Because "brilliant" art deserves to be displayed.



Orang Utan said:


> In my going to bed manoeuvres, I have managed to knock over a clothes detergent bottle that had no lid on it (I didn't leave it there). It was a few minutes before I noticed, and although I cleaned up most of the gunk, I do not have enough time to clear it up properly. That part of the carpet is going to be so much cleaner than the rest when I do clean it properly tomorrow
> 
> I may take a photo of it if it is interesting or beautiful enough. And then it shall be art and and a big fuck you to Dr Herbz and Bubbles McGrath. I hope it looks like a middle finger, just so even they can understand what it's really about.



Yup...and if it isn't beaitiful enough you can create a narrative and context of your own that reflects modern society's need to "come clean" about the "ingrained dirt and corruption that reaches through its every fibre of being".and if you were someone within the art world  in the correct sphere, you'd probably get away with it as a significant work.

Pity you and caphat are still not getting it.....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

chilango said:


> Doesn't matter though, does it?
> 
> As the viewer I'm free to like it on my own terms, aren't i?



Just as I'm free to dislike it.....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> in your dinner



Pathetic


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Of course not. So is your assessment of good art something you'd want to hang on a wall in your house?



Is this all you're getting from the point?
I'd happily have a Van Gogh, Rothko, Warren, Kavanagh, and a multitude of other art on my wall....art that I both like and is "valued" by the "artistic community".



Miss Caphat said:


> I really like that piece Orang Utan
> 
> I wonder if we'll proceed to the discovery that artwork made of piss is vastly superior to artwork made of shit?



That's a pissibility..

What I find a bit strange is that you assume that because I dislike tins of shit that I'm an amateur who couldn't possibly know much about art or the art world.... that's rather snobbish.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 3, 2014)

I like this....


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What I find a bit strange is that you assume that because I dislike tins of shit that I'm an amateur who couldn't possibly know much about art or the art world.... that's rather snobbish.



Um, as I said I've been involved in visual art since I was very young and it's been a huge part of my life and I consider myself an amateur too. Not sure what's snobbish about that


----------



## Voley (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> one more thought while we're on the subject...if there was an equivalent of a piece of artwork to a Justin Bieber song, it would probably be something like this...



Nice.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Milo Moire...
Art Cologne 2014 "Plop egg painting performance"
Art Basel 2013 "The Script System" #2
Any thoughts Caphat? Or anyone?
Anyone familiar with Joseph Beuys or Marina Abramovic might appreciate her work as she's claimed their influence.
Performance art / porn...

Whaddya think??
I've read her "philosophy of art"... her site asks the viewer for €4.99 to view her "uncensored" videos of eggs filled with paint plopping out of her vagina onto a canvas below...Her creativity apparently reliant on having people view this momentous performance as the eggs hit a canvas and splatter paint on them. The resulting art work gets very little attention (wonder why?)
She offers a philosophical argument about birth  and creativity.
...



You'll probably guess that my view is it's truly ......
...

Groundbreaking art.


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Just as I'm free to dislike it.....



Dislike, yes. Dismiss, no.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Pathetic


dulce et decorum est cloaca in loco


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I like this....



Nice Dr Herbz 
Like that..


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Milo Moire...
> Art Cologne 2014 "Plop egg painting performance"
> Art Basel 2013 "The Script System" #2
> Any thoughts Caphat? Or anyone?
> ...



S'alright. Doesn't do much for me, but it's valid.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> dulce et decorum est cloaca in loco



Pickman tu asinus es


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

chilango said:


> S'alright. Doesn't do much for me, but it's valid.



As??
Great art?
Mediocre art?
Bad art?


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm interested but I want to know more.
> 
> What's with the frame? That's one thing I don't get about art in galleries.



Ditto.

I think I'd need to see this one in the flesh to decide whether I like it. The frame is distracting me from what's inside.

To get beyond that, I'd like to know more about how and why it was made.

The erased drawing is more interesting (to me) because I "know" there was a drawing there, that isn't there now. It wouldn't be as intriguing if there had never been a drawing there.


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> As??
> Great art?
> Mediocre art?
> Bad art?



As art.

I wouldn't want to judge beyond that without knowing a lot more about it.

...and I couldn't say whether I like it without seeing it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Pickman tu asinus es


i should have said dulce et decorum est cloaca in cena


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

chilango said:


> As art.
> 
> I wouldn't want to judge beyond that without knowing a lot more about it.
> 
> ...and I couldn't say whether I like it without seeing it.



Yet you just said this....



chilango said:


> Dislike, yes. Dismiss, no.




Qui aliquando non populus, nec sentis a perito traditum?


Why wait to be told by the "expert" what is to be liked / respected/ valued in art ...? 

Have a listen to Laurie Anderson.. think about it...


I'm off to work.


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath who's waiting to be "told by an expert"? Not me. I merely want more information.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Nice Dr Herbz
> Like that..



This is another by the same guy.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Hmm. I personally don't care if you like Rothko, Manzoni, Beuys etc. I only get annoyed when you dismiss it as shit without making the effort to look beyond the aesthetics of having a nice painting on your wall. I would probably get even more annoyed if you said that Coil's Time Machines was shit cos it didn't have the melodies and harmonies of Beach Boys' Pet Sounds.


This is the first thing in this thread that has made re-think Rothko and maybe understand how people can have such a reaction to them in the flesh when they do nowt for me otherwise. It feels like The Emperor's New Clothes when I hear people banging on about _the brush strokes, though!!_ and whatever else, and it seemed like they were grasping for a reason to like him because he's trendy, rather than anything else.

A drone track could be seen as pure texture, though, and that can stir up emotion in me. And even those who don't appreciate that sort of music can feel unsettled by pure noise or tone, like the feeling of dread you get from a David Lynch film's soundtrack. And if you heard that same soundtrack through a phone on the back of a bus it would sound shit, but in a gig or even a cinema, with the volume cranked up and the bass nice and deep, you would have a vastly different experience.

Is this what people get from Rothko? The size, presence, whatever, is what makes the difference? I've really tried to understand it, and aside from this explanation here, I can't see anything beyond that. And if it is that, then would any painting of that size be enough to evoke the same emotions? Large canvas with moody, unsettling colours = now you're Rothko? I'm semi-joking with that last sentence, but his technique, for all the praise, doesn't _seem_ difficult to reproduce. It's just seems laborious.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2014)

> Christopher Rothko says his father believed that “viewing a work of art was an experience, something to interact with. If you are communicating with the painting, you are potentially having a life-changing, mind-changing, spirit-changing kind of experience. It’s not just something beautiful to look at, but something that touches a place deep inside you.”
> 
> Rothko’s work “hits you on a pre-conscious, pre-verbal kind of level. That was quite intentional: He was looking for a pictorial language that was as universal as possible, that he could communicate to almost every viewer. He did not want to be tied to stories or any kind of narrative that would pigeonhole him in a time or a place. He was looking for something that could reach everywhere.”





http://www.stltoday.com/entertainme...cle_97988db5-5148-5894-8e0e-29d4b20c8e25.html

/serious procrastination going on in Brinkley.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2014)

I like this...in fact after having a look I much prefer his work up unitl the mid 40s.

The change in style: 
'Rothko explained the transition from totemic and biomorphic figures to planes of color in part by saying that "...the familiar identity of things has to be pulverized..."  He also described his forms as "organisms with volition and a passion for self-assertion."  This description of the forms in his paintings as living forces or beings is consistent with his description of the work of art as having a life of its own.'

http://www.radford.edu/rbarris/art428/mark rothko.html


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> This is the first thing in this thread that has made re-think Rothko and maybe understand how people can have such a reaction to them in the flesh when they do nowt for me otherwise. It feels like The Emperor's New Clothes when I hear people banging on about _the brush strokes, though!!_ and whatever else, and it seemed like they were grasping for a reason to like him because he's trendy, rather than anything else.
> 
> A drone track could be seen as pure texture, though, and that can stir up emotion in me. And even those who don't appreciate that sort of music can feel unsettled by pure noise or tone, like the feeling of dread you get from a David Lynch film's soundtrack. And if you heard that same soundtrack through a phone on the back of a bus it would sound shit, but in a gig or even a cinema, with the volume cranked up and the bass nice and deep, you would have a vastly different experience.
> 
> Is this what people get from Rothko? The size, presence, whatever, is what makes the difference? I've really tried to understand it, and aside from this explanation here, I can't see anything beyond that. And if it is that, then would any painting of that size be enough to evoke the same emotions? Large canvas with moody, unsettling colours = now you're Rothko? I'm semi-joking with that last sentence, but his technique, for all the praise, doesn't _seem_ difficult to reproduce. It's just seems laborious.




In terms of what you're saying about music, I see what you're saying but I think it's also plain to see that the more experience you have with a medium, the more you can appreciate it...same with food, writing, etc.


All I know is, for me personally, the things that enhance my appreciation for artwork are:
-my own experience and struggles with trying to create art and produce the image I have in mind

-knowledge of the place in history of the piece, things like understanding the movements in art make them more exciting for me in general, I imagine the competition, each artist straining, competing to convey something pure and mind-blowing, working off each other, as well as wanting to express what's in their souls and minds...by the way I find it really hard to believe that anyone would devote themselves to such a risky career as an artist without being totally passionate about it and believing in themselves completely, therefore I find the idea of con-artists or phonies pretty ridiculous.

-other artwork I've been exposed to. I've seen a good number of shows, and plenty more documentaries and books, etc. All of these experiences build on each other and make me seek out new types of art, and judge them against each other.

This being said, with or without context, it's perfectly ok to not like Rothko or Pollock or anyone, whether you're 5 years old, an alien from outer space, or an 85 yr old art critic. But being able to understand why you don't like something and express it effectively, to be able to understand your own reaction to a piece of art, and to be open to the interpretation of others is worth striving for imo. And this, I think, can only be gained by more exposure to art and art theory and art history. Which never hurt anyone as far as I know.  





-


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> In terms of what you're saying about music, I see what you're saying but I think it's also plain to see that the more experience you have with a medium, the more you can appreciate it...same with food, writing, etc.
> 
> 
> All I know is, for me personally, the things that enhance my appreciation for artwork are:
> ...


I'll give a proper reply to this in a bit but you touched on another thing I didn't mention in my thing above, but meant to.

If I was around in 1950 and I saw a Rothko, I might be impressed with it because of how revolutionary it must have seemed back then. Most of that is lost/diminished on those who didn't live through those years and have grew up with art based on, and taken further than, the stuff the abstract expressionists came up with. Talking about music again, jazz came about at a similar time and must have seemed much more exciting then than it does now for the same reasons. Now it's seen as elevator music, and stuff like Rothko* is churned out for hotel lobbies and corporate boardrooms.

*The style, not the 'quality', before anyone starts.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I'll give a proper reply to this in a bit but you touched on another thing I didn't mention in my thing above, but meant to.
> 
> If I was around in 1950 and I saw a Rothko, I might be impressed with it because of how revolutionary it must have seemed back then. Most of that is lost/diminished on those who didn't live through those years and have grew up with art based on, and taken further than, the stuff the abstract expressionists came up with. Talking about music again, jazz came about at a similar time and must have seemed much more exciting then than it does now for the same reasons. Now it's seen as elevator music, and stuff like Rothko* is churned out for hotel lobbies and corporate boardrooms.
> 
> *The style, not the 'quality', before anyone starts.



well, I think the impact of a revolutionary piece of art can and does easily get lost with time, but it's just as easily appreciated and seen with new eyes when you _do _start to understand the context and the time period/ history etc...same with jazz, old films, etc., right?


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> well, I think the impact of a revolutionary piece of art can and does easily get lost with time, but it's just as easily appreciated and seen with new eyes when you _do _start to understand the context and the time period/ history etc...same with jazz, old films, etc., right?


Not to the same extent. _You_ _had to be there, maaaaan_


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Not to the same extent. _You_ _had to be there, maaaaan_





well, the experience of being there can obviously never be surpassed, However, the pleasure derived from diving into nostalgia for a certain time period even if you were never there can be pretty gratifying too. It's a different way of experiencing something, and the advantage is of being able to see it more clearly than those who were actually there.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 3, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Large canvas with moody, unsettling colours = now you're Rothko?


Sinister goings on in a small town, grotesque characters, moody lighting = now you're David Lynch


Fez909 said:


> I'm semi-joking with that last sentence, but his technique, for all the praise, doesn't _seem_ difficult to reproduce. It's just seems laborious.


Why does it have to be difficult?


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> well, the experience of being there can obviously never be surpassed, However, the pleasure derived from diving into nostalgia for a certain time period even if you were never there can be pretty gratifying too. It's a different way of experiencing something, and the advantage is of being able to see it more clearly than those who were actually there.


It can work both ways, but yeah, it can definitely be enhanced by having hindsight.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Sinister goings on in a small town, grotesque characters, moody lighting = now you're David Lynch
> 
> Why does it have to be difficult?


It doesn't have to be difficult, but surely part of the justification of an artist's work being appreciated is that they were a cut above everyone else? If it's easy, then anyone can do it.

As to the sinister goings on in a small town thing, that's too simplistic. If David Lynch's works were so minimal as to not actually represent any forms or structure then yes, you'd have a point. But his work is based in more traditional storytelling while employing those themes.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 3, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> It doesn't have to be difficult, but surely part of the justification of an artist's work being appreciated is that they were a cut above everyone else? If it's easy, then anyone can do it.


