# (In Art) What matters to you more concept or technical ability?



## zenie (Feb 12, 2007)

Be that any medium?

Do you care more about the concept behind it or the finished article?

Is the need for experimentation greater than the crafts itself?

Just out of interest like


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 12, 2007)

From an artists point of view or, the audience?

I think the concept is always foremost. When an artist masters a medium to the extent that they can communicate exactly what they want to how they want to...

Dunno. Give up on this one. May try again with a clearer head. Maybe.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 12, 2007)

tracey emin has always been really crap at drawing


----------



## 8ball (Feb 12, 2007)

I'd when most artists start out they have heaps of creativity and very little skill.  What usually happens is that as their skill increases, their creativity wanes until they 'peak' with an optimal combination of each.

From there on it's an unstoppable descent into technical wankery and navel-gazing.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 12, 2007)

I'd say concept. Of course, you need some technical ability to go along with that. But mere ability without any concept - well, doesn't sound right really.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 12, 2007)

In design, I think you can get away with it without being great technically - it is about communicating the idea (you can get a professional to create the finished product).

But with art ( and we need a clear definition of what is art) I would like to see more technical. Art should be inspiring and aspirational without the audience having to sit and read about it to think it is interesting.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 12, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> I'd say concept. Of course, you need some technical ability to go along with that. But mere ability without any concept - well, doesn't sound right really.



Some might say that purely decorative art is void of any original concept. Often created by masters of a medium (in the case of painting at least).

e2a; That is decorative art as opposed to The Decorative Arts.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 12, 2007)

boohoo said:
			
		

> Art should be inspiring and aspirational without the audience having to sit and read about it to think it is interesting.



I think if people need to read about it to 'get' it you've just not communicated the concept very well, but you can still do that in a piece which is somewhat 'rough around the edges'.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 12, 2007)

boohoo said:
			
		

> In design, I think you can get away with it without being great technically - it is about communicating the idea (you can get a professional to create the finished product).
> 
> But with art ( and we need a clear definition of what is art) I would like to see more technical. Art should be inspiring and aspirational without the audience having to sit and read about it to think it is interesting.



I was always too scruffy to be a good designer. Nowadays it's a lot easier because so much of it is CG but when I was at art college, cleanliness and an anal attention to detail were key to graphic design.

When you've permanently got charcoal smudged on you and paint under your nails, you're never going to be that good at design. And while I was technically okay as a painter/drawer but I don't think I was that conceptually good. Which is why I didn't pursue it except as a hobby.


----------



## cybertect (Feb 12, 2007)

I find it hard to make an either/or decision between the two.

There are surely instances where something can move me even though it's lacking in obvious technical merit.

Contrariwise, I can be in awe of demonstrations pure technical brilliance, but still be left quite cold.


----------



## fishfinger (Feb 12, 2007)

I think, to the artist, the concept is probably more important; as it is the very essence of the art work. Obviously, the execution of the concept, is the public expression of it.

The skill of the artist, is to convey the concept effectively. Poor skills are a hindrance to this.

Oh, one more thing. ANY artist that is completely satisfied with their art, is a smug git who isn't trying hard enough


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 12, 2007)

It can't be an either/or.  You have to have technical ability to make the concept work and vise-versa.  I've seen stuff where the concept was ok, but it was constructed so badly that it literally fell off the wall.  And I've seen beautiful technique drowned by mundane content.


----------



## maldwyn (Feb 12, 2007)

I think concept. A lot of artist depend on ‘fabricators’ to take care of technical ability.


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2007)

A great idea done badly is always going to be better than a shit idea executed perfectly.

But then I'm an old punk rocker...


----------



## Firky (Feb 13, 2007)

some of the most badly shot or animated films i have seen have been fucking excellent. the classics i have seen have combined the two. bladerunner for instance, la haine, city of god etc.


----------



## alef (Feb 13, 2007)

> I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -- meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching -- there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster. -- Ansel Adams US nature photographer (1902 - 1984)



Sounds like a snob to me. The sheer ease with which we can produce an image often leads to great creativity! Adams was obviously the master of the technical, but many of his photos are painfully dull.


----------



## girasol (Feb 13, 2007)

Both are equally important, an artist who is creative and who also possesses technical ability will produce the best work.


----------



## aurora green (Feb 13, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> A great idea done badly is always going to be better than a shit idea executed perfectly.




Yeah, I agree. (I think I'm a master of the former unfortunately   @self)

Concept is far more important though.


----------



## rhys gethin (Feb 13, 2007)

If concept is so important, why bother with the work - write an article instead.   What about the effects of various kinds of chance on the process?


I think the mere technical working-out of an existing concept is just boring.


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 13, 2007)

The concept and the aesthetic appeal are important. 

