You were going to have a go because I didn't remember an Andy Warhol piece, right?
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Of course it's ironic.. a famous artist exhibiting a painting by numbers piece. How is that not ironic? Please don't try to pick completely unnecessary arguments.
nevermind...
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Sorry.. I guess you were genuinely wanting to know the answer right?
Man this board is causing me problems lately of a psychological nature.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
I know but the fact is, they still might call it 'shit'.. as was your point. Any great interior designer, especially on the scale of a hotel lobby designer, would recognise their debt to the New York school of artists (even I hate that term!)
hotel lobby designer = shit job
i couldnt give two fucks if they think something is art or isnt... its what i think that counts... like a hotel lobby designer has studied art ... they watched 14 episodes of Changing Rooms and that was it... delusions of Grand(eur) Designs ... p.s. see what i did there
and a cock in a bear suit and a sheep in formaldehyde does not take any talent... Gordon Ramsay creates a more beautiful piece of 'art' every single night of his cooking career.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i couldnt give two fucks if they think something is art or isnt... its what i think that counts... like a hotel lobby designer has studied art ...
Of course a hotel lobby designer has studied art, and usually has a decent enough knowledge of it; we're not talking the Premier Inn here. Anyone who designs/constructs interiors for swanky public spaces has degrees and shit, no? I'd happily be proven wrong.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
I already said, my opinions on his works in themselves and his reasons for creating them are seperate but related. Clearly a few people here don't seem to realise that appreciation of art is subjective here and I am not one of those people and as such, am not the one indulging in pretension. No, I don't think my statement was ridiculous. For ME, Kinkade's work is exploitative trash. Did you see the painting I posted of the soldier coming home from Iraq? It's republican, middle-American propaganda, not art. In my opinion. As for your angered reaction to my "trying to make someone look stupid", read the following posts. I wasn't trying to do that at all, I just wanted to see if Jamie would appreciate the picture on it's own merits before he formed an opinion when he heard that it was a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine. I'm not trying to make anyone look stupid here, I'm just trying to voice my opinions without being called "pretentious", "elitist", "pseudo-intellectual" and a bunch of other terms that have been directed at people in this thread just because they don't agree with the original post. Please accept my humblest apologies if I have made an error in thinking I have the right to do that, otherwise, quit stirring shit up. Jamie knew I meant no offence.
And yes, if Rothko liked Kinkade, my opinions would change. My opinions of Rothko, not Kinkade. The idea that I would buy that bullshit because some hipster, fashionable artist liked him is pretty offensive to me. I think Kinkade's work is more grotesque and shallow than any Turner-nominated conceptual crap involving dead things in embalming fluid. Only Damien Hirst's latest comes anywhere near.
Explain yourself any way you like, but you set that up. A plastic Jesus in urine and a sheep in formaldehyde. Ok. You knew one person didn't appreciate the sheep. And then you put up a photograph of a jesus in urine and sit back and wait for an opinion. If someone sees the urine jesus as a painting it may be appreciated more than if someone stuck a plastic jesus in a jar of urine.
I know you get what I am saying.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Of course a hotel lobby designer has studied art, and usually has a decent enough knowledge of it; we're not talking the Premier Inn here. Anyone who designs/constructs interiors for swanky public spaces has degrees and shit, no? I'd happily be proven wrong.
big fucking deal
one of my best friends has no degree whatsoever and has sold his company (along with his 2 brothers) for £32 million.
my other best friend is a teacher of business studies at a Secondary School here... he's never owned nor run a business.
having a degree in something doesnt constitute expert knowledge of another field... my wife has an honours degree in Scottish History.... she has no fucking idea on this earth where Vikings settled in Scotland
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
one of my best friends has no degree whatsoever and has sold his company (along with his 2 brothers) for £32 million.
my other best friend is a teacher of business studies at a Secondary School here... he's never owned nor run a business.
having a degree in something doesnt constitute expert knowledge of another field... my wife has an honours degree in Scottish History.... she has no fucking idea on this earth where Vikings settled in Scotland
OK, you're right of course.
But this is sort of going in circles... Robert Plant doesn't have a degree in guitar either.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, I'd hazzard a guess that degree or not, anyone with healthy knowledge and experience of the kind of work I'm talking about is going to know who the Abstract Expressionists/New York school were, and what they did for their line of work... They'll also know about Art Deco, Bauhaus... all that. Hopefully. You get my drift?
