Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => Arts and Entertainment => Topic started by: LEE on 04 April, 2012, 02:51:17 pm
-
I'm sorry but I just don't get it. I watched the documentary about Damien Hirst, hoping it would give me an insight into why he was such a highly-respected artist.
Check out one of his series of "Sex Pistols Medicine Cabinets" from a previous exhibition.
Medicine Cabinet (http://according2g.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Medicine-Cabinets-by-Damien-Hirst.jpg)
I kid you not...they are cabinets full of household medicines, or, to quote an art critic who knows better than me.
A good friend of mine (who is an artist) and I were recently discussing the concept of art and his view was that art is an on-going conversation in the universal mind. To that end, certain artists produce work that adds to the conversation while others make art that does not. Love or hate Damien Hirst, it’s undeniable that his work adds to the conversation. ”Medicine Cabinets” at L&M Arts in New York is the second exhibition from Damien Hirst that I’ve seen in person and I love watching people’s reactions to his work. They are strong and dramatic.
Assembled together for the first time are Damien Hirst’s “Sex Pistols Cabinets” from 1989 where every medicine cabinet is named after a song from the Sex Pistols’ debut album “Never Mind the Bollocks.” Similar to the way the Sex Pistols changed music with their album, Damien Hirst changed art when these works were introduced. There is no denying that the juxtaposition of simplicity with complication in the cabinets is anything but “pretty vacant,” to quote the Sex Pistols track
I am such a philistine...but good luck to the chancer..I'd do the same thing if I could sell bathroom cabinets for a few grand each (IKEA take note).
Damien Hirst - Real art or just a lucky chancer spouting bullshit to the gullible rich?
(Stands back after lighting blue touch-paper of "is it art?" debate)
-
...Damien Hirst... talentless chancer...
That.
-
I've yet to meet any 'concept art' that does anything for me. I regard 'art' as something that communicates a feeling or a viewpoint to me. So a photograph can easily be art - the photographer picking the lighting and composition to communicate a feeling. Ditto abstract art.
The best bit of concept I heard of, and closest to being what I would call 'art', was a guy who got 'known' poets to each write a poem about peace. He then had them recite their poems out loud, and captured the last puffs of breath of the last syllables in glass jars. These jars were delivered to 10 downing street (just before we invaded Iraq).
But without knowing what is in the jars, they are just jars.
If you take a piece of 'concept' art out of context, does it still communicate something? Even Warhol's baked bean tin does that. Tracey Emin's bed? Pass me the other one, it has bells on it.
-
But without knowing what is in the jars, they are just jars.
If you take a piece of 'concept' art out of context, does it still communicate something? Even Warhol's baked bean tin does that. Tracey Emin's bed? Pass me the other one, it has bells on it.
As someone said last week "the Mona Lisa in a gutter is still the Mona Lisa" .
-
If you take a piece of 'concept' art out of context, does it still communicate something? Even Warhol's baked bean tin does that. Tracey Emin's bed? Pass me the other one, it has bells on it.
If you take a talented solo musician out of context, do they still communicate something? Probably not. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2007/apr/18/joshuabellnoordinarybusker) Does that prove anything? Why shouldn't a piece of art be intended to be seen in context?
-
'Art appreciation' sits at the top of the human development needs index. Its purpose is to communicate in two distinct ways, both to the appreciator and his/her audience. Once you have made a lot of money or accumulated power it is essential to demonstrate that this was because of innate talents and sensibilities that explain why you are entitled to the power and wealth. That is why one starts to eat and drink rare and expensive foods/wines etc - and why rich people appreciate art better, and want to hang seriously expensive statemnents on their walls. (plus investment of course).
They always have dome of course - the great masters were usually sponsored by gangster villains like the medicis or the church etc.
A Mona Lisa in the gutter is actually known as rubbish - it only becomes art when labelled as such.
The value of the art is increased if only the very rich (supported by the entourage of liggers and bohemian vampire hangerson of The 'art world') can 'understand' it. It is at its sublime pinnacle when it truly delivers the emperors new clothes. This is what happens when people simply don't know what to do with all their money but crave recognition by spending it - basically Damien Hirst is an extension of the world of Luis Vuitton but without the craft content. Luxury branding.
If you read some of the complete and utter drivelling nonsense that is written by the overeducated but fundamentally empty headed drones of that world you can see it really is. That is what the critic above calls 'the conversation' as he patronises.
There - I think that sums it up pretty well.
-
...Damien Hirst... talentless chancer...