Technical capability is only important within the context of trying to fulfill both of the criteria above.

Most commonly a successful piece of work only has to fulfill one of them (i.e. the aesthetic) for people to like looking at it even if they don't understand the concept. If the viewer also understands the concept then so much the better - it means that the work is accesible by those who just like looking and those that like to understand too.


----------



## cybertect (Feb 13, 2007)

rhys gethin said:
			
		

> If concept is so important, why bother with the work - write an article instead.



A lot of art in the 60s and 70s was almost just that.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 13, 2007)

concept, definitely.  but you need the technial skills too.


----------



## BlackSpecs (Feb 13, 2007)

the artist who imo has mastered concept over technical abilitty more than any other out there is good old David Shrigley !!! Genius ......


----------



## zenie (Feb 13, 2007)

Some interesting thoughts here guys


----------



## Reg in slippers (Feb 13, 2007)

concept, no question


----------



## Firky (Feb 13, 2007)

What do you reckon misss Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz?

Sorry, just one of my pet hates when people ask a question and don't put their own opinion forwards


----------



## zenie (Feb 13, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> What do you reckon misss Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz?
> 
> Sorry, just one of my pet hates when people ask a question and don't put their own opinion forwards



I would like to keep my opinion to myself on this one


----------



## 8ball (Feb 13, 2007)

rhys gethin said:
			
		

> If concept is so important, why bother with the work - write an article instead.



If you're a writer that _is_ the work.

And if you're a musician (for example) then maybe that's the best way to get your idea across - you might be crap at writing articles and lose the essence of the concept.


----------



## Flavour (Feb 13, 2007)

i love how on threads like this the concept (read: imaginative shilly-shallying) is defo regarded higher than tech skills but whenever there's some fucking far-out conceptual happenings its denounced as wankery (first order of).


----------



## rhys gethin (Feb 13, 2007)

8ball said:
			
		

> If you're a writer that _is_ the work.
> 
> And if you're a musician (for example) then maybe that's the best way to get your idea across - you might be crap at writing articles and lose the essence of the concept.



I'm a poet meself:  the poem is the work, the rest is dodging it.   Seems to me the same for musicians, but it's one of the many things I don't understand.


----------



## zenie (Feb 13, 2007)

Flavour said:
			
		

> i love how on threads like this the concept (read: imaginative shilly-shallying) is defo regarded higher than tech skills but whenever there's some fucking far-out conceptual happenings its denounced as wankery (first order of).



*cough*

Bingo


----------



## Flavour (Feb 14, 2007)

And as an imaginative shilly-shallying type the last thing I want is to be decried as a first class wankery-emitter!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2007)

Technical ability without concept is mere draftsmanship.


----------



## zenie (Feb 14, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Technical ability without concept is mere draftsmanship.



Indeed

You see the reason I ask is probably more to do with the photography on this forum and the reactions it gets from certain posters.

I'm not gonna name names, but some people give too much of a shit on whether a photo is properly exposed etc. they treat photography as a science, not as an art, but they cant see they're doing it!!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> Indeed
> 
> You see the reason I ask is probably more to do with the photography on this forum and the reactions it gets from certain posters.
> 
> I'm not gonna name names, but some people give too much of a shit on whether a photo is properly exposed etc. they treat photography as a science, not as an art, but they cant see they're doing it!!



The problem with photography, is that often the mechanics or the technical stuff are very important in properly addressing the concept.

I think that in order to consistently produce good photos that might be considered artistic, it's necessary to have a firm techical grasp of what your camera's all about.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2007)

I should add that it's possible to have a superior techical knowledge, but without a touch of creativity, you still might not produce 'artistic' photos.

You need the eye, and then the technical knowhow to render what it is that your eye sees.


----------



## Dhimmi (Feb 14, 2007)

Neither- for me it's the item as a whole which either works or doesn't.


----------



## cybertect (Feb 14, 2007)

BTW, I'm going to print this thread out and declare it an _objet trouvé_


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2007)

architecture is an art form but many people don't consider it an art because it is largely engineering, maths and physics
combing the two - technical possibilities and conectp so that the building works is what makes some buildings works of art and others boxes.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> architecture is an art form but many people don't consider it an art because it is largely engineering, maths and physics
> combing the two - technical possibilities and conectp so that the building works is what makes some buildings works of art and others boxes.


 Architects tend to be conceptual types who employ draughtsmen etc to actually do the heavy lifting when it comes to the technical specs drawings etc.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 14, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> Indeed
> 
> You see the reason I ask is probably more to do with the photography on this forum and the reactions it gets from certain posters.
> 
> I'm not gonna name names, but some people give too much of a shit on whether a photo is properly exposed etc. they treat photography as a science, not as an art, but they cant see they're doing it!!



