Author Topic: "I don't get art"  (Read 23299 times)

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #125 on: 20 November, 2015, 02:28:36 pm »
Spot on.   It's also why many people say they support Manchester United.

benborp

  • benbravoorpapa
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #126 on: 20 November, 2015, 02:43:57 pm »
My opinion is that what could be considered art is ubiquitous. The medium of expression is unlimited: graphic, plastic, literary, musical, physical, even the way some people lead their entire lives.
Its means of creation incredibly varied - inspiration, design, accident, discovery, collaborative or procedural process are just some of the ways someone can set out to produce art.
The appreciation of art is not confined to aesthetic beauty. A piece of art can speak to any aspect of emotion, intellect or sensual perception. Some art is stronger because of its ability to exclude, some to be universal. Art can be cruel, unspeakable and unjustifiable.
A work can also transition between and exist in various states. It could be considered art, craft, functional object or commodity, according to its purpose, perception, the means by which it came in to someone's possesion or the reputation of its maker. All of which can change over time. For much of an object's existence it is not neccesary to 'get' its artistic qualities. A ceramic's success is often measured in its ability to hold tea, for the handle's consistent attachment, its comfort and ease of use and maybe not being so fugly that it stays at the back of the cupboard.  All elements that will have involved a qualitative judgement at some point in the mug's development. It's only when it is placed on display and judged on its artistic qualities that someone's not 'getting it' means it becomes a failure. By exhibiting their work artists demand that such assessments are made. Risking artistic failure is essential to avoid art becoming solely a craft, or worse, product than can be endlessly replicated, if that happens, we lose the human component that has driven and informs the continued development of so many aspects of our lives. Artists frequently rely on craft and prioritise creating a product rather than dedicate themselves solely to 'art'. They have to.

I've reached such opinions mainly by working in a couple of collaborative art forms, theatre and film. There are advantages in how audiences tend to judge them both that increase artistic freedom. The experience of either is seen as an event in itself regardless of the artistic merits of the actual work. A film or play can successfully entertain, inform or distract members of its audience without relying on its artistic qualities throughout or even at all.
Every single element, down to which nail or screw is used, which eyelash is focussed on, what thought informs a breath, is to some extent an artistic choice. When every aspect of life is examined on its artistic merits the art in all the mundane objects we use and how we use them becomes apparent.
Tens to thousands of people will be used to bring the project to fruition usually with tight budgets and serious time constraints. The mix of chaos and structure, collaboration and need for attention to detail requires lots of qualitative judgement. There are artists that in other environments would be considered a tradesperson but their knowledge, skills and ability to affect the audience's perception through media diverse as water, light or hair are unarguable when witnessed. World class, gifted artists can be seen day in, day out relying on hard work, trade craft and collaboration to deliver a product. Huge effort, skill and art goes into work that if successful the audience will be oblivious of yet deeply moved by. The recreation of the viscerally unpleasant can be an art. The same goes for the absolutely mundane. There is a huge opportunity in providing contrast for human emotions that requires finding ways of making the conventionally ugly breathtakingly beautiful. It's a strange world but pretty much anything can be elevated to an artform or circumstances may demand that the same people deliver a facsimile of that work now and a hundred times over.

Nothing is a guarantee of artistic success. Frequently it comes out of nowhere, smacks you round the head and runs off.

A piece of work can be considered art in Vienna and Warwick, yet in Northampton and Kingston-upon-Thames it is utterly worthless.

Talking about the arts usually ends up as spouting pure wank. To use a theatre specific technical term.
A world of bedlam trapped inside a small cyclist.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #127 on: 20 November, 2015, 04:02:53 pm »
Part 2 of the Berger thing turned out to be rather interesting, having looked initially like it was going to be deep seventies cheese. But going back to Part 1, he says perspective is a technique unique to European art. Is this really true?
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Riggers