No. As evidenced above by bubbles' woeful attempt


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> This is the first thing in this thread that has made re-think Rothko and maybe understand how people can have such a reaction to them in the flesh when they do nowt for me otherwise. It feels like The Emperor's New Clothes when I hear people banging on about _the brush strokes, though!!_ and whatever else, and it seemed like they were grasping for a reason to like him because he's trendy, rather than anything else.
> 
> A drone track could be seen as pure texture, though, and that can stir up emotion in me. And even those who don't appreciate that sort of music can feel unsettled by pure noise or tone, like the feeling of dread you get from a David Lynch film's soundtrack. And if you heard that same soundtrack through a phone on the back of a bus it would sound shit, but in a gig or even a cinema, with the volume cranked up and the bass nice and deep, you would have a vastly different experience.
> 
> Is this what people get from Rothko? The size, presence, whatever, is what makes the difference? I've really tried to understand it, and aside from this explanation here, I can't see anything beyond that. And if it is that, then would any painting of that size be enough to evoke the same emotions? Large canvas with moody, unsettling colours = now you're Rothko? I'm semi-joking with that last sentence, but his technique, for all the praise, doesn't _seem_ difficult to reproduce. It's just seems laborious.



Rothko is about emotional experience.  Which is why he vetted buyers by watching their emotional reactions to his work.  I'd have to say, as someone who has painted in oils and fast drying oils, the feathering must have taken him ages.  The sheer scale of his  field paintings and the overall uniformity of the feathering has to have been work intensive. I think he developed a layering technique that was unique. 
How's your painting going? I'd be interested to see how you got on with the edges and blending.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 3, 2014)

Using Rothko as an example again:

It strikes me that an understanding of context and influences are important, but also what an artist has to say about their work, how they make sense of/represent it and how much that is understood by others. Sure, you do not need to know anything about a painter and their inner/outer world to appreciate a piece of work but at the same time, to understand why they are revered and by whom, is helped (well it helps me at least) if you gain an insight, from them, into their influences and beliefs.



> As I mentioned in class, in 1940 Rothko stopped painting entirely and devoted himself to reading and beginning to write a book which he called the _The Artist’s Reality: Philosophies of Art.  _Although he never considered the book finished, he never discarded it.  It greatly illuminates his goals as a painter and his personal understanding of the work of art.
> 
> In his book, Rothko compares the painter to a philosopher which leads him to say that art is therefore like philosophy.  As philosophy, the work of art is the creation of a particular notion of reality but in terms of what he calls “plastic speech” - through the use of colors and forms.  He goes on to say that plastic languages change, that there are particular plastic languages which serve particular purposes, but that they only serve art when they generalize beyond the particular.  And like the philosopher, who reduces all phenomena in order to shed light on human behavior or ethics, the artist reduces phenomena in order to inform or shed light on human sensuality.  Sensuality, he goes on to say, is neither objective experience nor subjective experience but something which exists outside of both and therefore contains both.
> 
> Later, he tries to explain what the plastic language of art is and how the language is obtained.  Plasticity, he says, is the way an artist creates the effects of movement in space, a sensation or experience of reality as something which moves through time and space.  He then notes that not all artists do this in the same way, that there are many ways to do this, and that the key to the differences between artists and their styles is the way they choose to create or produce this sensation of movement.  This sensation of movement, or the notion of plasticity, can be produced through tactile means, through illusory or visual means, through representational or through abstract.





> Christopher Rothko says his father believed that “viewing a work of art was an experience, something to interact with. If you are communicating with the painting, you are potentially having a life-changing, mind-changing, spirit-changing kind of experience. It’s not just something beautiful to look at, but something that touches a place deep inside you.”
> 
> Rothko’s work “hits you on a pre-conscious, pre-verbal kind of level. That was quite intentional: He was looking for a pictorial language that was as universal as possible, that he could communicate to almost every viewer. He did not want to be tied to stories or any kind of narrative that would pigeonhole him in a time or a place. He was looking for something that could reach everywhere.”


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> No. As evidenced above by bubbles' woeful attempt



Lol
Someone must have liked them..
One sold and one was bartered for a pavlova


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Rothko is about emotional experience.  Which is why he vetted buyers by watching their emotional reactions to his work.  I'd have to say, as someone who has painted in oils and fast drying oils, the feathering must have taken him ages.  The sheer scale of his  field paintings and the overall uniformity of the feathering has to have been work intensive. I think he developed a layering technique that was unique.
> How's your painting going? I'd be interested to see how you got on with the edges and blending.


I bought the wrong paints and when I went back they'd sold out. I'm still going to do it, though. Will be sure to update you once done (here or on the other thread). 

His technique for layering apparently was to use extremely thinned down down oils and put coat after coat after coat on. Each layer was almost transparent, which is why you get the colours from below showing through.


Orang Utan said:


> No. As evidenced above by bubbles' woeful attempt


She didn't use the same technique as him. Had she tried, you might have liked it more.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I bought the wrong paints and when I went back they'd sold out. I'm still going to do it, though. Will be sure to update you once done (here or on the other thread).
> 
> His technique for layering apparently was to use extremely thinned down down oils and put coat after coat after coat on. Each layer was almost transparent, which is why you get the colours from below showing through.
> 
> She didn't use the same technique as him. Had she tried, you might have liked it more.



Tbh I'm not bothered that OU didn't like them. 

And at some stage I intend painting an 8 x 6 foot version of my red sky at night homage. 
I'm going to practice the layering in alkyds and work on feathering. I'd often use feathering when painting clouds and skies. ..but not to the extent Rothko did. Painting or attempting to paint in his style was very enjoyable once I moved away from dark colours.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

so....you both have reasons why you do or don't like the original work, which is fine. but I totally fail to see how trying to reproduce something means anything. I mean, I can copy a prize-winning poem, very easily, or a famous recipe or piano piece maybe marginally well. I still don't get how that means anything as far as the merit of the original. 

And Fez909  I really think you need to at least attempt your "Rothko" before continuing with these kinds of judgements.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> so....you both have reasons why you do or don't like the original work, which is fine. but I totally fail to see how trying to reproduce something means anything. I mean, I can copy a prize-winning poem, very easily, or a famous recipe or piano piece maybe marginally well. I still don't get how that means anything as far as the merit of the original.
> 
> And Fez909  I really think you need to at least attempt your "Rothko" before continuing with these kinds of judgements.


Seems a tad contradictory


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Rothko is about emotional experience.  Which is why he vetted buyers by watching their emotional reactions to his work.  I'd have to say, as someone who has painted in oils and fast drying oils, the feathering must have taken him ages.  The sheer scale of his  field paintings and the overall uniformity of the feathering has to have been work intensive. I think he developed a layering technique that was unique.
> How's your painting going? I'd be interested to see how you got on with the edges and blending.


i was under the impression he vetted his buyers at least in part because he believed his paintings were sacred objects.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Lol
> Someone must have liked them..
> One sold and one was bartered for a pavlova


so you think your pictures are worth as much as a dessert.

you've some way to go before you reach a three-course meal let alone the heady heights of tracey emin.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Seems a tad contradictory



hmm, not really. It would be like me saying "I can re-create the Mona Lisa" which I could, I'm sure. Many people have, at least something that looks a lot like the original. 
But it would be worse if I said that without even bothering to back it up, wouldn't it?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

This thread keeps making me think about a poem I really liked when I was younger and trying to figure these things out. It's a little clunky, I think, and perhaps the whole hasn't held up that well, but some of the lines here seem to convey a lot of the duality between what is true beauty vs. what is art that sells, but still leaves the question open -ended, as it should, being a poem...

It's by Lawrence Ferlinghetti

I have not lain with beauty all my life
telling over to myself
its most rife charms

I have not lain with beauty all my life
and lied with it as well
telling over to myself
how beauty never dies
but lies apart
among the aborigines
of art
and far above the battlefields
of love

It is above all that
oh yes
It sits upon the choicest of
Church seats
up there where art directors meet
to choose the things for immortality
And they have lain with beauty
all their lives
And they have fed on honeydew
and drunk the wines of Paradise
so that they know exactly how
a thing of beauty is a joy
forever and forever
and how it never never
quite can fade
into a money-losing nothingness

Oh no I have not lain
on Beauty Rests like this
afraid to rise at night
for fear that I might somehow miss
some movement beauty might have made

Yet I have slept with beauty
in my own weird way
and I have made a hungry scene or two
with beauty in my bed
and so spilled out another poem or two
and so spilled out another poem or two
upon the Bosch-like world


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so you think your pictures are worth as much as a dessert.
> 
> you've some way to go before you reach a three-course meal let alone the heady heights of tracey emin.



Well as said earlier in the thread...my neighbour wanted to buy the first one. But I declined payment and asked for one of her pavlovas instead.  Incidentally it was delicious 
The second painting sold for €250 which I was happy with...


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well as said earlier in the thread...my neighbour wanted to buy the first one. But I declined payment and asked for one of her pavlovas instead.  Incidentally it was delicious
> The second painting sold for €250 which I was happy with...



and what would you say if someone now accused you being a money-grubbing fraud/ art conman?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The second painting sold for €250 which I was happy with...


i wonder how much it will be sold on for.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> and what would you say if someone now accused you being a money-grubbing fraud/ art conman?


she'd say



			
				bubblesmcgrath said:
			
		

> you got me bang to rights


no doubt


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i was under the impression he vetted his buyers at least in part because he believed his paintings were sacred objects.



He was interested and motivated by the emotional experience of  his own interaction with his paintings and the experiencing of those who saw his paintings. He spoke about the spiritual experience a viewer may have on looking at his art and related this to the emotional quality of their response.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> and what would you say if someone now accused you being a money-grubbing fraud/ art conman?



I'd say the idiot saying that might need a lawyer  
As you well know there is no law against painting in the style of any other artist 
The paintings are signed by me.....and titled "homage to Rothko".
Nothing fraudulent there.
€250 is hardly "money grubbing" 
And as I'm a woman I'd hardly be called a "conman".
Also the buyer is a lecturer in the city's third level art college so they know what they bought and they like it ..


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'd say the idiot saying that might need a lawyer
> As you well know there is no law against painting in the style of any other artist
> The paintings are signed by me.....and titled "homage to Rothko".
> Nothing fraudulent there.
> ...



that's all well and good if it weren't for the fact that you've referred to other artists as frauds and con artists out to make a quick buck by doing artwork* just because they thought it would sell. seems to me like you could easily be accused of the same thing, or worse.


*in other words, not real, genuine, from the core of their being- artwork


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> that's all well and good if it weren't for the fact that you've referred to other artists as frauds and con artists out to make a quick buck by doing artwork* just because they thought it would sell. seems to me like you could easily be accused of the same thing, or worse.
> 
> 
> *in other words, not real, genuine, from the core of their being- artwork


worse!


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> worse!



well yeah, because she never even mentioned _copying_ someone else's work! Surely that would be considered an even graver crime.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> that's all well and good if it weren't for the fact that you've referred to other artists as frauds and con artists out to make a quick buck by doing artwork* just because they thought it would sell. seems to me like you could easily be accused of the same thing, or worse.
> 
> 
> *in other words, not real, genuine, from the core of their being- artwork




People make art for a living you know. Artists have painted to make a living for a very long time.
The "core of their being" bit is a relatively modern assignation...as in the last 100 or so years..
You quoted a poem a while ago...that debates the meaning of beauty..from the highest echelons of "great beauty" (let's label that "high art " )....right down to the "common man" and his experience of "beauty"...(lett's call that "everyday art".)
My issue with SOME current art is that it is being presented as "high art"  and I'm not convinced that it is that...some art does not seem to have a level of brilliance (skill..technique.) deserving of such a status. 

I sell landscapes. They are not "high art" .. they are everyday and for whatever reason people tend to like and enjoy them. They dont pretend to be "high art". but they have a place in the art world whether you appreciate that placement or not.
But I honestly fail to understand the high aesthetic "high art" value assigned to a woman pushing eggs full of paint out of her vagina. I might just understand if the subsequent canvases were interesting but they're the by product. The performance ..the naked woman pushing the eggs out...is the art...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> well yeah, because she never even mentioned _copying_ someone else's work! Surely that would be considered an even graver crime.




Painting in the style of an artist and calling it "homage to Rothko" is not copying my dear.  god love your innocence..


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> People make art for a living you know. Artists have painted to make a living for a very long time.
> The "core of their being" bit is a relatively modern assignation...as in the last 100 or so years..
> You quoted a poem a while ago...that debates the meaning of beauty..from the highest echelons of "great beauty" (let's label that "high art " )....right down to the "common man" and his experience of "beauty"...(lett's call that "everyday art".)
> My issue with SOME current art is that it is being presented as "high art"  and I'm not convinced that it is that...some art does not seem to have a level of brilliance (skill..technique.) deserving of such a status.
> ...



well, isn't it performance art, by definition? and I think what would separate that into the category of high art vs. a forgettable landscape someone hangs in an office, is that it challenges the viewer to think, and might make a long-lasting impression and even change how the viewer sees the world.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> that's all well and good if it weren't for the fact that you've referred to other artists as frauds and con artists out to make a quick buck by doing artwork* just because they thought it would sell. seems to me like you could easily be accused of the same thing, or worse.
> 
> 
> *in other words, not real, genuine, from the core of their being- artwork



If I rubbed dog shit on a canvas and sold it as art I'd feel like a fraud.
Quite honestly...I would feel like I was getting money under false pretences selling shit as a piece of art. My brain might attempt to persuade me to come up with a narrative or context for the shit on a canvas but my conscience would prevent me from selling it no matter how good the narrative. 
So I'll keep paintimg my landscapes and a few field paintings a la Rothko.  And if I'm happy with them I'll hang them and be happy that in all conscience I've done my best to ensure that they are worthy of a place in someone's home.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Painting in the style of an artist and calling it "homage to Rothko" is not copying my dear.  god love your innocence..



I'm merely reflecting they way you've talked about other's work, and it's not innocence but willful ignorance as far as I'm concerned!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> well, isn't it performance art, by definition? and I think what would separate that into the category of high art vs. a forgettable landscape someone hangs in an office, is that it challenges the viewer to think, and might make a long-lasting impression and even change how the viewer sees the world.