I agree with you. I hope I haven't been guilty of that, because it does go against how I feel. Some of the most amazing photos have been taken by people who know jack shit - anyone remember the Border Film Project for example?

Of course, that is just one specific example, and doesn't fit with the premise of one photographer creating their own art. You could look at the lomo-esque fads around at the moment - some, or even most, are complete pants imo, but some are simply beautiful. And yet most are rarely properly exposed, crisp to the edges of the frame, use rule of thirds etc ad infinitum ...


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 14, 2007)

bullshit


----------



## zenie (Feb 14, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I should add that it's possible to have a superior techical knowledge, but without a touch of creativity, you still might not produce 'artistic' photos.
> 
> You need the eye, and then the technical knowhow to render what it is that your eye sees.



But photography isn't just about 'ways of seeing' is it Johnny? 




			
				Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> You could look at the lomo-esque fads around at the moment - some, or even most, are complete pants imo, but some are simply beautiful. And yet most are rarely properly exposed, crisp to the edges of the frame, use rule of thirds etc ad infinitum ...



Yeh I know about LOMO, have a few of the cameras myself, and there are a few beauts on there I'll agree 

Nice link btw cheers  and no I'm not singling out anyone 

*Ignores boskysquelches unhelpful comment as pernormal*


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 14, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> ...some people give too much of a shit on whether a photo is properly exposed etc. they treat photography as a science, not as an art, but they cant see they're doing it!!



There are different genres of photography. Some forms rely more on technical excellence. Rules are there to be bent or, broken. Personally, unless you've mastered the technicalities to a very high degree and know the 'rules' inside out you don't have the knowledge to make your concept work by breaking the rules.

Fluking an effect or, expressing your concept by happy accident is a chance thing. Something that is very different to an expressive, conceptual artist making good use of limited technical ability. 

For me, the appeal of photography is the 'reality'. In order to get the most out of reproducing that reality you need to know how to. Not chance upon a good exposure/composition/lighting etc.

If a photographer points to a badly exposed photograph and claims that is the way they intended because they feel it expresses the concept better, then fair enough, but I'm guessing that is rarely the case.


----------



## Reg in slippers (Feb 14, 2007)

concept


----------



## zenie (Feb 14, 2007)

Reg in slippers said:
			
		

> concept



YBA's you have to love em


----------



## Reg in slippers (Feb 14, 2007)

concept


----------



## BlackSpecs (Feb 14, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> architecture is an art form but many people don't consider it an art because it is largely engineering, maths and physics
> combing the two - technical possibilities and conectp so that the building works is what makes some buildings works of art and others boxes.



i went to a design-furniture-fair last week and it struck me that some designers have become absolute super-stars a bit like foot-ball players. it's odd .... they used to be blokes that knocked-up a chair so you could sit ! That's what happens if you take concept *too* far !!!!!


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 14, 2007)

Reg in slippers said:
			
		

> concept



it's all Duchamps fault and his rejection of 'Retinal' art


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 14, 2007)

Reg... those examples are technically achievements of concept rather than "concept" itself.  

& @ Blackspecs...nah!!-1 it's being going on in Britain since a bloke called Chippendale took the _West End_ by storm...the then equivalent of Wayne Hemmingway(sp?) going MFI in Newcastle.  

@Robster I was going to say..._if you don't understand things you could always go play chess for 40years and think about it some more!!!!111 _


----------



## Reg in slippers (Feb 14, 2007)

true


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 14, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> @Robster I was going to say..._if you don't understand things you could always go play chess for 40years and think about it some more!!!!111 _



not being a board type geek, what's the significance of the binary? I can't figure out just how cheeky/serious/cutting/derogatory/loving the Kraken of Cornwall is being


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 14, 2007)

or

http://www.international-klein-blue.com/

Klein was a good example.


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 14, 2007)

Reg in slippers said:
			
		

> true



ffs! Reg I was looking for that picture back along...you bleddhi random!

proven a fake...but cannot_couldn't I find the proof let alone that picture?....

@Robster the binary, in my head, gives Duchamps kudos for thinking about "it".


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 14, 2007)

Reg in slippers said:
			
		

> true



Technically very clever and advanced for it's day.


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 14, 2007)

Klein was caught in a large sheet that was held by some friends and then the picture doctored before being put into the spoof newspaper that he then distributed.

http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/mahg/musee/cde/acquklein.html


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2007)

Renaissance art is both technically thooper and carries a lot of conceptual caramel and noghurt layers in it. Hark how the springer spaniel looks longingly at its master, who's semi-naked body is sat in a woodland of thorns. What does it all mean? Ohh look at her getting out of that seashell all naked, she's well fit - i'd do her! She must be a god or something. And look at him, with that bloody big ace. You damn well think you're God or something. God give life, God taketh it away, not you. I think you are the Devil itself.