  • Mine's a pipe, er… pint!
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #128 on: 20 November, 2015, 04:47:14 pm »
My opinion is that what could be considered art is ubiquitous. The medium of expression is unlimited: graphic, plastic, literary, musical, physical, even the way some people lead their entire lives.
Its means of creation incredibly varied - inspiration, design, accident, discovery, collaborative or procedural process are just some of the ways someone can set out to produce art.
The appreciation of art is not confined to aesthetic beauty. A piece of art can speak to any aspect of emotion, intellect or sensual perception. Some art is stronger because of its ability to exclude, some to be universal. Art can be cruel, unspeakable and unjustifiable.
A work can also transition between and exist in various states. It could be considered art, craft, functional object or commodity, according to its purpose, perception, the means by which it came in to someone's possesion or the reputation of its maker. All of which can change over time. For much of an object's existence it is not neccesary to 'get' its artistic qualities. A ceramic's success is often measured in its ability to hold tea, for the handle's consistent attachment, its comfort and ease of use and maybe not being so fugly that it stays at the back of the cupboard.  All elements that will have involved a qualitative judgement at some point in the mug's development. It's only when it is placed on display and judged on its artistic qualities that someone's not 'getting it' means it becomes a failure. By exhibiting their work artists demand that such assessments are made. Risking artistic failure is essential to avoid art becoming solely a craft, or worse, product than can be endlessly replicated, if that happens, we lose the human component that has driven and informs the continued development of so many aspects of our lives. Artists frequently rely on craft and prioritise creating a product rather than dedicate themselves solely to 'art'. They have to.

I've reached such opinions mainly by working in a couple of collaborative art forms, theatre and film. There are advantages in how audiences tend to judge them both that increase artistic freedom. The experience of either is seen as an event in itself regardless of the artistic merits of the actual work. A film or play can successfully entertain, inform or distract members of its audience without relying on its artistic qualities throughout or even at all.
Every single element, down to which nail or screw is used, which eyelash is focussed on, what thought informs a breath, is to some extent an artistic choice. When every aspect of life is examined on its artistic merits the art in all the mundane objects we use and how we use them becomes apparent.
Tens to thousands of people will be used to bring the project to fruition usually with tight budgets and serious time constraints. The mix of chaos and structure, collaboration and need for attention to detail requires lots of qualitative judgement. There are artists that in other environments would be considered a tradesperson but their knowledge, skills and ability to affect the audience's perception through media diverse as water, light or hair are unarguable when witnessed. World class, gifted artists can be seen day in, day out relying on hard work, trade craft and collaboration to deliver a product. Huge effort, skill and art goes into work that if successful the audience will be oblivious of yet deeply moved by. The recreation of the viscerally unpleasant can be an art. The same goes for the absolutely mundane. There is a huge opportunity in providing contrast for human emotions that requires finding ways of making the conventionally ugly breathtakingly beautiful. It's a strange world but pretty much anything can be elevated to an artform or circumstances may demand that the same people deliver a facsimile of that work now and a hundred times over.

Nothing is a guarantee of artistic success. Frequently it comes out of nowhere, smacks you round the head and runs off.

A piece of work can be considered art in Vienna and Warwick, yet in Northampton and Kingston-upon-Thames it is utterly worthless.

Talking about the arts usually ends up as spouting pure wank. To use a theatre specific technical term.



Benners? Could you précis the above into a Haiku please. I haven't got the time to read it!
Certainly never seen cycling south of Sussex

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #129 on: 20 November, 2015, 05:00:31 pm »
I don't mind some modern art but a lot of it just seems vapid and lazy. Take the fur coats on chairs installation by Nocole Wermers which was a Turner Prize entry for example, this is supposed to be one of the best new works of art in the country. Here is description of it:

The first room hosts an installation by Nicole Wermers titled Infrastruktur; chairsa collection of chairs with fur coats placed over them. The artist’s continued focus of consumer lifestyle and power dynamics is visible in this work. The chairs have the appearance of office furniture, but such functionality contrasts with the opulence of the fur coats draped over them. Social hierarchy is alluded to in the merging of the coats with the chairs beneath them, which also, of course, affirms the stability and status of the chairs as objects. On the walls around the chairs are painted pieces that, on first glance, look more like plastic or silicone than ceramic pieces; these appear in bright white, which endows them with a kind of permanence through their subtlety and congruence with the surrounding walls.

Really ? Does some fur coats on office chairs make you think of consumerism or socially hierarchy unless someone specifically tells you that's what it means ? As for "affirming the stability and status of the chairs as objects" what the hell is that supposed to mean ? A chair is an object it's never not an object and certainly doesn't need that affirming. Does seeing a chair with a fur coat on it make you think that chairs status as an object is greater than a chair without a fir coat on it ?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #130 on: 20 November, 2015, 05:19:10 pm »
You don't need to "get anything" to appreciate art.

If you like it because of the colour or shape, that's fine. If you pretend you like it because someone who appears a bit more "art savvy" likes it and you just want to fit in with the crowd, that's a bit worrying.