Seriously?
High art?
She sells her videos "uncensored" (her description) online for €4.99 a download.


Look.
You and I are never going to agree on this...particularly if your so called "positivity" about art in general then moves you to denegrate landscapes as an entire genre


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Seriously?
> High art?
> She sells her videos "uncensored" (her description) online for €4.99 a download.
> 
> ...



wtf? when did I ever say that? I paint landscapes myself.

I've also worked in large galleries selling a lot of similar stuff and I know it doesn't exactly fly off the shelves, but anyway....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Painting in the style of an artist and calling it "homage to Rothko" is not copying my dear.  god love your innocence..





Miss Caphat said:


> I'm merely reflecting they way you've talked about other's work, and it's not innocence but willful ignorance as far as I'm concerned![/QUOTE]
> 
> I'm glad you're able to admit your own flaws...


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

um, not quite sure you understood my point there, but that's hardly news.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> well, isn't it performance art, by definition? and I think what would separate that into the category of high art vs. a forgettable landscape someone hangs in an office, is that it challenges the viewer to think, and might make a long-lasting impression and even change how the viewer sees the world.





Miss Caphat said:


> wtf? when did I ever say that? I paint landscapes myself.
> 
> I've also worked in large galleries selling a lot of similar stuff and I know it doesn't exactly fly off the shelves, but anyway....



Nothing flies off the shelves.
But I'd rather sell my happy landscapes than shit on a board thanks.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> um, not quite sure you understood my point there, but that's hardly news.




Yeah I got what you meant and frankly you telling me I'm fraudulently reproducing a work of art by painting in the style of Rothko and labelling it as such with my signature on it.. is tantamount to libel and is defamatory.
Get your facts straight before you start accusing me of fraudulently selling a painting as a Rothko.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Nothing flies off the shelves.
> But I'd rather sell my happy landscapes than shit on a board thanks.



no, nothing does. shaking your fist at the sky about the unfairness of certain artists you don't like getting paid when you're not isn't going to change that either. I'm sure you know that, but I think it's worth saying.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yeah I got what you meant and frankly you telling me I'm fraudulently reproducing a work of art by painting in the style of Rothko and labelling it as such with my signature on it.. is tantamount to libel and is defamatory.
> Get your facts straight before you start accusing me of fraudulently selling a painting as a Rothko.





I wasn't accusing you of anything...I was saying what you did doesn't seem to hold up to your own standards of how you judge other artists very well.


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> If I rubbed dog shit on a canvas and sold it as art I'd feel like a fraud.
> Quite honestly...I would feel like I was getting money under false pretences selling shit as a piece of art. My brain might attempt to persuade me to come up with a narrative or context for the shit on a canvas but my conscience would prevent me from selling it no matter how good the narrative.
> So I'll keep paintimg my landscapes and a few field paintings a la Rothko.  And if I'm happy with them I'll hang them and be happy that in all conscience I've done my best to ensure that they are worthy of a place in someone's home.



Here's one I made with sheep shit many years ago.


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2014)

...and here's me "painting" it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> no, nothing does. shaking your fist at the sky about the unfairness of certain artists you don't like getting paid when you're not isn't going to change that either. I'm sure you know that, but I think it's worth saying.



I couldn't give a flying fuck if I never sell another painting. I don't need the money. I paint for my own enjoyment and sometimes sell if I've too many. Ive paintings in a few galleries by invitation. If they sell..grand.  if not..I'm not arsed...
But I also dont give a flying fuck if someone wants to pay millions for a blob of shit on a canvas. That's their choice. My argument is with the reverence attached to what is currently viewed as "high art" ... the shit on a stick ... the egg plops out of vagina...the  "shock" factor that is now boringly predictable.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

yeah, bob, I think we get that by now!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I wasn't accusing you of anything...I was saying what you did doesn't seem to hold up to your own standards of how you judge other artists very well.




I've said umpteen times that my three paintings in the style of Rothko were in my opinion, no good. I was very honest about them. Others here also said this. You said they were rubbish too as I recall.
But funnily enough (at least I think so) the second one went down very well with someone who loves Rothko's art and it was sold.
Who knew? 
The world of art is a confusing one


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> yeah, bob, I think we get that by now!



Speaking for everyone again eh?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

chilango said:


> Here's one I made with sheep shit many years ago.



Is the consistency of sheep shit satisfying as a medium?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've said umpteen times that my three paintings in the style of Rothko were in my opinion, no good. I was very honest about them. Others here also said this. You said they were rubbish too as I recall.
> But funnily enough (at least I think so) the second one went down very well with someone who loves Rothko's art and it was sold.
> Who knew?
> The world of art is a confusing one



ok, but this is my point. You just said yourself they were "rubbish" yet you sold them? How is that ok for you to do, but not for others (who do similarly fraudulent things for money by selling their art, according to you)?


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Is the consistency of sheep shit satisfying as a medium?



Nope.

But it is a preeminent feature of the landscape I was engaging with in that piece.


----------



## chilango (Oct 3, 2014)

A continuation of that piece done a year or so later, but this time attempting to remove the canvas as mediation between artist and landscape. The plan was to hang/exhibit the white suits in place of canvases.

Like many of my works I never got around to completing the project.

It was fun though.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> ok, but this is my point. You just said yourself they were "rubbish" yet you sold them? How is that ok for you to do, but not for others (who do similarly fraudulent things for money by selling their art, according to you)?




Jesus..where did I say any modern artist was fraudulently selling anything? I said if people want to buy shit that's their business. 
Did you read my post at all?
As for my painting, I enjoyed painting it. I spent 8 hours on it. I didn't think it was very good. I'd like if it had been better.  It was of course nothing as good as a Rothko but it also wasn't shit on a canvas and because the buyer really wanted it I sold it. I had no price on it and refused the buyers first two offers as too much. The buyer left very pleased and there was nothing fraudulent or untoward about anything. 


You keep making accusations that I copied a Rothko and that I sold it fraudulently. That is libelous. 
So unless you are either joking or thick it would be a good idea if you retracted that accusation.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

wow, you're completely insane. 

the premise of this entire thread has been about how you think modern artists are conning people out of money. 

I never said you were a fraud, just that you should expect to be judged as such according to your own standards


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

maybe this whole thread is some sort of performance art on your part? if so, good work because you completely played your part to a t.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> wow, you're completely insane.
> 
> the premise of this entire thread has been about how you think modern artists are conning people out of money.
> 
> I never said you were a fraud, just that you should expect to be judged as such according to your own standards



How the fuck would you know what the premise of this thread is?
You've misread and misinterpreted it to represent your own blinkered interptetation.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 3, 2014)

chilango said:


> A continuation of that piece done a year or so later, but this time attempting to remove the canvas as mediation between artist and landscape. The plan was to hang/exhibit the white suits in place of canvases.
> 
> Like many of my works I never got around to completing the project.
> 
> It was fun though.



I saw a series of paintings of trees created using mostly white canvas and either tar or oil.  The juxtaposition of a medium associated with technology and environmental destruction and nature was interesting.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> maybe this whole thread is some sort of performance art on your part? if so, good work because you completely played your part to a t.



Lol ..I wont take all the credit 
You contributed extremely well too in fairness.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 3, 2014)

You two wanna stop scratching and spitting at one another?  It's disturbing my sensitive, artistic nature.  I'm trying to create here.....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> You two wanna stop scratching and spitting at one another?  It's disturbing my sensitive, artistic nature.  I'm trying to create here.....



Yep.. no problem


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 3, 2014)

Here's something to think about. 
In the past and up to 60 years ago the world of art communicated messages, information,  political commentaries, revolutionary thoughts on society, descriptions depictions criticisms of war.
Then the world got that box in the corner of the sitting room.  The world was instantly there in front of us in all its humanity,  horror, carnage. The world of Hironimous Bosch entered the homes of people all over the world. Since then art (contemporary art..modern abstract .. whichever branch you chose) seems to have lost its way.  It is no longer the messenger it used to be so it has been in a state of flux since. Reinventing itself over and over.
It cannot compete with modern media, (some would say it shouldn't have to) in the sense that media is instantly in your face. So...in my opinion it needs to move in the opposite direction and provide the world with something that the media is incapable of doing....
This is where Rothko was truly a pioneer. He searched for the spiritual and wanted his expressionism to be experienced at a soul level.  I'm waiting for the next Rothko to appear and hoping that the mediocrity that is held up as great art will be seen as a transition to greater things. 

It's a thought. I'm not forcing it down anyone's throat. Take it or leave it.


----------



## fishfinger (Oct 3, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> This is another by the same guy.


Please put photoshop down for a minute


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 3, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Here's something to think about.
> In the past and up to 60 years ago the world of art communicated messages, information,  political commentaries, revolutionary thoughts on society, descriptions depictions criticisms of war.
> Then the world got that box in the corner of the sitting room.  The world was instantly there in front of us in all its humanity,  horror, carnage. The world of Hironimous Bosch entered the homes of people all over the world. Since then art (contemporary art..modern abstract .. whichever branch you chose) seems to have lost its way.  It is no longer the messenger it used to be so it has been in a state of flux since. Reinventing itself over and over.
> It cannot compete with modern media, (some would say it shouldn't have to) in the sense that media is instantly in your face. So...in my opinion it needs to move in the opposite direction and provide the world with something that the media is incapable of doing....
> ...



yet, so many people think Rothko is shit a 5 year old can do! hello?!? how is this not registering? 

surely, with that in mind it's absurd to keep arguing that any other well-regarded modern/conceptual art is worthless just because you can't see it's worth.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 4, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Please put photoshop down for a minute


That wasn't mine... mine are way better


----------



## fishfinger (Oct 4, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> That wasn't mine... mine are way better


Judging by your "Mondrians", I beg to differ


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 4, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Judging by your "Mondrians", I beg to differ


Yeah, nowhere near as good as yours


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 4, 2014)

Yes! to all of this...sums up the question and the answer pretty well, imo


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 4, 2014)

also, the wonderful Sister Wendy explains Rothko and pop art


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 4, 2014)

this thread is basically 'I resent people who can describe their creative output in the lingua franca' vs 'I'm not saying my turd is art but I can goddamn well argue for it's fecal validity. Bartez'


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> Yes! to all of this...sums up the question and the answer pretty well, imo




Yep...pity you didn't read my last post properly. It might have registered that I argued pretty similarly regarding the "flux" that's gone on in modern art in the last 60 years......the fact that as she says, art is trying to find itself ...
So with that in mind we are all entitled to decide for ourselves dont you think???


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> also, the wonderful Sister Wendy explains Rothko and pop art




And yet Rothko despised Pop art ... makes you think doesnt it? Or maybe not in your case as you don't voice a personal opinion on modern art....your opinion is the dictated stock answer to any questioning on the artistic merits of shit.

Btw Sr Wendy is one of my favourite commentators on art.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> this thread is basically 'I resent people who can describe their creative output in the lingua franca' vs 'I'm not saying my turd is art but I can goddamn well argue for it's fecal validity. Bartez'



You're nearly right 
It's
"I resent turds that are exalted as high status art because some dick can argue their fecal validity in terms of creative output"
Vs
"All art is amazeballs.... I know this because everyone in the high status contemporary art world  tells me so. And you're not to dare say otherwise as that would be a blasphemy against creativity"


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 4, 2014)

yeah. I fought and died in this war when studying poetry and successfully arguing that hip-hop is poetry. Its all a false argument anyway. Humans make things and sometimes other humans find these things to be beautiful, pretty, moving. Where use value is indefinable except on a personal level. 

I do think making out that people who enjoy abstract art are just mugs is a bit rich though, so what if they like it. So what if their are reams of crap written about this picture or that poem. It's all what it is. Make it well, make it beautiful. Thats the rasisin detrer


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Make it well, make it beautiful.




In agreement with this... 100%.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

I'm sure many will already know this but for those who may not it's worth a read...despite the rather sensationalist heading the article exposes the fact that the CIA funded and actively promoted a particular style of art for political purposes related to the Cold War.

When talking about art context can sometimes be quite different when examined retrospectively.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Big wheels keep on turning.....


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 4, 2014)

in another timeline socialist realism won


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> in another timeline socialist realism won



Approved yes....with the exception of Yugoslavia as far as I can recollect.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 4, 2014)

N_igma said:


> If you ever seen a Rothko up front you'd change your mind.



Lots of people have told me that. Then I went and saw the stuff in real life and I was completely dumbfounded by the fact that it's the same shit, but bigger.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> At least 99% of it... IMHO
> 
> But you don't have to be a great artist to be considered great. You just have to be a great bullshitter or have a story that art bullshitters think they can sell.



I'm not sure that's the be-all and end-all, but it's certainly the case for some art that commerciality is more important than intrinsic merit, and _spieling_ a good line is as important as the process of making the art (as is an "artist as _enfant terrible_ myth).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> You just asked me to explain! In the very post I quoted!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Art isn't helped by the fact that some people are lazy, and prefer to buy into pre-digested "controversial" positions on art, rather than actually look at the bloody stuff, and unfortunately there's a whole slew of "critics" out there ready to feed them a diet of bullshit. If I'd listened to a lot of critics contemporary to when I saw particular pieces of art, I'd have found their opinions directly antithetical to my own, and yet some of those same critics have now revised their views of, for example, Henry Moore's sculpture and the paintings of the British neo-Romantics, and can only find good things to say about them.  Too many critics don't critique, they write exercises in iconoclasty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2014)

chilango said:


> I like that it's an erased drawing. It's intriguing. What was there? What's left? Traces, remnants, clues, fragments. I find that interesting. But then I like blanks, I like ruins, I like destruction. I like empty spaces.



Now write an essay on your palimpsest, _et voila_, you'll have the _spiel_ to accompany your framed artwork at an exhibition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What is wrong with making art out of shit?
> The Joseph Beuys shit in a can was a work of genius, but ffs this is sixth form art appreciation. I'm a total Philistine when it comes to art, but even I understand some of the concepts behind nonrepresentational art. Does satire not have a place in art? Do you really only want to look at pictures of things?