OI NOAH ARE YOU REALLY DRUNK OR IS MICHELANGELO ON THE PISS AGAIN?


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 14, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Renaissance art is both technically thooper and carries a lot of conceptual caramel and noghurt layers in it.



methinx yoothz may hath mithed the point of the symbolism and political codecs found therein!    

I revel in the knowledge that _small cock_ = intelligence and magnificence of Self....for example!


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2007)

What I mean is that it wouldn't be able to have said layers of nogurt and rice crispies with out being technically thooper. Mmm yeah? How is say Rothko going to do the subtle smile of moaning leesa?  

WITH A BIG FUCK OFF SLAB OF BLACKNESS THAT'S HOW!!!!! 


I started early today  *_*


----------



## Groucho (Feb 14, 2007)

Concept imo.

However, I'm sure this debate would hot up burningwise if a piece of 'concept art' visually represented - say Duchamp's Fountain - were to be justaposed alongside a top notch example of an artist showing off technical expertese in such tricks as perspective, depth and 'realistic' illussion. 

A greater challenge though would be to first agree a definition of Art and then to define criteria by which we can judge 'good' and 'bad' Art within the parameters of that definition.

Greater minds than mine have tried and stumbled.


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 14, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Mmm yeah?




mmmm dunno depends on whose looking at it and when  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/arts/2007/02/13/bawallace13.xml


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2007)

Torygraph? Fuck off! Do you nod along to Toby Young, hehehe








(yeah I know what you're saying I just did not think you'd use the torygraph for legitmacy )


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 14, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> A greater challenge though would be to first agree a definition of Art and then to define criteria by which we can judge 'good' and 'bad' Art within the parameters of that definition.
> 
> Greater minds than mine have tried and stumbled.



I may be wrong but I've always thought that Duchamps' work was exactly that... a challenge to show that no definition, of sorts, will give you an adequate answer to what is or is not Art.

The Fountain being a double_treble bluff at the cost of the observer or those who attempt to give it _cause celebre_ in jus being what it is... a manufactured item with form being given precedence over function in an environment alien to purpose...and stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuff



it's worth considering object trouves(sp) also as anthropologically_archaeologically I think I'm also right in saying that Man found and carried objects he found on interest but of no definable purpose millennia before he chose to make marks of his own for expression_coz He could.

Off to Lidl to gettaway from this...


----------



## Reg in slippers (Feb 14, 2007)

just so's you can gaze adoringly at a urinal...


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 14, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I may be wrong but I've always thought that Duchamps' work was exactly that... a challenge to show that no definition, of sorts, will give you an adequate answer to what is or is not Art.
> 
> The Fountain being a double_treble bluff at the cost of the observer or those who attempt to give it _cause celebre_ in jus being what it is... a manufactured item with form being given precedence over function in an environment alien to purpose...and stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuff



and that's why Duchamp was a fookin genius. I rest my case m'lud. Next.


----------



## Groucho (Feb 14, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I may be wrong but I've always thought that Duchamps' work was exactly that... a challenge to show that no definition, of sorts, will give you an adequate answer to what is or is not Art.



Yes, I agree that that was part of the intention and that in that respect the work succeeds imo.

Of course the work, or the various 'copies' are not the 'work' in its totality but merely a physical pointer to the concept. The submission of the piece by R Mutt, its rejection for display and Duchamp's defence of the piece, and its subsequent acceptance as an iconic work of Art are all integral to the concept and the evolution of its impact on assumptions about Art and artists. 

A multi-way debate in a cafe might have gone/might go -

_Some bloke has put a urinal in a gallery and called it a work of art! What tosh!_

If it is in a gallery it must be a work of art.

_huh?_

No, no it's a concept, the _concept _is the work

*Bollocks! It's crap. It's a f*ckin urinal, not a fountain. A pile of piss.*

_Ah but you see the urinal has a beauty of its own, a functional design whose beauty as a work of Art in and of itself had not been appreciated even by the designer until an *Artist *had the insight to observe the inate beauty of the piece, and by title and by the act of upturning the piece the Artist shares with us that insight, thus a mass manufactured object of utility becomes a work of Art through the magical 'touch' of an Artist and by merit of the fact that the piece is displayed in an Art gallery and signed by the artist. _

*Piss!*

Except that the artist who signed the 'piece' does not exist. The piece is a joke, a snub to the art world who wouldn't know the difference between good Art and bad Art only what sells, only what is accepted, oh they say 'an artist has signed the piece it must be a work of Art' thus we see artistic merit and inate beauuty in an object that had none before, thus proving we are duped by the Artist. It's a con-trick. He's 'avin' a larf at the expense of the art World! You know he hated Art critics for snubbing his nude descending the stairs.