Thus most pieces of modern art are actually cunningly-disguised pseud detectors.  :demon:
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ~ Freidrich Neitzsche

benborp

  • benbravoorpapa
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #131 on: 20 November, 2015, 05:39:18 pm »
Art? Northampton, no.
Though Festwochen mug handles
Crack. In essence - wank.
A world of bedlam trapped inside a small cyclist.

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #132 on: 20 November, 2015, 05:45:00 pm »
The first room hosts an installation by Nicole Wermers titled Infrastruktur; chairsa collection of chairs with fur coats placed over them. The artist’s continued focus of consumer lifestyle and power dynamics is visible in this work. The chairs have the appearance of office furniture, but such functionality contrasts with the opulence of the fur coats draped over them. Social hierarchy is alluded to in the merging of the coats with the chairs beneath them, which also, of course, affirms the stability and status of the chairs as objects. On the walls around the chairs are painted pieces that, on first glance, look more like plastic or silicone than ceramic pieces; these appear in bright white, which endows them with a kind of permanence through their subtlety and congruence with the surrounding walls.

I want the original author of that ^^^^ caught and shot RIGHT NOW.

(Strokes white Persian cat)
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #133 on: 20 November, 2015, 06:19:24 pm »
My opinion is that what could be considered art is ubiquitous. The medium of expression is unlimited: graphic, plastic, literary, musical, physical, even the way some people lead their entire lives.
Its means of creation incredibly varied - inspiration, design, accident, discovery, collaborative or procedural process are just some of the ways someone can set out to produce art.
The appreciation of art is not confined to aesthetic beauty. A piece of art can speak to any aspect of emotion, intellect or sensual perception. Some art is stronger because of its ability to exclude, some to be universal. Art can be cruel, unspeakable and unjustifiable.
A work can also transition between and exist in various states. It could be considered art, craft, functional object or commodity, according to its purpose, perception, the means by which it came in to someone's possesion or the reputation of its maker. All of which can change over time. For much of an object's existence it is not neccesary to 'get' its artistic qualities. A ceramic's success is often measured in its ability to hold tea, for the handle's consistent attachment, its comfort and ease of use and maybe not being so fugly that it stays at the back of the cupboard.  All elements that will have involved a qualitative judgement at some point in the mug's development. It's only when it is placed on display and judged on its artistic qualities that someone's not 'getting it' means it becomes a failure. By exhibiting their work artists demand that such assessments are made. Risking artistic failure is essential to avoid art becoming solely a craft, or worse, product than can be endlessly replicated, if that happens, we lose the human component that has driven and informs the continued development of so many aspects of our lives. Artists frequently rely on craft and prioritise creating a product rather than dedicate themselves solely to 'art'. They have to.

I've reached such opinions mainly by working in a couple of collaborative art forms, theatre and film. There are advantages in how audiences tend to judge them both that increase artistic freedom. The experience of either is seen as an event in itself regardless of the artistic merits of the actual work. A film or play can successfully entertain, inform or distract members of its audience without relying on its artistic qualities throughout or even at all.
Every single element, down to which nail or screw is used, which eyelash is focussed on, what thought informs a breath, is to some extent an artistic choice. When every aspect of life is examined on its artistic merits the art in all the mundane objects we use and how we use them becomes apparent.
Tens to thousands of people will be used to bring the project to fruition usually with tight budgets and serious time constraints. The mix of chaos and structure, collaboration and need for attention to detail requires lots of qualitative judgement. There are artists that in other environments would be considered a tradesperson but their knowledge, skills and ability to affect the audience's perception through media diverse as water, light or hair are unarguable when witnessed. World class, gifted artists can be seen day in, day out relying on hard work, trade craft and collaboration to deliver a product. Huge effort, skill and art goes into work that if successful the audience will be oblivious of yet deeply moved by. The recreation of the viscerally unpleasant can be an art. The same goes for the absolutely mundane. There is a huge opportunity in providing contrast for human emotions that requires finding ways of making the conventionally ugly breathtakingly beautiful. It's a strange world but pretty much anything can be elevated to an artform or circumstances may demand that the same people deliver a facsimile of that work now and a hundred times over.

Nothing is a guarantee of artistic success. Frequently it comes out of nowhere, smacks you round the head and runs off.

A piece of work can be considered art in Vienna and Warwick, yet in Northampton and Kingston-upon-Thames it is utterly worthless.

Talking about the arts usually ends up as spouting pure wank. To use a theatre specific technical term.



Benners? Could you précis the above into a Haiku please. I haven't got the time to read it!

It means that 'Art' can be anything at all, probably by accident, except in Northampton and Kingston-upon-Thames where they are all philistines. 