That.
Not talentless. He has a great talent: he is a highly-skilled self-publicist, & a con artist extraordinaire.
He's not any other kind of artist, though. He doesn't make the things he puts his name to (he employs others to do that).
Oh - just read Tigerrr's post. Yes. "Luxury branding". The emperor's new clothes: the value is in being seen to pay a lot for them. Hirst is good at the patter which makes the stupidly & stupid rich want to give him their money.
-
I'm with LEE on this. I've watched the recent coverage with the intention of giving him one last chance to impress me, but there's nothing there. That one with the hatching flies that get zapped raises a wry smile - but that's a throwaway gag, not great art.
-
I find Damien Hirst's creations vary from boring to revolting, averaging around ugly, but there's no denying he furthers conversation.
-
Where would we place Anthony Gormley? He has an international reputation for public art which people like. Even providing a recognisable logo for a whole region. Hirst has some good ideas, but I prefer Gormley.
-
Gormley's work is limited in its range, but I like the way that people interact with it.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OykRZMQeM4Y/SsPDoBXlvCI/AAAAAAAAAiE/EBzDI7ycK_s/s1600/Another+Place+-+Antony+Gormley%27s+Statues+on+Crosby+Beach.jpg)
-
Is that your bike, ESL? Good to see you supporting Bristol's finest! Not that you're actually supporting it there, unless the statue's modelled on you... But anyway...
-
'Art appreciation' sits at the top of the human development needs index. Its purpose is to communicate in two distinct ways, both to the appreciator and his/her audience. Once you have made a lot of money or accumulated power it is essential to demonstrate that this was because of innate talents and sensibilities that explain why you are entitled to the power and wealth. That is why one starts to eat and drink rare and expensive foods/wines etc - and why rich people appreciate art better, and want to hang seriously expensive statemnents on their walls. (plus investment of course).
They always have dome of course - the great masters were usually sponsored by gangster villains like the medicis or the church etc.
A Mona Lisa in the gutter is actually known as rubbish - it only becomes art when labelled as such.
The value of the art is increased if only the very rich (supported by the entourage of liggers and bohemian vampire hangerson of The 'art world') can 'understand' it. It is at its sublime pinnacle when it truly delivers the emperors new clothes. This is what happens when people simply don't know what to do with all their money but crave recognition by spending it - basically Damien Hirst is an extension of the world of Luis Vuitton but without the craft content. Luxury branding.
If you read some of the complete and utter drivelling nonsense that is written by the overeducated but fundamentally empty headed drones of that world you can see it really is. That is what the critic above calls 'the conversation' as he patronises.
There - I think that sums it up pretty well.
Most excellent post!
I was going to say most modern art is the emperor's new clothes, but you've said it better than I could.
And context is everything.
-
Is that your bike, ESL? Good to see you supporting Bristol's finest! Not that you're actually supporting it there, unless the statue's modelled on you... But anyway...
No, I just image googled Antony Gormley, https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1102&bih=862&q=Anthony+Gormley&gbv=2&oq=Anthony+Gormley&aq=f&aqi=g-s10&aql=&gs_l=img.12..0i10l10.1003l6071l0l8458l15l15l0l3l3l0l85l830l12l12l0.frgbld.#hl=en&gbv=2&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ID19T8DKBuPJ0QXcoJjNDQ&ved=0CD0QBSgA&q=Antony+Gormley&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=61e25f605c86cbc6&biw=1102&bih=862
I do like the way that people like his work.
(https://www.theimagefile.com/v/tp/145/128/2309690_4_antony-gormley-statue.jpg)
-
I cycle past Hirst's factory every day. It seems to have taken years to build and I'm not even sure it is finished yet. At one point construction appeared to have stopped for many months, and only restarted after he sold off a load of stuff.
-
Where would we place Anthony Gormley? He has an international reputation for public art which people like. Even providing a recognisable logo for a whole region. Hirst has some good ideas, but I prefer Gormley.
Did Gormley make those statues? I mean did he carve something out of clay and cast it in metal before putting it on a beach?
If so I think Gormely is a talented artist.
Damien Hirst's equivalent approach to art seems to consist of having an idea to put some metal statues on a beach but having a talented craftsman make the statues.
Art is not just about an idea, there surely must be an element of skill involved as well.
If not then there is no point in having someone create a real thing, you could just describe your idea to people who were stupid enough to listen.