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Explain yourself any way you like, but you set that up. A plastic Jesus in urine and a sheep in formaldehyde. Ok. You knew one person didn't appreciate the sheep. And then you put up a photograph of a jesus in urine and sit back and wait for an opinion. If someone sees the urine jesus as a painting it may be appreciated more than if someone stuck a plastic jesus in a jar of urine.
I know you get what I am saying.
Of course I get what you are saying. What I am disagreeing with is that I was doing it to make a fool of someone. I wasn't, I was doing it to support my point.
Somewhere along the line in this thread, disagreeing with you, Dunk and Jamie has become equated with being an asshole and I don't quite understand why.
Oh, and I don't see why it would make a difference if Piss Christ was a photo or a painting. I have already said that I don't believe technical skill holds any particular relevance in my appreciation of art and therefore if the image is artistic or not artistic, it shouldn't make a difference if the creation involved painstaking detail and skill or the click of a button. If the image looks the same, the effect should be the same. That is why I "set that up". So that the two pieces might be appraised visually before they were appraised conceptually. Exactly why I am now being treated as some snide, manipulative conman is beyond me. This thread is really not that important
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
But this is sort of going in circles... Robert Plant doesn't have a degree in guitar either.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, I'd hazzard a guess that degree or not, anyone with healthy knowledge and experience of the kind of work I'm talking about is going to know who the Abstract Expressionists/New York school were, and what they did for their line of work... They'll also know about Art Deco, Bauhaus... all that. Hopefully. You get my drift?
robert plant is a singer... what on earth would he do with a guitar degree
as for your other point... well i dont actually...
i could go into Jamie Olivers restaurant... p.s. he has no degree in cooking and if his food was shit then i'd say it was shit... same with Blumenthal, Stein, Ramsay, etc... i'd hope that an artist or someone viewong art could stand alone regardless of peer pressure and decide if something worthy of their appraisal.... i could look at a Hockney painting not knowing it was his and go either YES or NO... someone tells me its a Hockney and i;d still be YES or NO..
i sense, and i may be wrong, that you and J might be inclined to change that view? if you uncovered a rare and long lost Rothko in your attic, with no knowledge of its creator then you might be more inclined to think... "its a bit shit this.." .. rather than... ".... *gasp*.. 3 merged colours of greatness!!! " i could be wrong...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Of course I get what you are saying. What I am disagreeing with is that I was doing it to make a fool of someone. I wasn't, I was doing it to support my point.
Somewhere along the line in this thread, disagreeing with you, Dunk and Jamie has become equated with being an asshole and I don't quite understand why.
Oh, and I don't see why it would make a difference if Piss Christ was a photo or a painting. I have already said that I don't believe technical skill holds any particular relevance in my appreciation of art and therefore if the image is artistic or not artistic, it shouldn't make a difference if the creation involved painstaking detail and skill or the click of a button. If the image looks the same, the effect should be the same. That is why I "set that up". So that the two pieces might be appraised visually before they were appraised conceptually. Exactly why I am now being treated as some snide, manipulative conman is beyond me. This thread is really not that important
Because like, Dunk, Jamie and I are the coolest mofo's on here.
I am not on Dunk's bandwagon..or Jamie's. I think it is awesome that we are discussing art and it subjectiveness the way some people talk politics.
And who said you were a jerk for not agreeing with Dunk??? Please...lol
(Just kidding Dunk..don't send Jigsaw after me)
I don't think the Jesus in urine was simply the result of the click of a button either. I work with photographers all of the time and I understand the work involved.
But then again, viewing them on a computer screen is ridiculously different than viewing them side by side in a gallery. Which is obvious but I thought I would just throw it in there.
Every year I go to an agricultural fair in New England and run straight to the butter sculpture. I love watching the artist carving out this huge mountain of butter into such detail. I appreciate Rodin. I appreciate the dude carving the butter. One amazes me. The other amuses me.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Because like, Dunk, Jamie and I are the coolest mofo's on here.
no you two aren't...
i am though
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i sense, and i may be wrong, that you and J might be inclined to change that view? if you uncovered a rare and long lost Rothko in your attic, with no knowledge of its creator then you might be more inclined to think... "its a bit shit this.." .. rather than... ".... *gasp*.. 3 merged colours of greatness!!! " i could be wrong...