(I don't have time to Haiku)
Move Faster and Bake Things

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #134 on: 20 November, 2015, 06:33:54 pm »
The first room hosts an installation by Nicole Wermers titled Infrastruktur; chairsa collection of chairs with fur coats placed over them. The artist’s continued focus of consumer lifestyle and power dynamics is visible in this work. The chairs have the appearance of office furniture, but such functionality contrasts with the opulence of the fur coats draped over them. Social hierarchy is alluded to in the merging of the coats with the chairs beneath them, which also, of course, affirms the stability and status of the chairs as objects. On the walls around the chairs are painted pieces that, on first glance, look more like plastic or silicone than ceramic pieces; these appear in bright white, which endows them with a kind of permanence through their subtlety and congruence with the surrounding walls.

That quote is, of course, a superbly satirical piece of conceptual art in itself. 

I want the original author of that ^^^^ caught and shot RIGHT NOW.

(Strokes white Persian cat)

Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #135 on: 20 November, 2015, 06:58:29 pm »
You don't need to "get anything" to appreciate art.

If you like it because of the colour or shape, that's fine. If you pretend you like it because someone who appears a bit more "art savvy" likes it and you just want to fit in with the crowd, that's a bit worrying.

Thus most pieces of modern art are actually cunningly-disguised pseud detectors.  :demon:

Which brings us nicely to the work of Pierre Brassau.

benborp

  • benbravoorpapa
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #136 on: 20 November, 2015, 07:06:05 pm »

It means that 'Art' can be anything at all, probably by accident, except in Northampton and Kingston-upon-Thames where they are all philistines. 

(I don't have time to Haiku)

Actually, it was more a case of the residents of Northampton having a good deal more self-respect than to put up with the antics of a European director and designer that were going out of their way to be as hostile and unpleasant to their audience as they could. The response in Kingston was just 'Why?' To which there was no logical answer.
A world of bedlam trapped inside a small cyclist.

Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #137 on: 20 November, 2015, 07:10:49 pm »
You don't need to "get anything" to appreciate art.

If you like it because of the colour or shape, that's fine. If you pretend you like it because someone who appears a bit more "art savvy" likes it and you just want to fit in with the crowd, that's a bit worrying.

Thus most pieces of modern art are actually cunningly-disguised pseud detectors.  :demon:

Which brings us nicely to the work of Pierre Brassau.

<Googles>

Outstanding;D
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ~ Freidrich Neitzsche

Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #138 on: 20 November, 2015, 07:21:02 pm »
Ooo...Oooo...Oooo!

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #139 on: 21 November, 2015, 04:34:30 pm »
"Before they are anything else, they are objects which can be bought and sold." That's where we came in, I think.
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Tigerrr

  • That England that was wont to conquer others Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
  • Not really a Tiger.
    • Humanist Celebrant.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #140 on: 22 November, 2015, 01:46:08 pm »
Art has always been about power and wealth, and its purpose is to legitimise the powerful and wealthy. Only the powerful and wealthy are imbued with the ability to fully appreciate art, and it was always thus. The collection and ownership of art makes wealth noble.
There is a class of attendant hangers on as well, those who would seek to relate to the powerful and wealthy, who also lay claim to understanding of art, but are unlikely to own it. These servants, acolytes and priests of art have an important role in supporting the wealthy and powerful in their quest to self justify their position through artistic appreciation.
The content of art, or its work,  is not the point - other than it being important that lesser people should not be able to fully appreciate it. If lesser people appreciate it fully then it ceases to be art.
Humanists UK Funeral and Wedding Celebrant. Trying for godless goodness.
http://humanist.org.uk/michaellaird

Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #141 on: 22 November, 2015, 02:20:42 pm »
Unless it's not for the rich, except they've gone and stolen some of it for profit.................................


                                                                                                                       This is not a website

                                                                                                |  http://www.banksy.co.uk/out.asp  |

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #142 on: 22 November, 2015, 02:33:15 pm »
Cave Paintings: A Metaphor For Capitalism, Tigerrr (pub. grabber & grabber, £149.99)
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

Ruthie

  • Her Majester
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #143 on: 22 November, 2015, 04:17:08 pm »
Art has always been about power and wealth, and its purpose is to legitimise the powerful and wealthy. Only the powerful and wealthy are imbued with the ability to fully appreciate art, and it was always thus. The collection and ownership of art makes wealth noble.
There is a class of attendant hangers on as well, those who would seek to relate to the powerful and wealthy, who also lay claim to understanding of art, but are unlikely to own it. These servants, acolytes and priests of art have an important role in supporting the wealthy and powerful in their quest to self justify their position through artistic appreciation.
The content of art, or its work,  is not the point - other than it being important that lesser people should not be able to fully appreciate it. If lesser people appreciate it fully then it ceases to be art.