I just had an idea for a huge bronze Elephant, upside down, in Hyde Park. A bronze statue of Tony Blair is stood, on his head, next to it. That's my idea for art. I haven't got the talent to create it and I don't know what the fuck it means but I could get some talented people to create it for me.
Am I an artist?
Actually, I'm starting to like my Elephant idea...it's better than Hirst's cabinets and I bet there are many critics who could tell me what was going on in my mind that made me create it (none of them would guess it was to take the piss out of Damien Hirst on behalf of a cycle forum).
-
'The elephant in the room turned the world upside down'
-
But it's not in a room, it's in a park. Oh, hang on... I think I see what you've done there... wow! Someone call Charles Saatchi!
-
Modern art = what happened when painters stopped looking at girls.
-
Modern art = what happened when painters stopped looking at girls.
Sigged! ;D
-
Modern art = what happened when painters stopped looking at girls.
Sigged! ;D
I stole it from Len Deighton who appears in turn to have pinched it from some bloke called John Ciardi.
-
Where would we place Anthony Gormley? He has an international reputation for public art which people like. Even providing a recognisable logo for a whole region. Hirst has some good ideas, but I prefer Gormley.
Did Gormley make those statues? I mean did he carve something out of clay and cast it in metal before putting it on a beach?
If so I think Gormely is a talented artist.
Damien Hirst's equivalent approach to art seems to consist of having an idea to put some metal statues on a beach but having a talented craftsman make the statues.
He takes casts of his own body usually. The Angel of the North is based on his own body, apart from the wings, obviously. That was essentially constructed by shipwrights, I don't think we could expect anyone to make such a piece unaided. All artists have workshops, that's what being a master craftsman is about, and that's why we call exceptional art 'A Masterpiece'. That work marks the transition from being a journeyman. It's the art that matters, not the method of production.
I'd see Hirst as being 'Metropolitan', he's dealing with the psychological issues of urban life, alienation, and the other stuff. Most people experience psychoses during adolescence, and leave them behind. The pressure of city life extends those issues and we see art like Hirst's. A view arises that concern with such issues is a sign of 'depth', and that representational art and landscape art are 'shallow'. It's further complicated by experience of art under totalitarian conditions, so that 'deep' art is seen as a sign of suffering. I can see the point of Hirst's stuff, but it doesn't speak to me, because I'm shallow, and I see that as a perfectly natural state.
-
My opinion on art is that for it to be good, it generally has to have taken skill to think up, and skill to actually produce.
Most modern art it could be argued that it took skill to think up, but rarely took much skill to produce.
OK, it's a scribble. It might be a scribble that "represents the disenfranchisement of working class society with politics in the modern age", or it might be a swirling pattern that contains "themes of submissiveness and dark undertones of power and control", but it's still just a scribble or a swirly pattern. Even I could have done it - my sister could have done something a lot better that I know what it's meant to be.
How do we know it's what the artist intended it to be, and wasn't just what randomly came out when they flung a paintbrush at a paper?
How do we know they didn't decide what it's supposed to be after they'd finished it?
If it didn't obviously take skill to produce then I'm afraid I'm always going to be unimpressed, as I'll just think 'well I could have done that!'
If the artist didn't even make it himself, but merely provided the concept, then that presumes that the audience only cares about the conception of it, rather than the production of it.
Why does Damien Hirst even bother to keep up the pretence that he actually even conceives them? I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't, in all cases. He can produce far more works and thus make far more money if he's got a close team of associates to design things for him - the thought must have crossed his mind. He's effectively just set up a company that bangs things out that he then puts his name to - because let's face it, that's all he's really selling, his name.
-
I just had an idea for a huge bronze Elephant, upside down, in Hyde Park. A bronze statue of Tony Blair is stood, on his head, next to it. That's my idea for art. I haven't got the talent to create it and I don't know what the fuck it means but I could get some talented people to create it for me.
Am I an artist?
If you were an artist, you would be able to instruct your artisans how to create the bits of it you don't do yourself (probably most of it), in detail, and inspire/bully them to carry on until they'd got it right according to your ideas. If you were a great artist, you could also either think of a meaning for it, or convince others to ascribe to you the meanings they give it.
By these standards, Hirst is a great artist - but I still don't like him (or his art).
-
Am I an artist?
Yes. I'll buy it.
Now go out and convince everyone else -- the more (and the richer/more influential) the better!
-
I just had an idea for a huge bronze Elephant, upside down, in Hyde Park. A bronze statue of Tony Blair is stood, on his head, next to it. That's my idea for art. I haven't got the talent to create it and I don't know what the fuck it means but I could get some talented people to create it for me.