Yeah, you are
But then, I already said earlier in the thread that I'm not a big fan of Rothko. I just don't write him off as shite. If I found a painting in my attic I'd be like "shit... this looks like a rothko, I'd better get it appraised so I can sell it. I'd rather have the cash than this on my wall".
so there
Seriously though, why are Mark and I being treated like the smug ones in this thread?
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
robert plant is a singer... what on earth would he do with a guitar degree
as for your other point... well i dont actually...
i could go into Jamie Olivers restaurant... p.s. he has no degree in cooking and if his food was shit then i'd say it was shit... same with Blumenthal, Stein, Ramsay, etc... i'd hope that an artist or someone viewong art could stand alone regardless of peer pressure and decide if something worthy of their appraisal.... i could look at a Hockney painting not knowing it was his and go either YES or NO... someone tells me its a Hockney and i;d still be YES or NO..
i sense, and i may be wrong, that you and J might be inclined to change that view? if you uncovered a rare and long lost Rothko in your attic, with no knowledge of its creator then you might be more inclined to think... "its a bit shit this.." .. rather than... ".... *gasp*.. 3 merged colours of greatness!!! " i could be wrong...
Let's get the Robert Plant thing out the way first.. I think Zep are OK but I don't know anything about them beyond that.
Right...
I personally love Rothko images for their minimalism and the fact that they do something for me on an emotional level. They are mostly just blurred squares on top of one another, yes... But I've made the subjective choice that they float my boat. Anyone else is within their rights to decide that they don't float theirs, so we agree.
I learned that they float my boat quite a long time before I learned that they, and the work of Pollock et al, inspired the first practicioners of art therapy, to help patients in institutions work out their feelings, and to express them to the world.. which I'm extremely interested in, all arguments of hotel lobbies and Grand Designs aside.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
But then, I already said earlier in the thread that I'm not a big fan of Rothko. I just don't write him off as shite. If I found a painting in my attic I'd be like "shit... this looks like a rothko, I'd better get it appraised so I can sell it. I'd rather have the cash than this on my wall".
so there
Seriously though, why are Mark and I being treated like the smug ones in this thread?
i'm not treating you as smug.... pretentious wafflers of shit in the name of elitism? yes... but smug? no
i was hoping the thread might be more of a 'post examples of art that is crap'.. but it turned out different... and in a good way
but beauty is in the eye of the beholder... and a guy in a bear suit is uglier than a bulldog licking shit of a golf shoe.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Because like, Dunk, Jamie and I are the coolest mofo's on here.
I am not on Dunk's bandwagon..or Jamie's. I think it is awesome that we are discussing art and it subjectiveness the way some people talk politics.
And who said you were a jerk for not agreeing with Dunk??? Please...lol
(Just kidding Dunk..don't send Jigsaw after me)
I don't think the Jesus in urine was simply the result of the click of a button either. I work with photographers all of the time and I understand the work involved.
But then again, viewing them on a computer screen is ridiculously different than viewing them side by side in a gallery. Which is obvious but I thought I would just throw it in there.
Every year I go to an agricultural fair in New England and run straight to the butter sculpture. I love watching the artist carving out this huge mountain of butter into such detail. I appreciate Rodin. I appreciate the dude carving the butter. One amazes me. The other amuses me.
So why would it matter if it was a painting or a photo then? If you agree that a photo, when taken well, is just as much an artform as a painting? We should only be dealing with the image itself, and if we go in for such pseudo-intellectual wankery round here, the meaning The medium isn't really that relevant. It's just a vehicle for the work. I don't get why it has become an issue that Jamie thought it was a painting.
I totally agree with the viewing on a computer screen though. I posted some of Gerhard Richter's paintings earlier and someone said they looked rubbish and then judged my appreciation of them saying that I was buying into the fact that the art world tells me that I'm supposed to like them, which was frankly bullshit because, as I pointed out, I had never heard of Richter, the only work of his that I was familiar with was his painting that Sonic Youth used as the cover for Daydream Nation and I didn't know it was him at the time. My appreciation of his work was seeing a huge canvass in a gallery and after walking past tons of highly regarded stuff before, being stopped in my tracks by this one and, even though it wasn't a conventional image of something that you describe, it captivated me for some reason. No preconceptions of the painting or the artist, no knowledge of it whatsoever, I just loved it for some reason. That's why I get annoyed when people who feel similarly to me get written off as pretentious, fashionista pricks. Why my taste is less relevant than a person who hates Rothko is something I have trouble grasping. That is all.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
i'm not treating you as smug.... pretentious wafflers of shit in the name of elitism? yes... but smug? no
i was hoping the thread might be more of a 'post examples of art that is crap'.. but it turned out different... and in a good way
but beauty is in the eye of the beholder... and a guy in a bear suit is uglier than a bulldog licking shit of a golf shoe.