_Well yes, perhaps, but the very *act* of perpetrating this 'hoax' and provoking this discussion is in fact the work of Art, not the piece itself, but the idea behind its display. The work of Art as concept was thus born_

Duchamp = bloody genius.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> But photography isn't just about 'ways of seeing' is it Johnny?



That's all it's about.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 14, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> Be that any medium?
> 
> Do you care more about the concept behind it or the finished article?
> 
> ...



Not concept or technical ability. If you like it you like it.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 14, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Not concept or technical ability. If you like it you like it.




Well said  

I'd forgotten what it's all about for a minute. It's simply about enjoying it.


----------



## zenie (Feb 14, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> That's all it's about.



I'd disagree with that  

Photography can be a form of expressionism like any other art form can't it?




			
				ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Not concept or technical ability. If you like it you like it.



hmm...do you think it's as simple as that?

Do you think art is as simple as 'oh that looks pretty?'


----------



## jms (Feb 14, 2007)

> (In Art) What matters to you more concept or technical ability?



Both. Depends on context.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 14, 2007)

Here's a good merger of both concept and technical ability in photography:

http://www.edelmangallery.com/parkeshow.htm

http://www.parkeharrison.com/

IMHO, You simply can't separate the two and make successful art.


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 14, 2007)

jms said:
			
		

> Both. Depends on context.



sooooooooooooooo The Mona Lisa is Art in the Louvre and just a painting elsewhere?

Nah...lots more subtle than...hence bringing Duchamp into it.

However I am still yet to be convinced that "concept" can exist in our physical dimension only the mental....even Groucho's explanation has the flaw that the conversation he jus cited is ethereal and therefore still only a concept of comprehension!  


Ooooh I feel this will get all _Koonsian_ in a mo.

Heeere we go... http://www.jca-online.com/koons.html ...  a jolly good read...Koons da maaaaaaaaaaan


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 14, 2007)

Yuwipi Woman said:
			
		

> IMHO, You simply can't separate the two and make successful art.



The St Ives School thought Alfred Wallis did.  

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/mag/pages/mnuInDepth/Biography.cfm?biog=67


----------



## chilango (Feb 14, 2007)

Concept - all the way.

Without that whats the point?

Obviously you need to find a means of expressing that concept to your audience, but for me the _how_ is very much subservient to the _why_. Function dictates form and all that....


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 15, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> I'd disagree with that
> 
> Photography can be a form of expressionism like any other art form can't it?
> 
> ...



I didn't say if it looks pretty you like it, I said if you like the picture (for whatever reason) then you like it. It is as simple as that.

I went to art collage and could not stand the bullshit that people would crap on about art. I remember an exhibition I had where this chap (who didn't know me or that it was my work) was coming up with all kinds of absurd bollocks about my influences and what the pictures were about. Every time I would try to explain that I was just painting and making what I thought was nice people would say 'ah so you are dada then'.

The poor Dadaists hated movements in art so decided to not be a movement and were immediately called dada and became the anti movement movement. 

I believe that everything is art from chairs to computers to paintings in galleries. I think this is what people like Marcel Duchamp was highlighting with his ready-mades. 

Who cares if Jeff koons didn't build the sliver train, he commissioned it and it exists, if you like it you like it if you don't you don't, if you like that he got someone else to do it for him you like that concept but maybe not the end result.

You like what you like.


----------



## zenie (Feb 15, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> I didn't say if it looks pretty you like it, I said if you like the picture (for whatever reason) then you like it. It is as simple as that.
> 
> I went to art collage and could not stand the bullshit that people would crap on about art. I remember an exhibition I had where this chap (who didn't know me or that it was my work) was coming up with all kinds of absurd bollocks about my influences and what the pictures were about. Every time I would try to explain that I was just painting and making what I thought was nice people would say 'ah so you are dada then'.
> 
> ...



I heard somethng similar happen to someone else and didn't Robster say someone commented on a bit of art in his gallery, when it was a bit of rubbish!! 

I thought you were muso trained Mr Suplex


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 15, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> I went to art collage and could not stand the bullshit that people would crap on about art. I remember an exhibition I had where this chap (who didn't know me or that it was my work) was coming up with all kinds of absurd bollocks about my influences and what the pictures were about. Every time I would try to explain that I was just painting and making what I thought was nice people would say 'ah so you are dada then'.