Am I an artist?
Actually, I'm starting to like my Elephant idea...it's better than Hirst's cabinets and I bet there are many critics who could tell me what was going on in my mind that made me create it (none of them would guess it was to take the piss out of Damien Hirst on behalf of a cycle forum).
I think it sounds quite good, but it would be even better if instead of the top of their heads being on a level (i.e. on the floor), Tone was somehow suspended up so that their feet are on the same level, i.e. it's as if they were standing next to each other normally but then the whole scene was rotated upside down. ;D
-
I just had an idea for a huge bronze Elephant, upside down, in Hyde Park. A bronze statue of Tony Blair is stood, on his head, next to it. That's my idea for art. I haven't got the talent to create it and I don't know what the fuck it means but I could get some talented people to create it for me.
Am I an artist?
Actually, I'm starting to like my Elephant idea...it's better than Hirst's cabinets and I bet there are many critics who could tell me what was going on in my mind that made me create it (none of them would guess it was to take the piss out of Damien Hirst on behalf of a cycle forum).
I think it sounds quite good, but it would be even better if instead of the top of their heads being on a level (i.e. on the floor), Tone was somehow suspended up so that their feet are on the same level, i.e. it's as if they were standing next to each other normally but then the whole scene was rotated upside down. ;D
Unfortunately your idea is not art. It is too literal. It would be better to do a giant bronze mr potato head, or giant Barbie & Ken post coital and call it 'the eternal optimism of the proletariat' in which case it would be a searing critique of Blair and all he stood for.
-
...giant Barbie & Ken post coital ...
I think Jeff Koons may have done that already. Of course, it might not be post...
-
I just had an idea for a huge bronze Elephant, upside down, in Hyde Park. A bronze statue of Tony Blair is stood, on his head, next to it. That's my idea for art. I haven't got the talent to create it and I don't know what the fuck it means but I could get some talented people to create it for me.
Am I an artist?
Actually, I'm starting to like my Elephant idea...it's better than Hirst's cabinets and I bet there are many critics who could tell me what was going on in my mind that made me create it (none of them would guess it was to take the piss out of Damien Hirst on behalf of a cycle forum).
I think it sounds quite good, but it would be even better if instead of the top of their heads being on a level (i.e. on the floor), Tone was somehow suspended up so that their feet are on the same level, i.e. it's as if they were standing next to each other normally but then the whole scene was rotated upside down. ;D
Unfortunately your idea is not art. It is too literal. It would be better to do a giant bronze mr potato head, or giant Barbie & Ken post coital and call it 'the eternal optimism of the proletariat' in which case it would be a searing critique of Blair and all he stood for.
Oh yeah, sorry - I completely forgot, silly me - it would of course have to obfuscate what it's supposed to be in order to deflect any accusation of it being crap as the viewer not understanding it. You obviously understand it, so Lee clearly hasn't tried hard enough. (Forgive me Lee for my probably crap attempt to embellish your idea to the point of it passing as being art.)
Would it be ok if it were Dave, and he was silver but the elephant was still bronze? What about if Maggie was in there, and she was not only gold, but horizontal? That's got to be confusing enough, surely no-one's going to understand that!
-
To won a Hirst is to tell the world your bathroom taps are gilded and your Rolls-Royce is pink.
;D
-
I like Hirst. He is the opposite of the "chocolate box" painting. I'm not choosing one over the other, just saying that there needs to be balance in all things.
He perhaps isn't an artist in the traditional sense, he is a producer/employer/ manufacturer; but is non the worse for that.
Art can please, remind, confirm - but it can also challenge how we see or encode the world we are in. This is what Hirst does - it isn't about the warm cuddly feeling of, say, a Farquharson painting of sheep in the snow - it's about how we deal with knowing that that sheep is going to die and be eaten, or rot.
-
Art can please, remind, confirm - but it can also challenge how we see or encode the world we are in. This is what Hirst does - it isn't about the warm cuddly feeling of, say, a Farquharson painting of sheep in the snow - it's about how we deal with knowing that that sheep is going to die and be eaten, or rot.
Thank-you.
-
Just back from the Damien Hirst Exhibition at Tate Modern. Very interesting. I'm no art-buff, but have arty daughters so I'm giving it a go, this weeks been quite an arty week.
Thus far I've seen a Rubens hanging in the Cathedral of Arras (France), the Hirst this morning and this aftenoon I stood in line for the Hockney 'Bigger Picture'.