See my last post for details on whether it is elitism or not. I have no interest in pleasing purveyors of fine artistic bullshit. I only serve to please my own sense of enjoyment. That cannot be pretentious. Disregarding something offhand as shit because you don't enjoy it is though. I don't enjoy listening to Led Zep anymore, I used to but don't anymore. I don't think it's shit though. Just not for me.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
See my last post for details on whether it is elitism or not. I have no interest in pleasing purveyors of fine artistic bullshit. I only serve to please my own sense of enjoyment. That cannot be pretentious. Disregarding something offhand as shit because you don't enjoy it is though. I don't enjoy listening to Led Zep anymore, I used to but don't anymore. I don't think it's shit though. Just not for me.
i said modern art = shit
then posted examples of shit.
thats not pretentious...
saying all modern art is shit might be called 'stubborn ignorance' but not pretentious... far from it.
i think Tool are shit.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Well, to me it does matter whether or not it was a photo.
I know an awful lot about Rodin. His life, how his work was considered grotesque and that he was charlatan, etc. I enjoyed his work before I knew that..I appreciated it more after I knew more about his life and how he worked.
It affected my opinion.
And for the record, I don't think (think being the operative word) that I ever said anything about you being a jerk for liking Rothko's work. Nor did I say anything regarding my personal opinion of his work.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
saying all modern art is shit might be called 'stubborn ignorance' but not pretentious... far from it.
i think Tool are shit.
The idea that your opinion is more valid than other people's is though, and I think you have been guilty of thinking that a few times here And you're too intelligent to pass it off as ignorance.
Thinking Tool are shit is fine. Thinking that someone who likes Tool is shit because of it is not. Not until you justify it (something which is easily done with Tool fans to be fair) beyond something like "Tool are pretentious and therefore so are their fans by association. No one ACTUALLY likes their music, they just pretend to because they like to make out they are interested in alchemy and sexual deviation"
Because some people whose opinions are equally valid DO like Tool.
I am not saying that your thread was inherently bad in intentions, you are of course entitled to your opinion, just don't give shit to those who have sustained it this long by arguing with you
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Well since some of the earliest clowns were court jesters and mimes...even as far back as the Romans...I would think their original intent was not to be portrayed as the sad, drunk, mean clowns of the early Barnum and Bailey era.
So, no dice on the conceptual art theory Rhino.
That may just be the single most depressing picture I've ever seen. It looks like fifteen of his clown friends committed mass suicide via carbon monoxide poisoning. In the one tiny little car. :eek:
And okay, no dice on the conceptual art theory - but is face painting a valid form of artistic expression?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
I already said, my opinions on his works in themselves and his reasons for creating them are seperate but related. Clearly a few people here don't seem to realise that appreciation of art is subjective here and I am not one of those people and as such, am not the one indulging in pretension. No, I don't think my statement was ridiculous. For ME, Kinkade's work is exploitative trash. Did you see the painting I posted of the soldier coming home from Iraq? It's republican, middle-American propaganda, not art. In my opinion. As for your angered reaction to my "trying to make someone look stupid", read the following posts. I wasn't trying to do that at all, I just wanted to see if Jamie would appreciate the picture on it's own merits before he formed an opinion when he heard that it was a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine. I'm not trying to make anyone look stupid here, I'm just trying to voice my opinions without being called "pretentious", "elitist", "pseudo-intellectual" and a bunch of other terms that have been directed at people in this thread just because they don't agree with the original post. Please accept my humblest apologies if I have made an error in thinking I have the right to do that, otherwise, quit stirring shit up. Jamie knew I meant no offence.
And yes, if Rothko liked Kinkade, my opinions would change. My opinions of Rothko, not Kinkade. The idea that I would buy that bullshit because some hipster, fashionable artist liked him is pretty offensive to me. I think Kinkade's work is more grotesque and shallow than any Turner-nominated conceptual crap involving dead things in embalming fluid. Only Damien Hirst's latest comes anywhere near.