IMO it was genius because:
a) It was the artists' quantification of "the art business" - a business that could even sell shit in a tin, and
b) he was the first artist to make such an artistic statement so forcefully - forcefully enough that he shocked much of the "art establishment" of the time, who didn't like being the butt of his humour.

And yes, satire very much has a place in art. G-d help us if it ever doesn't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2014)

heinous seamus said:


> Make art not war



"Make art from war" seems to be the aim of most governments. Pity the canvases and sculptures are dead humans.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Nope.
> That's not what he was about.
> And not what the 90 cans of his own shit were about either.
> 
> ...



Mmm, because he really didn't have a reputation for deliberately misleading biographers (when he didn't try to kill them) and journos, did he?


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure that's the be-all and end-all, but it's certainly the case for some art that commerciality is more important than intrinsic merit, and _spieling_ a good line is as important as the process of making the art (as is an "artist as _enfant terrible_ myth).



i was good at both of those aspects.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Hmm, I know more way about Mapplethorpe than Bieber. I would recognise him quicker in the street (and follow him to see if I could gatecrash any party he went to)
> 
> BTW Andres Serrano did the Piss Christ photo, not Mapplethorpe. It's a lovely photo just to look at.



I remember the _faux_ outrage of the British right-wing press about Piss Christ, and how the leader writer for the _Telegraph_ (IIRC Dominic Lawson at the time) went into orgasmic rhapsodies explaining how Sen. Jesse Helms (the rightest of rightwing Republican shitbags) had (successfully) lobbied the National Endowment for the Arts to remove Serrano's funding.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> dulce et decorum est cloaca in loco



No shit?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 4, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yep...pity you didn't read my last post properly. It might have registered that I argued pretty similarly regarding the "flux" that's gone on in modern art in the last 60 years......the fact that as she says, art is trying to find itself ...
> So with that in mind we are all entitled to decide for ourselves dont you think???



yes, it's all about you. seriously, bubbles, I have stopped caring about your opinion completely.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2014)

chilango said:


> i was good at both of those aspects.



You could have been a contender, chili!


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You could have been a contender, chili!



I was. I briefly was.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> yes, it's all about you. seriously, bubbles, I have stopped caring about your opinion completely.



Nah...you may think this but really..it isn't 


Here are a few artists whose work is interesting and beautiful .

Samantha Nicole Russell







And one of my favourites...
Steve Hannock..




I love his colour palette and style.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 4, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


>


judging by the decor this is our place when we bought it  although the artist has clearly glossed over the stone cladding as beyond the pale...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> IMO it was genius because:
> a) It was the artists' quantification of "the art business" - a business that could even sell shit in a tin, and
> b) he was the first artist to make such an artistic statement so forcefully - forcefully enough that he shocked much of the "art establishment" of the time, who didn't like being the butt of his humour.
> 
> And yes, satire very much has a place in art. G-d help us if it ever doesn't.



Apparently Manzoni once said that he was exposing "the gullibility of the art-buying public" ...
He "said" he wanted to literally produce something from himself. Hence his shit was his "expression" as in expressed from him..and canned for consumption...yeah it was "clever" and satirical...and poked fun at the unquestioning public...  But Piero Manzoni wasn't the first to employ scatology. As far back as Chaucer and I'm sure further than him.. was a theme  in the arts.
It's shit...he knew it was shit...and it's still shit even though the art world is trying not to lose face for buying into his shit...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> judging by the decor this is our place when we bought it



Lol...


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 4, 2014)

I call this one Expressionist's Movement


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I call this one Expressionist's Movement



Liking the texture in this Dr Herbz .... the fibrous quality is interesting. .and the movement and form are reminiscent of Van Gogh's style....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)

The next big name in contemporary shit art has started young.....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 4, 2014)




----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 5, 2014)

If I write some bullshit about this, do you reckon I could sell a few prints?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> If I write some bullshit about this, do you reckon I could sell a few prints?



Definitely. ..


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

.......some invisible art...







































Fascinating isn't it?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

And another. ...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2012/jun/17/invisible-art-unseen-in-pictures




Tom Friedman: Untitled (A Curse) 1992

The American conceptual sculptor hired a professional witch to cast a curse on an 11-inch sphere resting 11 inches over the seemingly blank pedestal.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

Maurizio Cattelan Denunzia 1991 

The Italian provocateur's police report concerning the theft of an invisible artwork from his car


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

Bruno Jakob, Untitled (Horse) Invisible Painting Energy 2003

Bruno Jakob photographed holding up one of his blank canvases to a horse


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

http://www.moma.org/collection/brow...:E:1&page_number=1&template_id=1&sort_order=1






1000 Hours of Staring. .by Tom Friedman.
The artist stared at a blank piece of paper for 1000 hours. 
The medium is listed by the MOMO as "stare on paper".


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

Well DrHerbz and Fez909...what do ye reckon? Invisible art pieces ready by midnight tonight or will we need more time?


I've looked at a space on my bedroom ceiling for years. I could photograph it and post it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...4/sep/30/invisible-art-hoax-lana-newstrom-cbc


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

I like some of those invisible pieces. Especially the police report and the horse one. Not yours though bubblesmcgrath ,  no offence but they lack the interest that the pieces have been thought about have.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> I like some of those invisible pieces. Especially the police report and the horse one. Not yours though bubblesmcgrath ,  no offence but they lack the interest that the pieces have been thought about have.



No offence taken. Maybe some context and narrative will help.. really a lot of thought and time went into selecting the "image not available" picture. There are so many variations. .... in fact it struck me that a collage of thousands of them would be interesting. 
As for my other offering,  every space was counted and there were 1500 spaces.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

Thing is, and your posts illustrate this well (thanks!), good conceptual art works when as much effort goes into the concept as a representational painter will put into the execution of the painting.

Conceptual art isn't "easy" and half-assed bullshit is as distinct from a serious, considered, thought provoking piece as a poorly executed landscape is from a good one.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 5, 2014)

Measuring in at 56' X 28', this is the largest masterpiece that Van Gogh never painted. The piece entitled 'Massive Artist's Block', is housed in an imaginary aircraft hangar at an undisclosed location.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> Thing is, and your posts illustrate this well (thanks!), good conceptual art works when as much effort goes into the concept as a representational painter will put into the execution of the painting.
> 
> Conceptual art isn't "easy" and half-assed bullshit is as distinct from a serious, considered, thought provoking piece as a poorly executed landscape is from a good one.



Nah..sorry..I don't agree.

1000 hours...artist hangs a blank piece of paper up and says he looked at it for 1000 hours.....
Someone buys a piece of white paper as a masterpiece? 
....in 200 years time will it still be a masterpiece?
Real skill and longevity are important too imo.
The artist who sold balloons full of his breath...he blew up a few balloons and suddenly they're art. Buyer realised after three days the air was gone out of them...floppy balloons....
The empty room with two industrial air conditioners blowing air moistened by the water used to wash the dead bodies of mexican drug dealers.
Biggest problem with these examples and the ones abovr is that in my view they're one trick ponies....

But if people want to have balloons full of artist's piss then they're perfectly welcome to buy them. 
And the galleries that promote these balloons full of piss are entitled to do so. And if some art professor decides to award the piss filled balloons with a prize then hurrah fot the artist..the gallery. ..the buyer...
But please don't expect or think that I'll ever believe it is an aesthetically worthwhile exercise.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 5, 2014)

Free to good home!!!

This pixel has been sat on an old monitor in my garage for 16 years, so I plugged in the monitor and set the pixel free.

I did have to encapsulate the pixel to prevent it from escaping.







If you feel you could give this pixel a good home, please contact me.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Nah..sorry..I don't agree.
> 
> 1000 hours...artist hangs a blank piece of paper up and says he looked at it for 1000 hours.....
> Someone buys a piece of white paper as a masterpiece?



It was never a masterpiece. It was never anything more than a blank piece of paper... unless you're a deluded bullshitter.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It was never a masterpiece. It was never anything more than a blank piece of paper... unless you're a deluded bullshitter.



People paid £8 to see it at the Hayward Gallery in London. 
"I think visitors will find that there is plenty to see and experience in this exhibition of invisible art," said Ralph Rugoff, director of the Hayward Gallery"

"Also in the exhibition will be Warhol's work Invisible Sculpture – dating from 1985 – which consists of an empty plinth, on which he had once briefly stepped, one of his many explorations of the nature of celebrity."

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...unveils-invisible-art-exhibition-7767057.html


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

This cracks me up completely though. ...

In 2005 Gianni Motti sold a work which he said he had moulded using fat from Silvio Berlusconi  for £9,862. (He reportedly acquired the fat from a liposuction clinic)
The guy's got a sense of humour in fairness lol.....and I bet he lolled all the way to the soon to be bust bank of Italy.
Now that's performance art ....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Free to good home!!!
> 
> This pixel has been sat on an old monitor in my garage for 16 years, so I plugged in the monitor and set the pixel free.
> 
> ...



I'll start the bidding at  €2...
It's an historic commentary on the movement of digital society through the period encapsulating the millenium.
This pixel has experienced the trials and tribulations of bugs, Windows 98, XP and more. 
It's a statement about the freedom that the digital world has afforded humankind and as such is remarkable in and of itself.

Definitely a goer ...
I may even bid against myself as a defiant act of performance art...

Yes!!!!!

€3!!!!!!


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

I'm afraid you're chucking around terms somewhat indiscriminately. Masterpieces and "good" artworks are not mutually interchangeable terms. Masterpiece has a different meaning, a culturally loaded one in part? But also in part more reliant upon the technical skill of the artist. So, of course, it's more appropriate for certain forms of art than others. The skill in conceptual art comes from an intellectual source rather than a technical source.

Equally art does not always have rely upon aesthetics (and especially not beauty) for its "quality". To believe so is very limiting.

But, I guess I'm wasting my breath here. Teenagers are able to "get it", but it appears some of you don't, or choose not to. 

Oh well.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well DrHerbz and Fez909...what do ye reckon? Invisible art pieces ready by midnight tonight or will we need more time?
> 
> 
> I've looked at a space on my bedroom ceiling for years. I could photograph it and post it.


Sorry, that's too short a time for me to be able to produce something like this. I'll need to research the methods used in these invisible pieces to really do the topic justice.

I'm fascinated by the different methods used to produce the same effect.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Sorry, that's too short a time for me to be able to produce something like this. I'll need to research the methods used in these invisible pieces to really do the topic justice.
> 
> I'm fascinated by the different methods used to produce the same effect.



Ok...week from today suit you better?

My ceiling hopefully wont cave in in the meantime. 
There's a spider living in the lightshade so I hope to capture it daily.within a pinhole camera. My vision is that the image created will be an alternative inversion to reality.  Is it a ceiling? Is it a floor? Oh it is sheer delight to be free from the constrains of brushes and canvas and paint!! No skills required. And even though my bullshitometer is in need of a battery I'm sure I'll make the deadline.
Let's hope Incy Wincy does too.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> I'm afraid you're chucking around terms somewhat indiscriminately. Masterpieces and "good" artworks are not mutually interchangeable terms. Masterpiece has a different meaning, a culturally loaded one in part? But also in part more reliant upon the technical skill of the artist. So, of course, it's more appropriate for certain forms of art than others. The skill in conceptual art comes from an intellectual source rather than a technical source.
> 
> Equally art does not always have rely upon aesthetics (and especially not beauty) for its "quality". To believe so is very limiting.
> 
> ...



Philistines, aren't they!!!!

Do you want to buy a pixel?


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Philistines, aren't they!!!!
> 
> Do you want to buy a pixel?



The flaunting of wilful ignorance gets tiresome after a while.

Critiques are usually stronger when the subject under scrutiny is understood.

But nevermind, you just carry on.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> The flaunting of wilful ignorance gets tiresome after a while.
> 
> Critiques are usually stronger when the subject under scrutiny is understood.
> 
> But nevermind, you just carry on.



I realise you have to play along with it in order to validate your own sheep shit 'art' but I choose not to be drawn into a world of bullshit, where people look down their nose at anyone who doesn't 'get' puke and dog shit = art.

But never mind... you carry on


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I realise you have to play along with it in order to validate your own sheep shit 'art' but I choose not to be drawn into a world of bullshit, where people look down their nose at anyone who doesn't 'get' puke and dog shit = art.
> 
> But never mind... you carry on



I look down on people who celebrate ignorance.

There's plenty wrong with the art world. 

More than I suspect you realise. 

But as long you can't be arsed to even try and understand it, the easier for them to carry on. 

Focus on the shit and the puke, it's easier than addressing the manufacturing of tastes, the engineering of culture etc etc

C'mon. You're being totally played here. 

As for me. I don't play along with it. I've little to do with the art world anymore. But at least I understand why.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> I look down on people who celebrate ignorance.
> 
> There's plenty wrong with the art world.
> 
> ...


Too many assumptions...


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Yoo many assumptions...



Then challenge them .

I can only go on what's posted.

There's a lot to discuss about how the art world functions, about how elitism is perpetuated through the stratification of taste etc.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> I look down on people who celebrate ignorance



You assume people are ignorant?
What an arrogant liberty to take..
I've spent 25 years in art....and have exhibited on three continents. Your lecturing is boring.



chilango said:


> There's plenty wrong with the art world.
> More than I suspect you realise.



Then why are you defending it?



chilango said:


> But as long you can't be arsed to even try and understand it, the easier for them to carry on.



Which "Them" do you mean? The wealthy backers of modern art galleries who promote particular styles above others?



chilango said:


> Focus on the shit and the puke, it's easier than addressing the manufacturing of tastes, the engineering of culture etc etc.