It's all been interesting and it all needs some sort of context to be fully appreciated. Art should create interest, a reaction (+/-ve) it should make you look at something in a different way. Hirst does that, there were a lot of wide-eyed people walking through the halls. Yes, some of it is overated or overdone, but some of it just draws your interest, it fascinates. Hirst might be the cocky commercial, sensationalist rock n roll enfent terrible of the art-world, but he seemed to be making a lot of people happy today. I enjoyed it.
Then to Hockney, probably the first artist I ever appreciated and this was the first opportunity I've had to see some of his work up-close and personal and I wasn't dissapointed. In some ways like Hirst, Hockney ploughs his own particular furrow and also pushes the boundaries of artistic technique and ways of looking at things. Simply fabulous, a man in love with his soroundings.
And what of Rubens? Not a clue frankly, but the detail, the shimmer of light from the clothes were beautiful enough, I'm sure there's a back story which will fill the context and improve ones appreciation and understanding. Google is my friend.
Now I'm not saying that all art even in context is great, I've seen some real guff (to me at least) at the Guggenheim Bilbao over the years, however sometimes context makes the difference - having heard Tracy Emin talk about her work, then even 'Unmade bed' makes sense and can be appreciated. Art is often easy to dismiss and hard to comprehend, but sometimes it's worth it .... On balance I thought Hirst was worth a few hours of my time, interestingly concieved and beautifully executed. Whether it's worth millions is somebody elses problem ....
Funnily enough, this was in yesterdays grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/06/damien-hirst-artist-we-deserve
-
I've walked and ridden past this many times over the last year or so but only yesterday did I notice that it's a Hirst.
http://rwa.org.uk/exhibitions-damien-hirst-charity
(http://rwa.org.uk/local/views/uploads/images/large/1319454178_20111024120258_5910653824ea545e23266a4_89804608_1486089065_811377465_l.jpg)
I always thought it was ugly and making a reasonably point clumsily.
-
I like Hirst. He is the opposite of the "chocolate box" painting. I'm not choosing one over the other, just saying that there needs to be balance in all things.
He perhaps isn't an artist in the traditional sense, he is a producer/employer/ manufacturer; but is non the worse for that.
Art can please, remind, confirm - but it can also challenge how we see or encode the world we are in. This is what Hirst does - it isn't about the warm cuddly feeling of, say, a Farquharson painting of sheep in the snow - it's about how we deal with knowing that that sheep is going to die and be eaten, or rot.
Nah. That's all been done, & much, much better. Look up Marcel Duchamp. Hirst recycles old ideas, rather crudely, & is about as challenging as a woolly jumper.
He's a very good salesman, & a very bad artist. He's found a way to be a con artist legally. Fine - as long as no tax or major corporate (because there's a good chance some of my pension money is invested in any given major company) money is spent on his garbage. I object vehemently to that.
-
I've walked and ridden past this many times over the last year or so but only yesterday did I notice that it's a Hirst.
http://rwa.org.uk/exhibitions-damien-hirst-charity
(http://rwa.org.uk/local/views/uploads/images/large/1319454178_20111024120258_5910653824ea545e23266a4_89804608_1486089065_811377465_l.jpg)
I always thought it was ugly and making a reasonably point clumsily.
Well, maybe this will help!
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=spastics+collecting+box&view=detail&id=74AD7865839E40A9E408572FF69E77DF972EAE71&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR
Those of us of a certain age remember these in the streets.
-
If you need to see a preserved shark to make you think about mortality and the futility of existence, go see some of Gunther von Hagens's work. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/gallery/2012/apr/03/animal-inside-out-exhibition-natural-history-museum?INTCMP=SRCH#/?picture=388188919&index=2) You may even learn something interesting as well.
-
I've walked and ridden past this many times over the last year or so but only yesterday did I notice that it's a Hirst.
http://rwa.org.uk/exhibitions-damien-hirst-charity
(http://rwa.org.uk/local/views/uploads/images/large/1319454178_20111024120258_5910653824ea545e23266a4_89804608_1486089065_811377465_l.jpg)
I always thought it was ugly and making a reasonably point clumsily.
Well, maybe this will help!
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=spastics+collecting+box&view=detail&id=74AD7865839E40A9E408572FF69E77DF972EAE71&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR
Those of us of a certain age remember these in the streets.