Is it not art because it's propoganda, or because you don't like it?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
That may just be the single most depressing picture I've ever seen. It looks like fifteen of his clown friends committed mass suicide via carbon monoxide poisoning. In the one tiny little car. :eek:
And okay, no dice on the conceptual art theory - but is face painting a valid form of artistic expression?
I know but the fact is, they still might call it 'shit'.. as was your point. Any great interior designer, especially on the scale of a hotel lobby designer, would recognise their debt to the New York school of artists (even I hate that term!)
I'm a decorator by trade Mark, I have recently dealt with interior designers (don't know if they're great or not) but I'll tell you this, they talk a lot, they spout a lot of stuff and they talk themselves into work and their clients out of pocket fulls of money, to me, these guys are the charlatans.
Holden's a really cute kid.:)
Would I be remembering correctly if I said you do fashion shoots? It's a vague recollection from when I lurked more than I posted.:o
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
You were going to have a go because I didn't remember an Andy Warhol piece, right?
Um.....no.
You're the expert Mark, I have no idea who did what, I was just thinking as I said.....I'll stay out of this. Say, there isn't always a deep hidden meaning behind everything
I'm a decorator by trade Mark, I have recently dealt with interior designers (don't know if they're great or not) but I'll tell you this, they talk a lot, they spout a lot of stuff and they talk themselves into work and their clients out of pocket fulls of money, to me, these guys are the charlatans.
I can believe that Jamie, I've seen it as well... I wouldn't try and say interior designers were great artists... normally, just that they'll be aware of their influences... normally.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Is it not art because it's propoganda, or because you don't like it?
It's not artistic propaganda. I can find redeeming points in films like Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Griffith's Birth of a Nation, two films with horrific content, used for propaganda to support nazism and white supremacy, because of their stunning portrayal of these horrors in aesthetically powerful ways. Both are towering works of cinematic achievement, not just technically because, as I have stated before, that is less important in MY appreciation than other factors. Nothing is aesthetically powerful or provocative of any emotion in Kinkade's paintings for me besides disgust and the feeling of being fed shit by a guy who either genuinely lives in his own little world where he doesn't understand humanity or being ripped off by a cynical fuck whose work is devoid of sincerity and he just wants to make a quick buck off 10 million Waltons family clones. There is no reflection of anything I can understand but that would be ok if there was for other people. After all, my opinion is no more relevant than anyone's. Thing is, nobody buys Kinkade's paintings because they think it's great art. They buy them because he is the painter of all that is american and christian and good. The paintings themselves are irrelevant, the images are irrelevant. That is why they are mass-produced, cheaply made prints. There is no personality to them, they are Hallmark cards with a £200 mark-up. To the target audience, all that matters is that it is by Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light, wholesome and American.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Holden's a really cute kid.:)
Would I be remembering correctly if I said you do fashion shoots? It's a vague recollection from when I lurked more than I posted.:o
Yes.
And some lifestyle these days.
And lots of brides.
Thank you for the compliment on Holden.
He is even cuter than that. And yes, I know his nose was in need of a wipe.
Ok, more modern art musings...Disney Pixar: Art? Good? Bad?
I think some of the animation is spectacular, even if it is computer generated.
I also love the old cartoons, with the hand drawings. Awesome, though tedious.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Comments
You were going to have a go because I didn't remember an Andy Warhol piece, right?
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
nevermind...
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Sorry.. I guess you were genuinely wanting to know the answer right?
Man this board is causing me problems lately of a psychological nature.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
hotel lobby designer = shit job
i couldnt give two fucks if they think something is art or isnt... its what i think that counts... like a hotel lobby designer has studied art
and a cock in a bear suit and a sheep in formaldehyde does not take any talent... Gordon Ramsay creates a more beautiful piece of 'art' every single night of his cooking career.
Of course a hotel lobby designer has studied art, and usually has a decent enough knowledge of it; we're not talking the Premier Inn here. Anyone who designs/constructs interiors for swanky public spaces has degrees and shit, no?
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
I know you get what I am saying.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
big fucking deal
one of my best friends has no degree whatsoever and has sold his company (along with his 2 brothers) for £32 million.
my other best friend is a teacher of business studies at a Secondary School here... he's never owned nor run a business.
having a degree in something doesnt constitute expert knowledge of another field... my wife has an honours degree in Scottish History.... she has no fucking idea on this earth where Vikings settled in Scotland
OK, you're right of course.