 

I had much the same experience.   They'd try to stick you any art movement that they thought would fit or was that particular profs favorite.  They wouldnt' just let you experiment and figure it out.  They tried to make me an Abstract Expressionist.  I got so tired of fighting with them, that I decided to paint a few their way.  I rolled some canvas out on the floor, and threw some paint on it.  For good measure I slapped a on few brush strokes.  All the while cussing my professors.  Took all of 20 minutes and I ended up with three washy, blue/purple pieces that I entered in the end of year competition.  They won me a small scholarship.  Wouldn't believe the bullshit they spouted about them.  "I really love the energy here."  "Oh, such masculine painting."  Can't win for losing.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 15, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> I heard somethng similar happen to someone else and didn't Robster say someone commented on a bit of art in his gallery, when it was a bit of rubbish!!
> 
> I thought you were muso trained Mr Suplex



I'm an art school drop out. I did my 2 year B-tech then went to do a degree but gave up because I wanted to play in this band I was in. 

I then took Music Technology when I was 20 or 21 I think.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

Art school drop outs - FUCK YEAH!

*high fives AS*


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 15, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Art school drop outs - FUCK YEAH!
> 
> *high fives AS*



*goes to high five but does that thing with the hand on the nose at the last second*

I still have a degree.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> I went to art collage and could not stand the bullshit that people would crap on about art. I remember an exhibition I had where this chap (who didn't know me or that it was my work) was coming up with all kinds of absurd bollocks about my influences and what the pictures were about. Every time I would try to explain that I was just painting and making what I thought was nice people would say 'ah so you are dada then'.



This happens to everyone at some point who does a BA. Art school is counter-productive in many ways, its like they want you to fit within the constrains of established schools of thought. I used to have right ding dongs with my tutor who had a go at me for doing no "visual research" and I said I didn't want to do any because I don't want to be influenced by others. I want it to be spontaneous and chaste of influence. 

Now I *really* must go!!

I have a some shit with out the honours


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 15, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> This happens to everyone at some point who does a BA. Art school is counter-productive in many ways, its like they want you to fit within the constrains of established schools of thought. I used to have right ding dongs with my tutor who had a go at me for doing no "visual research" and I said I didn't want to do any because I don't want to be influenced by others. I want it to be spontaneous and chaste of influence.
> 
> Now I *really* must go!!
> 
> I have a some shit with out the honours


It is a lot of bollocks isn't it. It used to make me quite mad, all that 'your picture needs some background of bollocks to be valid' crap.

I still have the 'everthing is art' argument about twice a year though.


----------



## Reg in slippers (Feb 15, 2007)

breakdown/nourishment moment


----------



## zenie (Feb 15, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> I'm an art school drop out. I did my 2 year B-tech then went to do a degree but gave up because I wanted to play in this band I was in.
> 
> I then took Music Technology when I was 20 or 21 I think.



What were you studying?

If you're studying fine art and you want to be an 'artist' then I think you do need concepts and reasons behind why you do everything yeh.....


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 15, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> What were you studying?
> 
> If you're studying fine art and you want to be an 'artist' then I think you do need concepts and reasons behind why you do everything yeh.....



I don't think you do. concepts and reasons behind why you do everything are valid but in no way essential. There is no need to make art elitist or intellectual, just because you can talk bollocks about something doesn't make it clever and just because you don't doesn't make it bad. 

In fact I would say they are more important in graphic design where you are working to a brief and will probably have to explain yourself.


----------



## chilango (Feb 15, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> This happens to everyone at some point who does a BA. Art school is counter-productive in many ways, its like they want you to fit within the constrains of established schools of thought. I used to have right ding dongs with my tutor who had a go at me for doing no "visual research" and I said I didn't want to do any because I don't want to be influenced by others. I want it to be spontaneous and chaste of influence.
> 
> Now I *really* must go!!
> 
> I have a some shit with out the honours



Nah. Don`t agree.

There was no attempt on my degree to fit us into any genres...okay my tutor got a bit pissed when I started poncing around claiming I _wasn't_ an artist, but I reckon that was fair enough.

Visual research just acknowledges your influences (a bit like a reference) no matter what you believe you ain`t producing art in a vacuum.


----------



## chilango (Feb 15, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> I don't think you do. concepts and reasons behind why you do everything are valid but in no way essential. There is no need to make art elitist or intellectual, just because you can talk bollocks about something doesn't make it clever and just because you don't doesn't make it bad.
> 
> In fact I would say they are more important in graphic design where you are working to a brief and will probably have to explain yourself.



Nah.

There is _always_ a reason for creative production / art. It doesn`t have to be a fancy bullshit concept, but its there.


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 15, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> I heard somethng similar happen to someone else and didn't Robster say someone commented on a bit of art in his gallery, when it was a bit of rubbish!!



Zenie is correct. This act of random placement of rubbish and a picture in a back room, out of the main gallery area was considered by a senior art lecturer from Goldsmiths to be a sophisticated piece. I just didn't say anything


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 15, 2007)

When I worked in a gallery we had some christmas decorations up.  It was polar bears and snow.  We kept getting comments about how ironic that piece was.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Visual research just acknowledges your influences (a bit like a reference) no matter what you believe you ain`t producing art in a vacuum.