Yes, I just about remember those myself. I think. Maybe I just remember seeing photos of them, but I think I do remember seeing them in shops. The real ones were ugly and raised money for a good (presumably) cause, a 20-ft high one is even uglier and does no good. Obviously he wants this to make us think about our attitudes to charity and disability (or that's what the blurb says) but I don't think it's an effective way of promoting thought. And he's ripped off someone else's, ugly, design.
-
Obviously he wants this to make us think about our attitudes to charity and disability (or that's what the blurb says) but I don't think it's an effective way of promoting thought. And he's ripped off someone else's, ugly, design.
I doubt it. I suspect he (or one of hist staff) had the idea first, then he or some of his people came up with a justification.
-
Well, he's got me agreeing with Brian Sewell which is pretty fucking amazing.
-
Well, he's got me agreeing with Brian Sewell which is pretty fucking amazing.
If you are telling me that Brian Sewell doesn't like Damien Hirst then I may be forced to start liking Hirst. I was rather hoping that Sewell would love him, thereby affirming my views.
-
In a piece in the Ernie Stannit, Sewell basically said he's crap but a good saleman* there was a rather good one liner but I've forgotten it now.
*May contain some degree of summarising.
-
Just back from the Damien Hirst Exhibition at Tate Modern. Very interesting. ...
Funnily enough, I was at the Tate Modern this weekend, with my parents. I was there largely based on it's convenience to public transport, and being something entirely original, that my parents definitely hadn't seen before. We didn't even vaguely consider queuing to pay money to see Damien Hirst's exhibition, and it seemed a bit of a waste of the Turbine Hall, which is really suited to huge exhibits, whereas the relatively small box they seemed to have built there for his stuff, could probably have been put in pretty much any art gallery with a moderate amount of space.
...Well, maybe this will help!
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=spastics+collecting+box&view=detail&id=74AD7865839E40A9E408572FF69E77DF972EAE71&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR
Dammit, you've got me agreeing with something in the Daily Wail!
Modern Art seems to be largely anything you say is art. I can live with that as a basis for art, so long as that alone isn't the argument for something being art, and there's also some degree of originality, imagination, even discussion about it (although not simply whether it's art or not).
As said upthread, once you've seen one animal sawn in half, you've pretty much seen all of them. Likewise making something bigger, and just copying it (and not terribly exactly) also doesn't seem to be that spectacular a concept or even original itself. People have been scaling things to be enormously large or small for a very long time.
I can't say Damien Hirst appeals to me on any level, and even if there had been no queues for his exhibit, I certainly wouldn't have been interested to pay money, and quite possibly wouldn't have gone in if there was no charge. There's plenty of strange stuff in the Tate Modern, that you can stare at and wonder if it's art, and there's a lot more variety and originality to it than there seems to be with Damien Hirst's stuff.
-
Modern Art seems to be largely anything you say is art. I can live with that as a basis for art, so long as that alone isn't the argument for something being art, and there's also some degree of originality, imagination, even discussion about it (although not simply whether it's art or not).
I was thinking to myself the other day that the difference between modern art and traditional art is that the traditional stuff is obviously art independent of its context, whereas modern art may or may not seem to be art, all dependent on context. What prompted me to think this was popping into the Arnolfini and seeing an exhibition of models of book covers in metal, each of a real book that had been written using a pseudonym. There was a little note with each one explaining why the author had not used their real name. I'd actually seen part of the same exhibition already, in the children's section of the Central Library, and had taken it to be a way to get kids interested in the writers and writing as well as stories - had I not seen it in a gallery it would never have occurred to me to call it 'art'.
-
In a piece in the Ernie Stannit, Sewell basically said he's crap but a good saleman* there was a rather good one liner but I've forgotten it now.
*May contain some degree of summarising.
Reply #29 (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=58364.msg1203038#msg1203038), by chance?
-
Modern Art seems to be largely anything you say is art. I can live with that as a basis for art, so long as that alone isn't the argument for something being art, and there's also some degree of originality, imagination, even discussion about it (although not simply whether it's art or not).
I was thinking to myself the other day that the difference between modern art and traditional art is that the traditional stuff is obviously art independent of its context, whereas modern art may or may not seem to be art, all dependent on context. What prompted me to think this was popping into the Arnolfini and seeing an exhibition of models of book covers in metal, each of a real book that had been written using a pseudonym. There was a little note with each one explaining why the author had not used their real name. I'd actually seen part of the same exhibition already, in the children's section of the Central Library, and had taken it to be a way to get kids interested in the writers and writing as well as stories - had I not seen it in a gallery it would never have occurred to me to call it 'art'.