Except the artists I've known have all been prepared to live on no money at all, for ever, and die unnoticed, if that's what it takes to make art.  That's not about power or wealth.  That's about being driven to create.
Milk please, no sugar.

Tigerrr

  • That England that was wont to conquer others Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
  • Not really a Tiger.
    • Humanist Celebrant.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #144 on: 23 November, 2015, 07:22:53 am »
Art has always been about power and wealth, and its purpose is to legitimise the powerful and wealthy. Only the powerful and wealthy are imbued with the ability to fully appreciate art, and it was always thus. The collection and ownership of art makes wealth noble.
There is a class of attendant hangers on as well, those who would seek to relate to the powerful and wealthy, who also lay claim to understanding of art, but are unlikely to own it. These servants, acolytes and priests of art have an important role in supporting the wealthy and powerful in their quest to self justify their position through artistic appreciation.
The content of art, or its work,  is not the point - other than it being important that lesser people should not be able to fully appreciate it. If lesser people appreciate it fully then it ceases to be art.
MM.
Except the artists I've known have all been prepared to live on no money at all, for ever, and die unnoticed, if that's what it takes to make art.  That's not about power or wealth.  That's about being driven to create.
I think you will find that they are not actually artists. They are people who would like to be artists, or like to do what they think is art, like myself in fact. But just because I call myself an artist, and my mates go along with my self delusion, does not make me so. I may spend my whole life doing 'art' but unless my work is recognised by the arbiters of art then my work is no more than a hobby.
The delusion of being an artist is quite common, as is the desire to create stuff. But very few of those doing the activity are making art, most are involved in extended craft therapy. With varying degrees of quality of output. Occasionally, usually once dead, someone's life obsession is discovered to be art, but that is rare.
Cave art, was of course locked into the power structure, and had magical and religious purpose, being interpreted by priests and Chiefs. Not much has changed.
Humanists UK Funeral and Wedding Celebrant. Trying for godless goodness.
http://humanist.org.uk/michaellaird

Ruthie

  • Her Majester
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #145 on: 23 November, 2015, 07:33:09 am »
Oh I understand now!  You're trying to be funny!

 :thumbsup:

Crack on.
Milk please, no sugar.

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #146 on: 23 November, 2015, 12:08:11 pm »
I assume that what differentiates the 2 "installations" below is some arty pseudo babble.

So, if it takes arty pseudo babble to differentiate, can it be art? (or is someone talentless chancer taking the piss?).

Jeff Koons's "Vaccuum Cleaners".





John Lewis's "Vacuum Cleaners"




Try to place a value on this ...



Now me increase the value by a few hundred grand by allowing Damien Hirst to comment on the medicine cabinet..

The works explore the distinction between life and death, myth and medicine. Hirst notes: “You take a medicine cabinet and you present it to people and it’s just totally believable. I mean a lot of the stuff is about belief, I think, and the ‘Medicine Cabinets’ are just totally believable.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Tigerrr

  • That England that was wont to conquer others Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
  • Not really a Tiger.
    • Humanist Celebrant.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #147 on: 23 November, 2015, 12:19:07 pm »
Oh I understand now!  You're trying to be funny!

 :thumbsup:

Crack on.

No - quite serious. It is all about the difference between Art, and decorative arts. Art is a tool by which the powerful self justify on the basis of finer sensibility, intelligence and understanding.
Decorative arts on the other hand is what pretty much everyone else has and calls art. And those who create it like to think they are Artists. And those who devote their lives to it in poverty and die unknown and unregarded are failed Artists - plenty of them about too.
Humanists UK Funeral and Wedding Celebrant. Trying for godless goodness.
http://humanist.org.uk/michaellaird

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #148 on: 23 November, 2015, 12:28:51 pm »
No - quite serious. It is all about the difference between Art, and decorative arts. Art is a tool by which the powerful self justify on the basis of finer sensibility, intelligence and understanding.

Probably quicker just to Google Charles Saatchi.  I hear he's just bought the King's New Clothes and already sold them at a huge profit to a Hedge-Fund Manager in Chelsea.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

benborp

  • benbravoorpapa
Re: "I don't get art"
« Reply #149 on: 23 November, 2015, 01:27:59 pm »
Some pretty repugnant concepts there Tigerrr.
A world of bedlam trapped inside a small cyclist.