Don't you see that the managers of the art world actively promote a set of styles as a means to engineering culture and society?  You do realise that the art world as in the world of modernism embodied by the likes of Hirst and others is also being "managed". Just as the CIA controlled the rise to fame of Pollock and Rothko.
Do you really think the art world is free?

And you have the gall to assumed that views expressed here were by "ignorant" people.?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> There's a lot to discuss about how the art world functions, about how elitism is perpetuated through the stratification of taste etc.



Bravo...the penny drops with you.
What the fuck did you think this thread was about?


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Bravo...the penny drops with you.
> What the fuck did you think this thread was about?



I'm sorry it seemed to be about how art you didn't like was shit.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You assume people are ignorant?
> What an arrogant liberty to take..
> I've spent 25 years in art....and have exhibited on three continents. Your lecturing is boring.
> 
> ...



More serious posts like this and less "look at this it's shit" and we might get somewhere.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> I'm sorry it seemed to be about how art you didn't like was shit.



Should have looked a bit deeper then..and seen that there was a lot more going on ... 

You saw the surface but ignored the depth.

Oh well.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> More serious posts like this and less "look at this it's shit" and we might get somewhere.



I'm not interested in separating this art from the art world. It's part of the mess. We need to be reminded that we have signed into this controlled environment. And examining it is part of that process. 

To be honest I doubt we will get anywhere....even with all the discussions and arguments. .. We are not in control and never will be. But we should have some control over our thoughts and this is why this thread was started. It was an attempt to provoke people....to get people thinking ...questioning...arguing...

I think if you read through it again you'll see that it has done that.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> More serious posts like this and less "look at this it's shit" and we might get somewhere.




Truth is often the jester


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

The most interesting/serious point of discussion was when we were talking about why it's not possible to look at Van Gogh free from the weight of culture. 

That argument is at the crux of all that has followed IMO. 

That our tastes are shaped, not in a crude propagandistic sense, but in a more all pervading way. 

I would've hoped we could have looked at both Abstract and Conceptual Art in term as of cultural capital and how the production/accumulation of this augments economic capital. 

Whether we like a work is kinda irrelevant (except in terms of figuring out what has shaped that liking - where does that "taste" come from, and why).

Whether a work is "Good" is also kinda irrelevant (except - again - in terms of figuring out how this judgement is made, by who, and why). Because works that are "good" play just as much a part in perpetuating this as those that aren't. More so in fact.

We're all part of this, with our tastes, our preferences ,our place in the class system. But it's not a secret, not a conspiracy, we can recognise all this, examine all this and and demystify it somewhat.

If we want to.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

So, to start, how - and why - do you think Conceptual Art functions as "high Art", as an elite form of cultural capital? Why not (say) photorealistic painting?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> So, to start, how - and why - do you think Conceptual Art functions as "high Art", as an elite form of cultural capital?



Because it's being promoted as such.
And people are unquestioningly guided by "art critics", gallery directors and greed.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

I don't need to recommence teasing the art world out and I'm sure anyone with a brain can decide for themselves what is going on. 



Dr_Herbz said:


> Philistines, aren't they!!!!
> 
> Do you want to buy a pixel?



I'm upping my offer of €7.50 and a bag of Walkers Salt and Vinegar Squares ...


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Because it's being promoted as such.
> And people are unquestioningly guided by "art critics", gallery directors and greed.



Why?

How?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> Why?
> 
> How?




I doubt history is not repeating itself and there is definitely a "glass ceiling" for certain styles but not others. 
Take Digital Art.
The most modern artist's medium.
Yet it's just not getting "air time" in certain galleries. 
Why?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 7, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Free to good home!!!
> 
> This pixel has been sat on an old monitor in my garage for 16 years, so I plugged in the monitor and set the pixel free.
> 
> ...



Have you still got this DrHerbz?
It's really quite a brilliant idea.
Much more interesting than a blank piece of paper. ..

I think the debate about good art depends on whether you're someone who just accepts what an "expert" tells you (like there can ever really be such a being when art appreciation is subjective)
Or
You're someone who questions the world around you and asks why a balloon of piss is suddenly a "well thought out artwork".
Why is it that brilliant landscape art is excluded from "modern art" galleries?
Why shouldn't it be included?
Why is it that a row of red bricks is viewed as a "significant art" when it is replicated on a daily basis by bricklayers...and I'm aware someome will say "but that's the point....it's removed from there and positioned in a gallery so that's what makes is art..it's a commentary on the working man"..or some other shit.
Where has transcending the banality of the mundane gone? Why are imaginations so boringly predictable?
An empty room with a light going on and off. Sure... I could come up with lots of deep meaningful thoughts on that and I could interpret it in many different ways but it's essentially a boring form of art that leaves this viewer feeling cheated out of £8 and bored to boot.
Why is "ordinary" suddenly art?
Why is it that the Tate modern seems to refuse to show art that is photorealistic or digital ....even impressionistic? Why is it excluding contemporary landscape and portrait artists who paint in particular styles?

Russia, or rather the Kremlin, has banned the use of profanity in all art since July this year.
I'm predicting a massive increase in the use of certain words in art in the west...they'll be dawbed all over art...some unknown artist (not a yellowist) will decide to scrawl these profane words on a Russian art work or two held in a western museum of art. It will all be boringly predictable and the art world will shudder.
Sigh..........

Back to the shit art now...it's more fun than debating the Taste of Tate .





Photo of the Rhein entitled Rhein II
By Andreas Gursky which sold for $4.3 million. Yes.. yes..I see it. ... the parallel lines.... the structure.... the form...so minimalist.......the emotion...it's Rothko in a photo....the romantic landscape...man communes with nature...in full living colour.... all three metres of it...banal canal...


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Should have looked a bit deeper then..and seen that there was a lot more going on ...
> 
> You saw the surface but ignored the depth.
> 
> Oh well.



too bad there never was any depth, though. you can keep repeating the same thing over and over, doesn't change the fact that you're not coming across as anything more than an art troll, and you haven't for the whole thread


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 8, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> too bad there never was any depth, though. you can keep repeating the same thing over and over, doesn't change the fact that you're not coming across as anything more than an art troll, and you haven't for the whole thread



Ah sure you're a bit biased  ... 
Keep posting


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 8, 2014)

Do I detect a romance blossoming here? I see and smell all levels of passion!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 8, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Do I detect a romance blossoming here? I see and smell all levels of passion!




ROFL....(I wish there was a smilie) 
Between who ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> ROFL....(I wish there was a smilie)
> Between who ?




One of the ladies doth protest tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 8, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> One of the ladies doth protest tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much!



Lol
Nah..
I'm very happily spoken for


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 8, 2014)

Showoff!   

So go argue/tussle/romp/challenge them? 

What's wrong with you attached folks?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 8, 2014)




----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I doubt history is not repeating itself and there is definitely a "glass ceiling" for certain styles but not others.
> Take Digital Art.
> The most modern artist's medium.
> Yet it's just not getting "air time" in certain galleries.
> Why?



Photography had much the same problem when it was a new medium.  It takes a while for new ideas to be accepted, however much the art world proclaims to be accepting of innovation.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And people are unquestioningly guided by "art critics", gallery directors and greed.



I'd never trust a gallery director's opinion over my own.

I've seen the level of collusion that occurs in that circle.  Among other things, I've seen directors giving shows to their friends in exchange for a job later or a director buying work from a gallery in exchange for a job later.   The art world has its share of "old boy networking." 

On the flip side, I've also seen directors devote their entire lives to building a collection just for the pure love of it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 9, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Photography had much the same problem when it was a new medium.  It takes a while for new ideas to be accepted, however much the art world proclaims to be accepting of innovation.



Digital art is not new. The art world refuses to accept it because the art world is controlled by people who refuse to align with something they think is beneath art. They have a limited view of "Art" . They have forfeited the connection that existed between art and science for the idea of "conceptualism" which is devoted to the cult of personality and excludes anything which they deem to be non personal.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 9, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Do I detect a romance blossoming here? I see and smell all levels of passion!



 not a chance in hell. sorry, bubbles.
why do people always say stuff like this?
there's emotionally charged, passionate arguing, then there's people whose opinions and persona you find so unappealing you wish you never came across them. nothing sexy about that feeling.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 9, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> not a chance in hell. sorry, bubbles.
> why do people always say stuff like this?
> there's emotionally charged, passionate arguing, then there's people whose opinions you find so unappealing you wish you never came across them. nothing sexy about that feeling.




Jeez
You thought she was on about you?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2014)

Cave paintings change ideas about the origin of art
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29415716
The artworks are in a rural area on the Indonesian Island of Sulawesi.
Until now, paintings this old had been confirmed in caves only in Western Europe.
Researchers tell the journal Nature that the Indonesian discovery transforms ideas about how humans first developed the ability to produce art.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Digital art is not new. The art world refuses to accept it because the art world is controlled by people who refuse to align with something they think is beneath art. They have a limited view of "Art" . They have forfeited the connection that existed between art and science for the idea of "conceptualism" which is devoted to the cult of personality and excludes anything which they deem to be non personal.



It's still new in comparison to the traditional mediums (millennia as opposed to decades).  Photography has been around more than 100 years and you still get people questioning it as a "valid" medium.  I think some of digital art's problem is similar to photography in another way.  The easy reproducibility of that art devalues it in some people's eyes.  Anything "popular" or "accessible" is always suspect in some circles.

I think you're giving the "art elite" more power than they're really due.  There's not just one art market with New York or Paris as the center.  There's multiple art centers and multiple markets. 

There's even a parallel market for realist/traditional painting that takes very little direction from New York or Paris.  You'll never hear about these artists and galleries in Art News or see them in major museums, but go to Dallas, Denver, Aspen, or Jackson Hole and you'll see street after street of galleries selling work at high prices.  Artists a New York gallery wouldn't consider representing, and that's fine.   They're still making a good living making and selling art.  They're funded by oil billionaires who don't care what's selling in NY.  They buy stuff they like and it isn't conceptual art.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 9, 2014)

I also suspect that in the future, the gallery system will have to either make changes to survive or you'll see fewer galleries.  Artists who are good marketers can sell their own art without going through a gallery.  With the internet and other low-cost marketing strategies, artists won't find parting with 40% or more of the selling price of a piece all that appealing.  A similar thing has already happened in the music industry.


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I also suspect that in the future, the gallery system will have to either make changes to survive or you'll see fewer galleries.  Artists who are good marketers can sell their own art without going through a gallery.  With the internet and other low-cost marketing strategies, artists won't find parting with 40% or more of the selling price of a piece all that appealing.  A similar thing has already happened in the music industry.



Artists have never "needed" galleries to sell their work. All over the world artists get their work to its audience in a myriad of ways.

Selling through galleries is more about status and, I guess, legitimacy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2014)

chilango said:


> I'm afraid you're chucking around terms somewhat indiscriminately. Masterpieces and "good" artworks are not mutually interchangeable terms. Masterpiece has a different meaning, a culturally loaded one in part? But also in part more reliant upon the technical skill of the artist.



"Masterpiece", used as an accurate-ish description, tends to be a product of age. Most artistic masterpieces don't, unless given the label by partisan promoters of the artist, get *meaningfully* given the label until a couple of generations after the artwork is made, IMO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2014)

chilango said:


> I look down on people who celebrate ignorance.
> 
> There's plenty wrong with the art world.
> 
> ...



It does kind of give "the art world" (by which I mean the promoters and agents and galleries and collectors) an easy ride, in that if you don't arm yourself to challenge their interpretation of high art on their terms (rather than just mocking it, mock-worthy though a lot of it is), they can forever pull the old trick of saying "but you don't *understand* what the artist is saying..."



> Focus on the shit and the puke, it's easier than addressing the manufacturing of tastes, the engineering of culture etc etc
> 
> C'mon. You're being totally played here.
> 
> As for me. I don't play along with it. I've little to do with the art world anymore. But at least I understand why.



I'm not sure that "taste" is produced in as blatant a way as being manufactured, but it's certainly the case that prevailing cultural discourses steer people in the development of their "taste", and culture is certainly "engineered", be it blatantly _a la_ the Nazi denigration and removal of "alien" cultural artifacts, or subtly, such as the preferences expressed by critics for the products of particular artists (of whichever artistic field) within a school or genre.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 9, 2014)

chilango said:


> Artists have never "needed" galleries to sell their work. All over the world artists get their work to its audience in a myriad of ways.
> 
> Selling through galleries is more about status and, I guess, legitimacy.



I generally agree with you.  It's just that digital technology had made the process of the artist self-representing themselves so much easier and accessible.  Its changed the marketing of nearly everything, I don't see the art world as being immune.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> It's still new in comparison to the traditional mediums (millennia as opposed to decades).  Photography has been around more than 100 years and you still get people questioning it as a "valid" medium.  I think some of digital art's problem is similar to photography in another way.  The easy reproducibility of that art devalues it in some people's eyes.  Anything "popular" or "accessible" is always suspect in some circles.
> 
> I think you're giving the "art elite" more power than they're really due.



While they may shape "taste" quite forcefully, there's still a fair bit of autonomy expressed by those who aren't "art professionals" or interested parties. To use an example which I'm sure at least one poster will protest about, Jack Vettriano's work is popular with a wider public, yet anathematised by many critics and artists. Also, as I mentioned earlier, Rousseau's paintings were held by critics to be little better than amateurish daubs until they became popular, at which time critical analysis shifted, rhapsodising over the "naive" style and the _outre_ subject matter.



> There's not just one art market with New York or Paris as the center.  There's multiple art centers and multiple markets.



As Adorno and Horkheimer mentioned in "The Culture Industry" 60+ years ago.



> There's even a parallel market for realist/traditional painting that takes very little direction from New York or Paris.  You'll never hear about these artists and galleries in Art News or see them in major museums, but go to Dallas, Denver, Aspen, or Jackson Hole and you'll see street after street of galleries selling work at high prices.  Artists a New York gallery wouldn't consider representing, and that's fine.   They're still making a good living making and selling art.  They're funded by oil billionaires who don't care what's selling in NY.  They buy stuff they like and it isn't conceptual art.