So anything is art if it's placed in an art gallery?
There is a lot of truth in that.
At College we were taken to see an exhibition of Contemporary art at a Manchester Gallery. I remember some step-ladders made of perspex and some broken chairs amongst the exhibits.
I also noticed 2 women looking intensely at an old Hoover Vacuum-cleaner. It wasn't an exhibit, it belonged to the cleaner who had probably gone for a smoke. As they moved through the gallery they paused to admire 4 small brass "wall-hangings" in a cluster. They were light-switches and the 2 women were irretrievably stupid.
I guess the point is that, unless there's a big neon arrow telling people "This Vacuum cleaner is art" and "This is just a Vacuum cleaner" then how are we supposed to judge it?
I was recently in Brighton, sifting through piles of old furniture, in a warehouse frequented by students trying to furnish their flat for £20. If I'd taken down the sign saying "Shit old furniture" (or whatever) and replaced it with "Contemporary Art Exhibition" then it would have been every bit as convincing as the Manchester gallery.
It's impossible to look at Damien Hirst's "Medicine Cabinets" and know that they are art unless you are told they are art. Transferring them from the Tate to IKEA would make it hard to justfiy them as art when placed next to the same items in a utilitarian context.
Basically I don't get it so I'll leave it to people who either do or care enough to think they do.
Hats off to Hirst though, selling £14million worth of diamonds & old skull for £50million is bloody clever but not as clever as selling a £35 medicine cabinet for £3.6million. At least the owner of the skull has £14million worth of diamonds.
Knowing my luck my pension fund probably invested in over-hyped medicine cabinets.
-
Just back from the Damien Hirst Exhibition at Tate Modern. Very interesting. ...
Funnily enough, I was at the Tate Modern this weekend, with my parents. I was there largely based on it's convenience to public transport, and being something entirely original, that my parents definitely hadn't seen before. We didn't even vaguely consider queuing to pay money to see Damien Hirst's exhibition, and it seemed a bit of a waste of the Turbine Hall, which is really suited to huge exhibits, whereas the relatively small box they seemed to have built there for his stuff, could probably have been put in pretty much any art gallery with a moderate amount of space.
Ahhh, the black box in the Turbine hall was just the diamoned skull. The Hirst exhibition proper was in several rooms of the 3rd floor. Many of the pieces are very large!
-
Aha, we only did some exhibits on the fifth floor (iirc), and the cafe, which was good but expensive, and with an excellent view!
Still, that seems an even poorer use of the turbine hall area.
-
In a piece in the Ernie Stannit, Sewell basically said he's crap but a good saleman* there was a rather good one liner but I've forgotten it now.
*May contain some degree of summarising.
Reply #29 (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=58364.msg1203038#msg1203038), by chance?
That's the one, sorry I missed it first time Andrij.
-
Gormley's work is limited in its range, but I like the way that people interact with it.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OykRZMQeM4Y/SsPDoBXlvCI/AAAAAAAAAiE/EBzDI7ycK_s/s1600/Another+Place+-+Antony+Gormley%27s+Statues+on+Crosby+Beach.jpg)
And yet another place..
(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4058/4406282114_059f5326c3_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmam/4406282114/)
DSC_9848 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmam/4406282114/) by davidmamartin (http://www.flickr.com/people/davidmam/), on Flickr
-
I like Gormley's work.
Art is obviously derived from 'artisan', soemone who can create things. In the same way that a painter creates an image of a scene, they are an artist. Not just creating but putting an interpretation on the way they create something.
Where does the boundary lie between a skilled technician (a photorealistic representation of a scene) and an artist?
-
Art is obviously derived from 'artisan', soemone who can create things.
Other way, round, I'm pretty sure. But your point holds. Both are users of artifice.
-
Modern Art seems to be largely anything you say is art. I can live with that as a basis for art, so long as that alone isn't the argument for something being art, and there's also some degree of originality, imagination, even discussion about it (although not simply whether it's art or not).
I was thinking to myself the other day that the difference between modern art and traditional art is that the traditional stuff is obviously art independent of its context, whereas modern art may or may not seem to be art, all dependent on context. What prompted me to think this was popping into the Arnolfini and seeing an exhibition of models of book covers in metal, each of a real book that had been written using a pseudonym. There was a little note with each one explaining why the author had not used their real name. I'd actually seen part of the same exhibition already, in the children's section of the Central Library, and had taken it to be a way to get kids interested in the writers and writing as well as stories - had I not seen it in a gallery it would never have occurred to me to call it 'art'.