> I used to have right ding dongs with my tutor who had a go at me for doing no "visual research" and I said I didn't want to do any because I don't want to be influenced by others. I want it to be spontaneous and chaste of influence.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> If you're studying fine art and you want to be an 'artist' then I think you do need concepts and reasons behind why you do everything yeh.....



Is creation not a good enough reason? I think it was the god like Sleepy John Estes who said, I do it because I like to do it.


----------



## chilango (Feb 15, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Is creation not a good enough reason? I think it was the god like Sleepy John Estes who said, I do it because I like to do it.




...there you go then, the bare bones of a concept.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

Exactly, I think you don't have to have a reason for anything. Why not? Is a good enough reason for me.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 15, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> Nah.
> 
> There is _always_ a reason for creative production / art. It doesn`t have to be a fancy bullshit concept, but its there.



Maybe, and maybe it is in the back of your mind but then that is the case for everything. 
For instance I just did this. 





I didn't think about it, are you telling me it's not art?

Ok I suppose you could bullshit that it is free art spawned from a will to prove art does not have to be full of statement and pretension, and that the contradictory nature of it's reasoning is what gives the piece it's strength. 
But then we are back to the Dadaists and Duchamp's ready-mades.



I think Zenie was saying that to be art there had to be a substantial concept behind the piece. I think everything is art and you can include as little or as much bollocks into it as you like.


----------



## chilango (Feb 15, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Maybe, and maybe it is in the back of your mind but then that is the case for everything.
> 
> 
> I think Zenie was saying that to be art there had to be a substantial concept behind the piece. I think everything is art and you can include as little or as much bollocks into it as you like.



Innit.

There are reasons behind all our actions. The issue, therefore, is how much do you explain them.

Artists (as noted above) are reputed to have a tendency to over explain, to pad out relatively simple concepts with jargon in order to project a more intellectual image of themselves.

On the other hand, to claim that you "just did it" in isolation from any context is equally nonsense, and if true, pretty pointless.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

I think the question is bit of a no goer from the start as it depends on the medium, the context and genre of art. The two are inter-related and can also exist independently of each other.


----------



## chilango (Feb 15, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I think the question is bit of a no goer from the start as it depends on the medium, the context and genre of art. The two are inter-related and can also exist independently of each other.



No.

Regardless of genre or medium form and function are inseperable. Function dictates Form (if the work is "succesful"). If the form (the craft, the media, technique etc) fails to convey the function (or concept) of the work then it is not a successful piece of art - perhaps even not art. If the opposite is true (Form dictating function - you are left with decoration at best.


----------



## zenie (Feb 15, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> I don't think you do. concepts and reasons behind why you do everything are valid but in no way essential. There is no need to make art elitist or intellectual, just because you can talk bollocks about something doesn't make it clever and just because you don't doesn't make it bad.
> 
> In fact I would say they are more important in graphic design where you are working to a brief and will probably have to explain yourself.



Re; Graphic design yes you need concepts, or 'explanations' for clients.

I suppose people jus have different opinins on this and it's one of those arguments that will go round and round

If there's no concept except 'that looks nice, or I felt like it' then you may as well post on the stuckist thread surely?  




			
				firky said:
			
		

> Is creation not a good enough reason? I think it was the god like Sleepy John Estes who said, I do it because I like to do it.



WTF are you taking about a musician for??


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 15, 2007)

chilango said:
			
		

> On the other hand, to claim that you "just did it" in isolation from any context is equally nonsense, and if true, pretty pointless.



Nothing pointless about any art. Going back to the original question I don't think a high concept makes a art  'good' and vice versa.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 15, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> WTF are you taking about a musician for??



Music isn't one of the arts now?


----------



## zenie (Feb 15, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Nothing pointless about any art. Going back to the original question I don't think a high concept makes a art  'good' and vice versa.



In your opinion!!! 

The thread was meant to be about technical ability vs concept think it's been derailed lol


----------



## zenie (Feb 15, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Music isn't one of the arts now?




Music forum thattaway ----------------------->>>>

Performing Arts/Visual Arts


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> WTF are you taking about a musician for??



Dude, I'm shocked you asked that


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 15, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> In your opinion!!!



Ok. 'I don't think any art is pointless'. Happy?




			
				zenie said:
			
		

> The thread was meant to be about technical ability vs concept think it's been derailed lol



But isn't my comment you just quoted  on technical ability vs concept?


----------



## zenie (Feb 15, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Dude, I'm shocked you asked that



why?  

I dont see the relevence of bringing up a musician when we're discussing visual arts?


----------



## zenie (Feb 15, 2007)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> But isn't my comment you just quoted  on technical ability vs concept?




Perhaps I shoudl have done this










and had a seperator?