You've also got painters in most places making a living with old-fashioned landscapes and portraits - paintings people want because a painted representation is often easier to project your thoughts about a place onto - easier to idealise -than a photographic representation is.


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I generally agree with you.  It's just that digital technology had made the process of the artist self-representing themselves so much easier and accessible.  Its changed the marketing of nearly everything, I don't see the art world as being immune.



Absolutely.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 9, 2014)

chilango said:


> So, to start, how - and why - do you think Conceptual Art functions as "high Art", as an elite form of cultural capital? Why not (say) photorealistic painting?



Can someone give me a definition of "high Art."  I cringe every time I see that phrase because I'm not certain such a thing really exists outside someone's overblown fantasy of the value of their own opinion.

I'm reminded of a Science Fiction book I read some years ago about an alien culture that invades Earth.  Part of their incorporation of a culture into theirs was to choose an aspect to incorporate into their "high art."  For Earth they choose Elvis impersonation.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've also got painters in most places making a living with old-fashioned landscapes and portraits - paintings people want because a painted representation is often easier to project your thoughts about a place onto - easier to idealise -than a photographic representation is.



Would that make Stanley Edwards a _good_ example?  All his hard work at being a bad example is going to waste.


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Can someone give me a definition of "high Art."  I cringe every time I see that phrase because I'm not certain such a thing really exists outside someone's overblown fantasy of the value of their own opinion.
> 
> I'm reminded of a Science Fiction book I read some years ago about an alien culture that invades Earth.  Part of their incorporation of a culture into theirs was to choose an aspect to incorporate into their "high art."  For Earth they choose Elvis impersonation.



High art = elite rather than popular . More weight as cultural capital


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Masterpiece", used as an accurate-ish description, tends to be a product of age. Most artistic masterpieces don't, unless given the label by partisan promoters of the artist, get *meaningfully* given the label until a couple of generations after the artwork is made, IMO.


yeh, it's why penguin classics are books that have stood the test of time*

*barring morrissey's autobiography


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 9, 2014)

chilango said:


> High art = elite rather than popular . More weight as cultural capital



Still makes me cringe.


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Still makes me cringe.



Yeah.

It's not a good thing, but it is a thing.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 9, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> It's still new in comparison to the traditional mediums (millennia as opposed to decades).  Photography has been around more than 100 years and you still get people questioning it as a "valid" medium.  I think some of digital art's problem is similar to photography in another way.  The easy reproducibility of that art devalues it in some people's eyes.  Anything "popular" or "accessible" is always suspect in some circles.
> 
> I think you're giving the "art elite" more power than they're really due.  There's not just one art market with New York or Paris as the center.  There's multiple art centers and multiple markets.
> 
> There's even a parallel market for realist/traditional painting that takes very little direction from New York or Paris.  You'll never hear about these artists and galleries in Art News or see them in major museums, but go to Dallas, Denver, Aspen, or Jackson Hole and you'll see street after street of galleries selling work at high prices.  Artists a New York gallery wouldn't consider representing, and that's fine.   They're still making a good living making and selling art.  They're funded by oil billionaires who don't care what's selling in NY.  They buy stuff they like and it isn't conceptual art.



I too think many (false) assumptions are being made. I don't think digital art not being taken seriously is a thing  , even in my little community art center we discuss/ educate on the merits of digital art which has been accepted to our shows, and nobody really seems to put up much resistance. 
Also, it's funny to say that on the one hand the "art world" is so avant garde that they regard all kinds of unusual media as art, but somehow they're also very anti-digital?  I feel like this is just more fantasizing by a frustrated amateur artist. 

Anyway! Enough about that, but good points Yuwipi. Not as many artists are able to sell work and gain notoriety as anyone would like, but still many do quite well across the country. I don't encounter too many people who get all hung up on not being accepted to the more "prestigious" enclaves either. Artists find their niche and go with it, ime.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 9, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I generally agree with you.  It's just that digital technology had made the process of the artist self-representing themselves so much easier and accessible.  Its changed the marketing of nearly everything, I don't see the art world as being immune.



meh. it's still not very easy, for anyone. you also have to get people to actually SEE your stuff. And want to buy it. People like to see things in person, for the most part, unless it's little decorative things from Etsy, etc.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 9, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> Also, it's funny to say that on the one hand the "art world" is so avant garde that they regard all kinds of unusual media as art, but somehow they're also very anti-digital?.



Who said that?
Many "modern art" galleries promote certain styles.
In doing so other styles are excluded.
Digital art is not getting wall space in many "modern art" galleries.  I regularly visit galleries that promote "abstract", "installation" and "conceptual" art. Visual digital art is only occasionally represented.




Miss Caphat said:


> I feel like this is just more fantasizing by a frustrated amateur artist



Lol.....you're a card...


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2014)

I s'pose it depends upon what "sort" of digital art we're talking about.

Digital "painting" etc.? Sure, it's not "esteemed" as high art by and large (with exceptions such as Hockney's forays into using his iPod).

But more "interactive" or "installational" stuff is well represented IME.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 9, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> not a chance in hell. sorry, bubbles.
> why do people always say stuff like this?
> there's emotionally charged, passionate arguing, then there's people whose opinions and persona you find so unappealing you wish you never came across them. nothing sexy about that feeling.



I was joking Miss Caphat I am surprised you never realised that!  




bubblesmcgrath said:


> Jeez
> You thought she was on about you?



I was, on about you both actually!


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 9, 2014)

digital art, articles about recent exhibitions etc

major one in London featuring Hockney, etc: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennife...ses-art-meets-hacking-for-digital-innovation/

sold out digital art exhibition London https://www.barbican.org.uk/digital-revolution

another one http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whatson/mirrorcity-23-london-artists-86590?dt=2014-10-14


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 9, 2014)

chilango said:


> I s'pose it depends upon what "sort" of digital art we're talking about.
> 
> 
> Digital "painting" etc.? Sure, it's not "esteemed" as high art by and large (with exceptions such as Hockney's forays into using his iPod).
> ...



Isn't the Turner prize or whatever full of digital stuff this year?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 9, 2014)

chilango said:


> I s'pose it depends upon what "sort" of digital art we're talking about.
> 
> Digital "painting" etc.? Sure, it's not "esteemed" as high art by and large (with exceptions such as Hockney's forays into using his iPod).
> 
> But more "interactive" or "installational" stuff is well represented IME.



Exactly


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 9, 2014)

also, yes, galleries tend to specialize in certain styles. therefore, they all exclude certain types of art. there are _far _more galleries that sell more mainstream art than conceptual. I would venture a guess that it's over 1000 to 1, probably quite a bit more


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Isn't the Turner prize or whatever full of digital stuff this year?



Dunno.

But it's a bit of a red herring anyway. Certain "styles" of digital art don't get the status that bubbles (and many vocal internet art forum posters) believe it deserves.

Not coincidently this style shares much with styles of painting that many of the same group equally complain about a lack of status for.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 9, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Isn't the Turner prize or whatever full of digital stuff this year?



I could be wrong but I thought there were two film makers  a print artist and someone with slide projections to sound.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 9, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> I was joking Miss Caphat I am surprised you never realised that!



I really wasn't sure!


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> also, yes, galleries tend to specialize in certain styles. therefore, they all exclude certain types of art. there are _far _more galleries that sell more mainstream art than conceptual. I would venture a guess that it's over 1000 to 1, probably quite a bit more



It's not about that really. It's about status. About recognition and validation from the very critics and institutions the complainers claim to despise.

That's the sad irony.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 9, 2014)

chilango said:


> It's not about that really. It's about status. About recognition and validation from the very critics and institutions the complainers claim to despise.
> 
> That's the sad irony.



ok. 
I guess, I just am not picking up on their being all that much tension in the art world, personally, after coming in contact with many many artists along the way (art school /gallery/ art center positions/teaching, etc).
It seems like artists for the most part gravitate towards what they like as far as genre and style and media, and how they choose to express themselves comes pretty naturally, and if anyone makes it, conceptual artist, metal sculptor, or graphic designer/ illustrator, then kudos to them because it's never easy!


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 9, 2014)

that being said, I can see how the more mainstream digital artists could have a point about not being taken seriously. what kind of stuff are we talking about here, in general?


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> ok.
> I guess, I just am not picking up on their being all that much tension in the art world, personally, after coming in contact with many many artists along the way (art school /gallery/ art center positions/teaching, etc).
> It seems like artists for the most part gravitate towards what they like as far as genre and style and media, and how they choose to express themselves comes pretty naturally, and if anyone makes it, conceptual artist, metal sculptor, or graphic designer/ illustrator, then kudos to them because it's never easy!



It's not in the art world you'll find this tension it's on Internet forums.

(Though I experienced it occasionally at art school from some if my more mature, traditionally minded peers who resented "sheep shit" getting better grades than paintings )


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 9, 2014)

chilango said:


> It's not in the art world you'll find this tension it's on Internet forums.
> 
> (Though I experienced it occasionally at art school from some if my more mature, traditionally minded peers who resented "sheep shit" getting better grades than paintings )



there was one guy in my freshman year...he was actually really amusing, but he used to go on these rants about how all art these days was bs, and how surrealism was the only true art form left. I was like "mmm...okay....?  "


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 9, 2014)

chilango said:


> Dunno.
> 
> But it's a bit of a red herring anyway. Certain "styles" of digital art don't get the status that bubbles (and many vocal internet art forum posters) believe it deserves.
> 
> Not coincidently this style shares much with styles of painting that many of the same group equally complain about a lack of status for.



There's a temptation in some digital art towards romanticism.  That kind of romanticism hasn't been in fashion in the art world for at least a century.  I'm not suggesting that its all unicorns and rainbows, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. 

(Flaming to commence in 5, 4, 3....)


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 9, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> Also, it's funny to say that on the one hand the "art world" is so avant garde that they regard all kinds of unusual media as art, but somehow they're also very anti-digital?  I feel like this is just more fantasizing by a frustrated amateur artist.



You might have a point.  Often frustrated artists blame the system instead of their own failings.

However, I still maintain that there are some mediums that have more acceptance than others in galleries.  Ask a gallery director about art quilts and see where that goes.  Fabric gets very little respect as a medium despite the fact it can be used in ways much the same as traditional mediums.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 9, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> You might have a point.  Often frustrated artists blame the system instead of their own failings.
> 
> However, I still maintain that there are some mediums that have more acceptance than others in galleries.  Ask a gallery director about art quilts and see where that goes.  Fabric gets very little respect as a medium despite the fact it can be used in ways that appear much the same as traditional mediums.



Thing is they're often very large (quilts/ wall hangings)! I don't have much experience w/ that...we had some great fabric/ quilting artists in our community that got displayed a lot, but I think the community was probably more suited to that than others (New Englandy/ touristy, antique-y) so it worked there.
Fabric art is awesome though! Those were always some of my favorite shows while I was a student, and I loved to see what the textile dept. students were doing


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

I knew students who were literally turned away at art college who were ahead of the game with software programming and wanted to use their knowledge to produce art...this was years ago of course and it took off elsewhere since. ..but art colleges in Ireland interviewing for places at the time were not interested in the world of programming. It was outside their remit in their eyes ..
I guess I'm a bit old fashioned.  I liked the idea that art and science ....were connected.
I look at The Turner art competition this year and wonder wtf a video of an anal sphincter tightening as it encounters a flower has to do with all the things art used to mean ...
It's not aesthetically pleasing...it's not something I personally view as innovative. .... and I'm sick of the "you don't understand conceptual art" line.



Miss Caphat said:


> too bad there never was any depth, though. you can keep repeating the same thing over and over, doesn't change the fact that you're not coming across as anything more than an art troll, and you haven't for the whole thread



And youhave been personalising the thread and throwing accusations around...Something that was not needed.
Why not start your own thread on art?
And post some of your own work?


----------



## chilango (Oct 10, 2014)

Why doesn't art like this win the Turner Prize?


----------



## chilango (Oct 10, 2014)

Hmmmm? Well?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23535-philosophy-and-conceptual-art/

A review by Robert Yanal of "Philosophy and Conceptual Art ", Goldie and Shellekens, (eds.).

This is a review of a book which outlines, discusses and debates a collection of essays that look at conceptualism in art .. many of these essays (papers) having been presented at a conference in King's College, London. 

Worth a read...
Experts describe their understanding of  the meaning and characteristics of conceptualism ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> Why doesn't art like this win the Turner Prize?


tits win prizes


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23535-philosophy-and-conceptual-art/
> 
> A review by Robert Yanal of "Philosophy and Conceptual Art ", Goldie and Shellekens, (eds.).
> 
> ...


strand poly more famous for its collection of military archivesthan its art critics


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> Why doesn't art like this win the Turner Prize?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2014)




----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I knew students who were literally turned away at art college who were ahead of the game with software programming and wanted to use their knowledge to produce art...this was years ago of course and it took off elsewhere since. ..but art colleges in Ireland interviewing for places at the time were not interested in the world of programming. It was outside their remit in their eyes ..



things are definitely changing - there's a very strong emphasis on emerging technologies these days ime.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I knew students who were literally turned away at art college who were ahead of the game with software programming and wanted to use their knowledge to produce art...this was years ago of course and it took off elsewhere since. ..but art colleges in Ireland interviewing for places at the time were not interested in the world of programming. It was outside their remit in their eyes ..


beauty, as i think you said above, in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

thought this thread might enjoy this. this term they're getting us to work harder on 'contextualising' our work and our practice, and talking about it. one of the questions was how do we identify - as artists/craftspeople/designers/whatever - and i chose "artisan" as a place somewhere between art and craft. i shall soon be branching out into unpasteurised cheese, sourdough bread and real ale :thumbs :


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tits win prizes



And get you out of speeding tickets.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>



"Leave that one, Bobby.  I kinda like it."