So anything is art if it's placed in an art gallery?
There is a lot of truth in that.
[...]
Yes, kind of. But what I saw in the library wasn't purely a functional object like a vacuum cleaner, it was something obviously created with an artistic intent. Not necessarily to look pretty (it wasn't at all, IMO) but, I presume, to provoke. I suppose that whereas what you saw in Manchester and in the warehouse showed the blur between art and utility, what I saw showed the blur between art and philosophy (though philosophy seems too grand a word for it, but I can't think of a more appropriate one right now).
-
Damien Hirst is showing his own influences here. (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7101/7086758269_067e32eb01_z.jpg)
-
I don't think we could expect anyone to make such a piece unaided. All artists have workshops, that's what being a master craftsman is about
Indeed. It's worth remembering that Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine chapel alone...
Not fussed about Damien Hirst but there's loads of other great stuff to see at Tate Modern - favourite exhibition of recent years was the Fischli and Weiss (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fischli_%26_David_Weiss). And I love the Rothko Seagram murals (http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/exhibition/rothko/room-guide/room-3-seagram-murals), which are on permanent display (and free to view).
I don't think it really matters if you "get it" or not, just whether or not you like it. There's plenty enough art in the world to choose from that you don't have to waste time bothering with the stuff you don't like/get.
d.
-
I don't think we could expect anyone to make such a piece unaided. All artists have workshops, that's what being a master craftsman is about
Indeed. It's worth remembering that Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine chapel alone...
....and that the Pope had actually requested "Barley White" on the ceilings.
-
....and that the Pope had actually requested "Barley White" on the ceilings.
;D
I'm actually going to see the Damien Hirst exhibition this lunchtime. I'm not paying for it, mind - got a free pass through work because the company is a corporate member, so I thought I might as well check it out. I'll let you know what I think...
I'm also keen to check out the Alighiero Boetti exhibition. And m'colleague says the Yayoi Kusama exhibition is also worth a look - I've never heard of her before but she sounds interesting.
d.
-
Verdict: I liked it a lot more than I was expecting to. It's a very well put together exhibition, though really only an overview of his work, not a comprehensive retrospective.
I had a look at the skull too. I thought the setting in the turbine hall worked really well, heightened the sense of drama, and as an object, it is breathtaking.
Had a quick look round the Boetti too. I was a bit short of time so had to rush it, but what I saw was, I thought, excellent. Definitely merits a return visit for a proper look. Interestingly, a lot of Boetti's stuff is made in workshops by artisans, following his instructions. The Boetti exhibition wasn't as popular as the Hirst, but what it lacked in numbers, it made up for in celebrities - Fabio Capello was in there with his wife.
Didn't have time to see the Yayoi Kusama, unfortunately, so will have to save that for another day too.
d.
-
Saw the Kusama today. Marvellous. Loved it.
Not one for all you "if it's not a nice painting it's not art" types but perfect for anyone who enjoys looking at bits of furniture and shoes covered in phallic beanbags...
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k170/smutchin/e6d6de3b.jpg)
d.
-
Hirsts dead animals in pickle are a meditation on mortality, as is so much of his work. There is also an intent to shock and provoke.
I have given this a bit of thought and I think that an actual working abattoir installed in the Tate with live animals entering at one end, being slaughtered, butchered, (pickled to order) and then being able to buy signed packs of meat or burgers in the bar after would 'extend the conversation'.
This would be a multi media, multisensorial experience. Visual, sound, smell, touch - even eating all encompassed. truly awesome.
I cannot imagine why nobody has done this. Its a very important statement about art and authenticity as well - the point being that art itself is nearly always a fake version of reality as opposed to actual reality. I was very aware of this issue at the Kapoor exhibition in which he showed a room full of concrete imitation turds when he could have much more effectively used real ones.
-
The last room of the Hirst exhibition is in fact a gift shop (a special one for the exhibition, separate from the Tate's main gift shop). I did wonder if it was meant to be ironic.
d.
-
The last room of the Hirst exhibition is in fact a gift shop (a special one for the exhibition, separate from the Tate's main gift shop). I did wonder if it was meant to be ironic.
d.
Nah - that's post-irony, see (they'll accept real money).
-
They had a barbecue going outside the front of Tate Modern today. No "Mother & Child" burger on offer though.
Merchandising opportunity missed.
d.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/522234_3250897559371_1474959327_41259734_246350675_n.jpg)