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

Why, what is the difference between the two?


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

music.and.visual.art.i.mean

sorry.space.bar.is.being.a.twat


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 15, 2007)

no difference between musical art and visual art, music still needs to have technical ability as well as some form of concept, ie: classical music telling the story of peter and the wolf, the seasons etc... most, if not all of it tells some sort of story which has concept behind it, you can't exclude it from a discussion about technical ability vs concept because you choose to ignore the fact that it's the same difference.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

Yup, and the same with literature. Dylan Thomas, Charles Bukowski et al would have been pretty shit if they had my command of english.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 15, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> why?
> 
> I dont see the relevence of bringing up a musician when we're discussing visual arts?



Where was that stated? Plus I think the two are more than close enough for analogy, in fact so close I don't think you could call it an analogy..


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2007)

Or even a parallelism, or even a similitude.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> I'd disagree with that
> 
> Photography can be a form of expressionism like any other art form can't it?
> '



Of course, but it's a visual medium, wherein you create representation of what is in the visual world. Your creativity stems from how you see, then interpret the visual world.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2007)

Yuwipi Woman said:
			
		

> Here's a good merger of both concept and technical ability in photography:
> 
> http://www.edelmangallery.com/parkeshow.htm
> 
> ...



I like this stuff, but concept isn't the same thing as contrivance.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> no difference between musical art and visual art, music still needs to have technical ability as well as some form of concept, ie: classical music telling the story of peter and the wolf, the seasons etc... most, if not all of it tells some sort of story which has concept behind it, you can't exclude it from a discussion about technical ability vs concept because you choose to ignore the fact that it's the same difference.



But it's possible to have concept that isn't an attempt to tell a story etc. Look at the Mozart symphonies that aren't called, 'The River' or something, just Symphony #40. There's still concept there, but it's sound concept, as opposed to visual concept or narrative concept.


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 16, 2007)

I was merely citing it as an example for the unintelligents johnny, y'know - easiest possible explinations and all that.


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2007)

what was the message in the hit 'aqua - barbie girl', or was it just pre-watershed adolescent wank fodder?


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 16, 2007)

msn


----------



## Cid (Feb 16, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Architects tend to be conceptual types who employ draughtsmen etc to actually do the heavy lifting when it comes to the technical specs drawings etc.



Absolute bollocks.


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2007)

hang on man i just got up...


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2007)

dp


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2007)

if you disect it enough every medium of expression has preconceived objectives. although we question the artistic merit of some, such as barbie girl, because we frown up on 'low class culture', where as 'high class culture', is still supposed the be the retreat of the vanguard bourgeoise. 

frederic jameson, (postmodernism and consumer society) states, that in the modernist society, the dichotomy of high and low culture; imposed a consensus that high culture is absolute and even authoritative. Art is seen as a hard earned field of finished work authenticated by artists and validated by agreed upon with un-spoken standards of this authorative vanguard. 

where as in postmodern society, art is process, a performance, production, that is intertextuality (word of the day) dictated by the audience. since today we have CDs, radio, internet, that audience is far larger and the intertextualisation is all the more powerful. art is now more a recycling of culture authenticated by the audience and validated in subcultures sharing identity with the artist.


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 16, 2007)

I just read vanguard bourgeoise as the vengabus


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2007)

dude, your tagline... lol


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 16, 2007)

GET ON THE FUCKING MSN YOU TOTAL UTTER FUCKING RETARD THERE IS MORE THAN THE TAGLINE


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> I was merely citing it as an example for the unintelligents johnny, y'know - easiest possible explinations and all that.



And I was merely agreeing with you and then embellishing a little.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Absolute bollocks.



I suppose it could depend on the level you're working at. What I said applies to the architects I know, who have maybe moved past the home reno stage.


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 18, 2007)

I'm suprised this thread hasn't been bumped yet by some numpty without an opinion asking for more of others.


----------



## portman (Feb 18, 2007)

Concept is always important IMHO. Technical ability is simply a tool to use to express an idea and/or an emotion.

As a photographer, I've seen too many images where showing off technical ability is the be all and end all of the photographer. The result may be a technically perfect image, obeying the 'rules' of composition, the right amount of tonal contrast, DOF etc, but if there is no idea behind it or any attempt to convey a feeling or mood, then what is the point?!

Then again, I've seen photographs that certainly have a good idea or concept but because of the lack of any attention to technique, the result doesn't effectively convey an idea or a feeling.

As ever, it's a balancing act. Some technical ability is needed but as long as the basics are mastered, then it's the thinking behind a piece that really matters...


----------



## Firky (Feb 21, 2007)

"I never went to fucking university. I don’t know what a paint brush is, I never went to art school." - noel gallagher

"i did. it taught me to respect other artists" - thom yorke

brit awards


----------