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I knew students who were literally turned away at art college who were ahead of the game with software programming and wanted to use their knowledge to produce art...this was years ago of course and it took off elsewhere since. ..but art colleges in Ireland interviewing for places at the time were not interested in the world of programming. It was outside their remit in their eyes ..
> I guess I'm a bit old fashioned.  I liked the idea that art and science ....were connected.
> I look at The Turner art competition this year and wonder wtf a video of an anal sphincter tightening as it encounters a flower has to do with all the things art used to mean ...
> It's not aesthetically pleasing...it's not something I personally view as innovative. .... and I'm sick of the "you don't understand conceptual art" line.
> ...




cool story.

I've really liked a lot of the contributions to this thread, and I think there's been some great discussion in spite of the antagonistic theme, so no need to start a new one.

not sure what my own artwork has to do with anything. my own artwork is rarely conceptual. doesn't mean I can't appreciate many different forms of art.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> beauty, as i think you said above, in the eye of the beholder.



also, it might very well have been because there would be no one there to instruct them (the students using programming to produce art)...you can't really accept students to a program which doesn't exist.


----------



## moon (Oct 10, 2014)

Why Art School is a Waste of Money


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

tell me it somehow gets better informed or more coherent after the first 2 1/2 minutes... he's a practising artist who makes some kind of living out of it, right?


----------



## moon (Oct 10, 2014)

No, he basically says that animation is the only thing you should study at art school


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

well i'll take the value of his comments at face value then and save myself half an hour of my life :thumbs : i have homework to be getting on with


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> well i'll take the value of his comments at face value



i'm not sure that's the way things are done.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

eh? i thought you were eyerolling my atrocious writing, but i have a get out i'm an artist _artisan_


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> tell me it somehow gets better informed or more coherent after the first 2 1/2 minutes... he's a practising artist who makes some kind of living out of it, right?



I have to agree and I was willing to accept his premise.  Art school certainly isn't for everyone.  Anyone who want to paint in realist styles shouldn't bother with more than the foundation courses.  Instead they should take courses from artists they respect and just work, work, work.


----------



## moon (Oct 10, 2014)

I've just signed up for a new online class on drawing faces from different angles and expressions.. hoping it will be fun and informative.. but someone told me that going to life drawing classes was one of the best ways to accelerate learning etc..


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Anyone who want to paint in realist styles shouldn't bother with more than the foundation courses.  Instead they should take courses from artists they respect and just work, work, work.



i can't speak for fine art but certainly as far as my course is concerned they teach us a whole *load* of stuff about professional practice, alongside really challenging theoretical work (which definitely applies to fine art) as well. i really do wonder how many people who have an opinion on the usefulness or otherwise of art school actually have _any_ first-hand experience to draw on (lol).


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

moon said:


> I've just signed up for a new online class on drawing faces from different angles and expressions.. hoping it will be fun and informative.. but someone told me that going to life drawing classes was one of the best ways to accelerate learning etc..



i have a love/hate relationship with drawing and life drawing in particular. in general i don't draw, because i don't particularly enjoy it. but imafo (in my arty-farty opinion ) there's (usually) a visible, qualitative difference between drawings that are underpinned by that experience/skill and those that aren't. while there's a place for both i think there's something about starting at the root - with observation of real life and translation of that into marks on a page - that just _shows_ in the finished work.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

... counts to 3 waiting for someone to post tracey emin's drawings...


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I have to agree and I was willing to accept his premise.  Art school certainly isn't for everyone.  Anyone who want to paint in realist styles shouldn't bother with more than the foundation courses.  Instead they should take courses from artists they respect and just work, work, work.



I think that's true in some ways but not in others. Teachers at art schools don't do much in the way of teaching technique anymore...as in, "this is how you do scenery..." (a la Bob Ross - that sort of direct style: copy what I do) but they do give you the tools you need to find your own style and improve your technique from teaching you how to work with the materials, how to create a great composition, how to look at your own work critically, and so on. 
I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. 
If you want to learn how to paint in a very specific style, and you're not really interested in anything else, perhaps finding a mentor is the way to go instead of going through art school.


----------



## moon (Oct 10, 2014)

I like drawing when I have a burning desire to get something out of me, a visual etc etc.
But I do not like just drawing 'stuff' because it is there and you have to practice.
I guess I need to be more disciplined and hopefully I will be... in time


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> i can't speak for fine art but certainly as far as my course is concerned they teach us a whole *load* of stuff about professional practice, alongside really challenging theoretical work (which definitely applies to fine art) as well. i really do wonder how many people who have an opinion on the usefulness or otherwise of art school actually have _any_ first-hand experience to draw on (lol).



I went to art school and managed to make a profit doing art.  My art school didn't really teach much about professional practice.  We got virtually nothing about working with a gallery or even putting together a professional level portfolio.  I only learned that by going out and doing it and sometimes doing it wrong.  We also only got a foundation in technique. It was really heavy on theory and that's good if you're going to go and try to do "high art".   Perhaps I just went to a crappy art school (entirely possible), but I walked away a little bit damaged by the experience.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I went to art school and managed to make a profit doing art.  My art school didn't really teach much about professional practice.  We got virtually nothing about working with a gallery or even putting together a professional level portfolio.  I only learned that by going out and doing it and sometimes doing it wrong.  Perhaps I just went to a crappy art school, but I walked away a little bit damaged by the experience.



sorry to hear that yw, can i ask how long ago this was? professional context and practice is something they've been driving into us from the very start of my degree (even on the not-so-shit-hot-course)


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> sorry to hear that yw, can i ask how long ago this was? professional context and practice is something they've been driving into us from the very start of my degree (even on the not-so-shit-hot-course)



Ok, showing my age here, but it was the early to mid-80s.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Ok, showing my age here, but it was the early to mid-80s.



i'm the last person to defend tuition fees but ime the expectations of kids who are signing up for a lifetime's debt are quite stringent in terms of what they're getting out of a course. 

(i think you're us? so the fee thing may not hold for your experience tbf... )


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

moon said:


> I've just signed up for a new online class on drawing faces from different angles and expressions.. hoping it will be fun and informative.. but someone told me that going to life drawing classes was one of the best ways to accelerate learning etc..



I cannot agree with this more! Life drawing is so very helpful. You want to start out with a good instructor who will teach you the basics, and then after a while you can just start going to the ones where there is no real "instructor" and you just work on your own objectives. 
I need to start going to life drawing sessions again, after I move. I like to go with watercolors and ink & stuff. More fun that way


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I cannot agree with this more! Life drawing is so very helpful.



i have a tutor who's always pushing me to draw  she's fab and all but i see it as my mission this year to produce some awesome finished work without a single drawing in sight


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> i'm the last person to defend tuition fees but ime the expectations of kids who are signing up for a lifetime's debt are quite stringent in terms of what they're getting out of a course.
> 
> (i think you're us? so the fee thing may not hold for your experience tbf... )



I was a scholarship student at a mid-western land-grant school so my choices were pretty much "take it or leave it."  Someone who went to the Art Institute of Chicago would probably have an entirely different opinion.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> i have a tutor who's always pushing me to draw  she's fab and all but i see it as my mission this year to produce some awesome finished work without a single drawing in sight



That's great, wayward bob!


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I was a scholarship student at a mid-western land-grant school so my choices were pretty much take it or leave it.  Someone who went to the Art Institute of Chicago would probably have an entirely different opinion.



from what I know art schools here are becoming more focused on all of that which wayward bob  mentioned. I know a 19 yr old who is going to the same art school that I went to, and they seem much more results driven. Along with the new regulations coming from outside, I think this also may have to do with most art schools having graphic design departments which are far more business-focused, and it's bled into the other departments as well. Just my theory, though.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

tbf my current plan is to make a machine that will _draw for me_


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> from what I know art schools here are becoming more focused on all of that which wayward bob  mentioned. I know a 19 yr old who is going to the same art school that I went to, and they seem much more results driven. Along with the new regulations coming from outside, I think this also may have to do with most art schools having graphic design departments which are far more business-focused, and it's bled into the other departments as well. Just my theory, though.



That sounds promising.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> tbf my current plan is to make a machine that will _draw for me_


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

yup, like that, but with crystal balls :thumbs :


----------



## moon (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> tbf my current plan is to make a machine that will _draw for me_


you may want to look at plotters that can capture a scene then draw it... my silhouette cameo can do this.. 
Also the robot artist Paul seems to do this too


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

heh  but not quite what i'm after. my plan is basically a completely analogue "laser cutter" (in effect it will only etch not cut cos i live in wales not egypt ) no motors or anything, possibly clockwork...


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> tbf my current plan is to make a machine that will _draw for me_



fwiw, bob, I hope you don't mind me saying so publicly, I really like your drawings...I know it's the actual process you don't like, but still, they have stuck in my mind.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I hope you don't mind me saying so publicly, I really like your drawings...



i _hate_ you saying it  ta


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> i _hate_ you saying it  ta



well, you never know!


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

I love that Urban's become so arty lately  


maybe it's that we're all getting older so seeking out safer, less energy expending pursuits than drugs, raving, etc.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

i do think it's a kind of initiation rite - the whole mark-making/life drawing thing - i can see why, but at the same time i can see equally good reasons why _not_. my experience with all of this stuff is that talking the talk really does matter, because if you can do that - and by that i literally just mean explain yourself _genuinely_, rather than making excuses - then they let you do whatever the hell you want. ime, at least :thumbs :


----------



## moon (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I love that Urban's become so arty lately
> 
> 
> maybe it's that we're all getting older so seeking out safer, less energy expending pursuits than drugs, raving, etc.



Yes, I got fed up of being out all night doing visuals at clubs and needed another creative outlet...


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> i do think it's a kind of initiation rite - the whole mark-making/life drawing thing - i can see why, but at the same time i can see equally good reasons why _not_. my experience with all of this stuff is that talking the talk really does matter, because if you can do that - and by that i literally just mean explain yourself _genuinely_, rather than making excuses - then they let you do whatever the hell you want. ime, at least :thumbs :



I gotta get off this thread and back to work, really  but in hindsight, I have to say that was the most valuable part of art school and design school. Learning how to talk about your work means learning how to analyze it and to see it from outside of your own experience with it. It teaches you not just to see it in terms of your own experience, but that of others as well.
It teaches how to analyze your own processes and your own shortcomings and strengths.

I think this, perhaps more than anything, prepares one for a career in art, or in many other professional areas. Being able to assess your own work and see the value of it is a really, really valuable skill.


----------



## chilango (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I gotta get off this thread and back to work, really  but in hindsight, I have to say that was the most valuable part of art school and design school. Learning how to talk about your work means learning how to analyze it and to see it from outside of your own experience with it. It teaches you not just to see it in terms of your own experience, but that of others as well.
> It teaches how to analyze your own processes and your own shortcomings and strengths.
> 
> I think this, perhaps more than anything, prepares one for a career in art, or in many other professional areas. Being able to assess your own work and see the value of it is a really, really valuable skill.


Yes.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> Yes.



Well, that's what they _told_ me to say, anyway.  

(just kidding!)


----------



## chilango (Oct 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> Hmmmm? Well?



On the off chance anyone didn't know .... This artist was shortlisted for the Turner Prize.


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2014)

I wonder whether people separate Roger Dean's art from their view of the music he designed the cover art for. Same with the gaming art work as well I guess.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> Hmmmm? Well?


Possibly because the Turner prize judges are looking at modern art as purely and exclusively conceptual....as in conceptualism.

Here's some more excellent digital art ..






Miss Caphat said:


> not sure what my own artwork has to do with anything. my own artwork is rarely conceptual. doesn't mean I can't appreciate many different forms of art.



Was just interested in your art.




Miss Caphat said:


> also, it might very well have been because there would be no one there to instruct them (the students using programming to produce art)...you can't really accept students to a program which doesn't exist.



No...it boiled down to a lack of joined up thinking...and a lack of cooperation between departments....and an over competitiveness between departments...and there was an element of "fashion a step above graphics".. 
Thevgraphics dept had a programming option, staff...etc.
It probably doesn't matter now.....I used it as an example of how things can go one way or the other depending on the attitudes of those in charge.


----------



## chilango (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Possibly because the Turner prize judges are looking at modern art as purely and exclusively conceptual....as in conceptualism.



It made the shortlist. 

As for digital stuff, it's a medium rather than a genre.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

chilango said:


> It made the shortlist.
> 
> As for digital stuff, it's a medium rather than a genre.



Yup. I knew that


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Was just interested in your art.



tbf it didn't read like that. i understand the desire to take a *point of view* for a noob to get noticed. but it came across as snark - show me what _you_ can do if you're so clever...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> tbf it didn't read like that. i understand the desire to take a *point of view* for a noob to get noticed. but it came across as snark - show me what _you_ can do if you're so clever...


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Was just interested in your art.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



not quite sure what the difference is...it sounds like there wasn't faculty to teach the student how to do what they wanted to do, or to guide them along their path. how can you teach something with no experience or precedent in that subject matter? 

anyway, I don't put my artwork up here too often, because it's far too easy to image search and find out too much personal stuff about me...I'm more worried about the other way around for the most part (people searching my artwork and finding a link to here)


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


>



what is your problem?


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

hey miss c pm me a link? will swap for my blog/portfolio site :thumbs :


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> tbf it didn't read like that. i understand the desire to take a *point of view* for a noob to get noticed. but it came across as snark - show me what _you_ can do if you're so clever...





Miss Caphat said:


> too bad there never was any depth, though. you can keep repeating the same thing over and over, doesn't change the fact that you're not coming across as anything more than an art troll, and you haven't for the whole thread





Miss Caphat said:


> not a chance in hell. sorry, bubbles.
> why do people always say stuff like this?
> there's emotionally charged, passionate arguing, then there's people whose opinions and persona you find so unappealing you wish you never came across them. nothing sexy about that feeling.





Miss Caphat said:


> what is your problem?



Someone calling me snarky....and neglecting to read the thread.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Someone calling me snarky....and neglecting to read the thread.



terribly sorry will make sure not to engage again :thumbs :


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> terribly sorry will make sure not to engage again :thumbs :



Ps. I have posted a few pieces on another thread in this forum.

Thanks for the welcome


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Someone calling me snarky....and neglecting to read the thread.



dude, the premise of your whole thread is snarky, as has been most of your posts on it. yes, I've been snarky back, because it all got on my nerves. I'm not going to apologize for that, so you might as well stop looking for one.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Thanks for the welcome



2.5k posts? excuse me if i fail to offer the ritual hobnob


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> dude, the premise of your whole thread is snarky, as has been most of your posts on it. yes, I've been snarky back, because it all got on my nerves. I'm not going to apologize for that, so you might as well stop looking for one.



I'm not a "dude".
And you are rude.
Post some art...
Or just go fart


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm not a "dude".



if you really want to go there, I believe this was a major point of contention on some other threads....

nah, I didn't think so.


----------



## heinous seamus (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> anyway, I don't put my artwork up here too often, because it's far too easy to image search and find out too much personal stuff about me...I'm more worried about the other way around for the most part (people searching my artwork and finding a link to here)



You should do some especially for us!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> tbf it didn't read like that. i understand the desire to take a *point of view* for a noob to get noticed. but it came across as snark - show me what _you_ can do if you're so clever...





wayward bob said:


> 2.5k posts? excuse me if i fail to offer the ritual hobnob



I believe you referred to me as a noob?


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I believe you referred to me as a noob?



your numerous other valuable posts somehow passed me by


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> if you really want to go there, I believe this was a major point of contention on some other threads....
> 
> nah, I didn't think so.



You're about two months out of date dear...I'm a woman...but you go right ahead and carry on.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> your numerous other valuable posts somehow passed me by



Ah sure God love you.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

heinous seamus said:


> You should do some especially for us!



I have  you just have to know where to look


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I have  you just have to know where to look




Probably "invisible art".


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> ...I'm a woman...



prove it


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> prove it



Prove you can paint....


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

anyway, I do art very rarely these days. I taught kids ages 3 to 17 from 2011 to spring of this year, and doing the projects along with them was about as close as I came to making my own art


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Prove you can paint....



who said anything about painting? I lovingly create my masterpieces from a mixture of monkey vomit and bat saliva. you wouldn't like it


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> who said anything about painting? I lovingly create my masterpieces from a mixture of monkey vomit and bat saliva. you wouldn't like it



Shit art then ....


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

i don't get it... there's an exchange of views, opinions, going on here that's really interesting - valuable even - but all you want to do is stir shit up. why? maybe because _your_ work doesn't stand scrutiny?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

Getting back to some art ...
Here's some more excellent digital art.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)




----------



## wayward bob (Oct 10, 2014)

okay. you're in to what? win the thread? well, congratulations cos i'm out...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> i don't get it... there's an exchange of views, opinions, going on here that's really interesting - valuable even -



I'm glad you finally saw the value of my thread ... this was what I wanted all along. Challenging is a good way to start debate.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> okay. you're in to what? win the thread? well, congratulations cos i'm out...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 10, 2014)

Photography is probably the only classical form that I could say that I participate in (visual anyway) and one thing I've started to appreciate is how badly a lot of people really need someone saying "yes that's all very pretty but you need to work out wtf it is you are doing and why". Drawing up some sort of statement or writing an essay explaining that is one way that people can get their thoughts together on the subject. A lot of photographers I know have come to the same conclusion, once they master the practical aspects, which doesn't take all that long if you're interested tbh.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 10, 2014)

I was bored...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 10, 2014)

yes thanks for that


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

DrHerbz..I like what you've done above.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Photography is probably the only classical form that I could say that I participate in (visual anyway) and one thing I've started to appreciate is how badly a lot of people really need someone saying "yes that's all very pretty but you need to work out wtf it is you are doing and why". Drawing up some sort of statement or writing an essay explaining that is one way that people can get their thoughts together on the subject. A lot of photographers I know have come to the same conclusion, once they master the practical aspects, which doesn't take all that long if you're interested tbh.



Are you into film or digital or both?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Are you into film or digital or both?


Both. It doesn't really affect the issue though.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Oct 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> DrHerbz..I like what you've done above.


Cheers... took me fookin' ages to cut it out.  
I think I need glasses and a sharper Stanley knife


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Cheers... took me fookin' ages to cut it out.
> I think I need glasses and a sharper Stanley knife



The golden eye works well


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Getting back to some art ...
> Here's some more excellent digital art.





bubblesmcgrath said:


>




you know, the thing about works like these...I just don't have a concept of what it is that the artist is actually doing to create them so I feel a bit lost trying to assess them...are they using a photograph/series of images they didn't create themselves? if not, how easy or difficult is it to create something that looks photorealistic using the tools available...?

there was a poster here who was making a foray into digital art portraits. I think I prefer that more natural style, which ends up looking more like a painting, with imperfections and all the stuff that says something about the person who created it. Or digital art that is totally unique and is not relying on photorealism yet is creating a very palpable mood and setting which corresponds to their unique vision.

technical skills are cool, but sometimes leave audiences cold...it's like FridgeMagnet said, an artist needs to have a good idea of what it is they're saying with a piece, and things like these sometimes seem like a great deal of technical skill with no soul or purpose other than to create a slick image.
slick images have their place, but it's generally more for advertising and stuff like that..


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 11, 2014)

And yet everything can be art.


----------



## chilango (Oct 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And yet everything can be art.



Not everything that "can be" is though.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 11, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> you know, the thing about works like these...I just don't have a concept of what it is that the artist is actually doing to create them so I feel a bit lost trying to assess them...are they using a photograph/series of images they didn't create themselves? if not, how easy or difficult is it to create something that looks photorealistic using the tools available...?
> 
> there was a poster here who was making a foray into digital art portraits. I think I prefer that more natural style, which ends up looking more like a painting, with imperfections and all the stuff that says something about the person who created it. Or digital art that is totally unique and is not relying on photorealism yet is creating a very palpable mood and setting which corresponds to their unique vision.
> 
> ...



I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. I look at the digital portrait of Hugh Laurie and see personality coming through. 
The second one has a definite sense of a commentary on broken people..broken lives..broken perfection. ..damaged yet still beautiful.  




chilango said:


> Not everything that "can be" is though.



Digital art is most definitely art


----------



## chilango (Oct 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Digital art is most definitely art



Obviously.

But not every digital image is digital art, is it?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 11, 2014)

Re skill. Yes digital art is very skillful.  It can be a complete work created from scratch or it can be edited pieces. It is not always representational either. 

Personally my preferences within digital art would lean towards digital paintings. Which can be done in any number of styles or genres.



chilango said:


> Obviously.
> 
> But not every digital image is digital art, is it?



Are we heading for a "digital photography" is not art moment? Or do you mean data imagery?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 11, 2014)

I'm hoping that virtual reality will become the next big movement within the digital art world .....and indeed the world of modern art. 
So many experimental possibilities. So many sensory opportunities. 
The idea of full body emersion in a work of art is very appealing


----------



## chilango (Oct 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Are we heading for a "digital photography" is not art moment? Or do you mean data imagery?



Whilst I'm not inclined to get into a discussion of "what is art?" there are many things that are patently not art. If only because their creators never intended them to be art. Some digital imagery will fall under that bracket as will some drawings, some applications of paint, some textiles, some ceramics etc.

Of course there's a lot more to what makes something art than the intention behind its creation (or is there? ) but we don't need to have that fruitless discussion to accept that some stuff, uncontroversially, just isn't art.


----------



## chilango (Oct 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm hoping that virtual reality will become the next big movement within the digital art world .....and indeed the world of modern art.
> So many experimental possibilities. So many sensory opportunities.
> The idea of full body emersion in a work of art is very appealing



Installation art you mean?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 11, 2014)

chilango said:


> Installation art you mean?



Not the shit bricks on a floor type.....
More the Benayouns type 

Or really..more the startrek enterprise holodeck type if I'm being honest


----------



## moon (Oct 11, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> there was a poster here who was making a foray into digital art portraits. I think I prefer that more natural style, which ends up looking more like a painting, with imperfections and all the stuff that says something about the person who created it. Or digital art that is totally unique and is not relying on photorealism yet is creating a very palpable mood and setting which corresponds to their unique vision



Was that Vintage Paw ? She made some really cool stuff. I wish she would post more


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 11, 2014)

moon said:


> Was that Vintage Paw ? She made some really cool stuff. I wish she would post more



yup. I didn't want to embarrass her


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 11, 2014)

My tablet is propped up at the side of the sofa where I sit with my laptop, whispering, _"come on, use me, you know you want to"_ and I keep replying, "maybe tomorrow."

I'm rubbish.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 13, 2014)

not getting back into any discussions but this is a really interesting doc :thumbs : (the first half at least, i keep falling asleep in the middle)

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-makes-art-valuable/


----------



## moon (Oct 13, 2014)

I just made this.. and I love it, it's just dylusions spray inks and acrylic ink, but the way the red ink zipped through the dylusions was awesome.
Am supposed to be cutting this up for use in another picture but think I'll put it on my wall instead.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 14, 2014)

wayward bob said:


> not getting back into any discussions but this is a really interesting doc :thumbs : (the first half at least, i keep falling asleep in the middle)
> 
> http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-makes-art-valuable/


The middle is the best bit...


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 14, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Personally my preferences within digital art would lean towards digital paintings. Which can be done in any number of styles or genres.


I find digital paintings generally do nothing for me. I prefer artists who explore the technology itself and the art being emergent from the constraints and rules built into whatever platform they're working with. Like a guy who I found on Tumblr who writes programs that produce gifs.

This:






Was created by this program:


```
v1[t_] :=
{Cos[t], 0, Sin[t]}

v2[t_, a_] :=
1/Sqrt[1 + Sin[t]^2 Tan[a]^2] {-Sin[t], -Sin[t] Tan[a], Cos[t]}

v3[t_, a_] :=
1/Sqrt[1 + Sin[t]^2 Tan[a]^2] {-Sin[t]^2 Tan[a], 1, Cos[t] Sin[t] Tan[a]}

P[t_, a_] :=
{v3[t, a][[2]]/Tan[a] - v3[t, a][[1]], 0, -v3[t, a][[3]]/2}

Q[t_, a_] :=
{v3[t, a][[2]]/Tan[a], v3[t, a][[2]], v3[t, a][[3]]/2}

vertices[t_, a_, A_, B_, C_, D_] :=
{P[t, a] - A*Sqrt[2]/2 v1[t],
  P[t, a] + B*Sqrt[2]/2 v1[t],
  Q[t, a] - C*Sqrt[2]/2 v2[t, a],
  Q[t, a] + D*Sqrt[2]/2 v2[t, a]}

Tetrahedron[T_, t_, a_, o_, A_, B_, C_, D_] :=
Table[
  {FaceForm[White], Opacity[o], EdgeForm[Thick],
   Polygon[
	Table[
	 T[vertices[t, a, A, B, C, D][[1 + Mod[i + j, 4]]]], {i, 1, 3, 1}]]},
  {j, 0, 3, 1}]

Kaleidocycle[t_, n_, o_, R_, A_, B_, C1_, D1_, x_, y_, z_, S_] :=
Translate[
  Scale[
   Rotate[
	Table[
	 Rotate[
	  Table[
	   Tetrahedron[T, t, 2 Pi/n, o, A/Tan[2 Pi/n], B* A/Tan[2 Pi/n],
		C1/Tan[2 Pi/n], D1*C1/Tan[2 Pi/n]],
	   {T, {TransformationFunction[IdentityMatrix[4]],
		 ReflectionTransform[{-Sin[2 Pi/n], Cos[2 Pi/n], 0}]}}],
	  r*4 Pi/n, {0, 0, 1}],
	 {r, 0, n - 1, 1}],
	R*Sin[t], {0, 1, 0}],
   S],
  {x, y, z}]

rr[q_] := (SeedRandom[q]; RandomReal[])

K[t_, pr_, Q_, w_] :=
Graphics3D[
  Table[
   Kaleidocycle[t + 2 Pi*rr[w*q], 5 + 2 Floor[10 rr[2 w*q]], 1, 0,
	1.5, 1, 1.5, 1, 1.2 pr*rr[3 w*q], 1.2*6/5 pr*rr[4 w*q],
	10 pr*(1 rr[5 w*q] - 1), 1],
   {q, 1, Q, 1}],
  PlotRange -> {{0, pr}, {0, 6/5 pr}, {-10 pr, 10 pr}},
  ImageSize -> 500, Axes -> False, Boxed -> False,
  Lighting -> "Neutral", ViewPoint -> {0, 0, Infinity} ,
  Background -> White ]

Manipulate[
K[t, 15.5, 18, 5],
{t, 0, 2Pi}]
```

And while I'm sure he has _some _idea on how it will come about, I bet there's a lot of experimentation and unexpected results which produce images he would never have imagined.

This is also a great piece of digital art, IMO:



He took a video of himself and uploaded it to YouTube. Then after YouTube compressed it (adding artefacts, and losing definition), he downloaded it and re-uploaded it again, adding more compression and artefacts. After 1000 uploads and downloads, you're left with the above. It was inspired by this awesome work on resonance:


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Oct 14, 2014)

Nice post Fez909..

I'd add to it that the programmers who write software to enable all digital art are deserving of recognition...
They are creators of a new medium where code is the brush and  software the canvas.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 15, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> If you can appreciate that, how can you dismiss abstraction?



Because it's not abstract?


----------