But this is sort of going in circles... Robert Plant doesn't have a degree in guitar either.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, I'd hazzard a guess that degree or not, anyone with healthy knowledge and experience of the kind of work I'm talking about is going to know who the Abstract Expressionists/New York school were, and what they did for their line of work... They'll also know about Art Deco, Bauhaus... all that. Hopefully. You get my drift?
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Somewhere along the line in this thread, disagreeing with you, Dunk and Jamie has become equated with being an asshole and I don't quite understand why.
Oh, and I don't see why it would make a difference if Piss Christ was a photo or a painting. I have already said that I don't believe technical skill holds any particular relevance in my appreciation of art and therefore if the image is artistic or not artistic, it shouldn't make a difference if the creation involved painstaking detail and skill or the click of a button. If the image looks the same, the effect should be the same. That is why I "set that up". So that the two pieces might be appraised visually before they were appraised conceptually. Exactly why I am now being treated as some snide, manipulative conman is beyond me. This thread is really not that important
robert plant is a singer... what on earth would he do with a guitar degree
as for your other point... well i dont actually...
i could go into Jamie Olivers restaurant... p.s. he has no degree in cooking
i sense, and i may be wrong, that you and J might be inclined to change that view? if you uncovered a rare and long lost Rothko in your attic, with no knowledge of its creator then you might be more inclined to think... "its a bit shit this.." .. rather than... ".... *gasp*.. 3 merged colours of greatness!!! " i could be wrong...
I am not on Dunk's bandwagon..or Jamie's. I think it is awesome that we are discussing art and it subjectiveness the way some people talk politics.
And who said you were a jerk for not agreeing with Dunk??? Please...lol
(Just kidding Dunk..don't send Jigsaw after me)
I don't think the Jesus in urine was simply the result of the click of a button either. I work with photographers all of the time and I understand the work involved.
But then again, viewing them on a computer screen is ridiculously different than viewing them side by side in a gallery. Which is obvious but I thought I would just throw it in there.
Every year I go to an agricultural fair in New England and run straight to the butter sculpture. I love watching the artist carving out this huge mountain of butter into such detail. I appreciate Rodin. I appreciate the dude carving the butter. One amazes me. The other amuses me.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
no you two aren't...
i am though
But then, I already said earlier in the thread that I'm not a big fan of Rothko. I just don't write him off as shite. If I found a painting in my attic I'd be like "shit... this looks like a rothko, I'd better get it appraised so I can sell it. I'd rather have the cash than this on my wall".
so there
Seriously though, why are Mark and I being treated like the smug ones in this thread?
Let's get the Robert Plant thing out the way first.. I think Zep are OK but I don't know anything about them beyond that.
Right...
I personally love Rothko images for their minimalism and the fact that they do something for me on an emotional level. They are mostly just blurred squares on top of one another, yes... But I've made the subjective choice that they float my boat. Anyone else is within their rights to decide that they don't float theirs, so we agree.
I learned that they float my boat quite a long time before I learned that they, and the work of Pollock et al, inspired the first practicioners of art therapy, to help patients in institutions work out their feelings, and to express them to the world.. which I'm extremely interested in, all arguments of hotel lobbies and Grand Designs aside.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
i'm not treating you as smug.... pretentious wafflers of shit in the name of elitism? yes... but smug? no
i was hoping the thread might be more of a 'post examples of art that is crap'.. but it turned out different... and in a good way
but beauty is in the eye of the beholder... and a guy in a bear suit is uglier than a bulldog licking shit of a golf shoe.
I totally agree with the viewing on a computer screen though. I posted some of Gerhard Richter's paintings earlier and someone said they looked rubbish and then judged my appreciation of them saying that I was buying into the fact that the art world tells me that I'm supposed to like them, which was frankly bullshit because, as I pointed out, I had never heard of Richter, the only work of his that I was familiar with was his painting that Sonic Youth used as the cover for Daydream Nation and I didn't know it was him at the time. My appreciation of his work was seeing a huge canvass in a gallery and after walking past tons of highly regarded stuff before, being stopped in my tracks by this one and, even though it wasn't a conventional image of something that you describe, it captivated me for some reason. No preconceptions of the painting or the artist, no knowledge of it whatsoever, I just loved it for some reason. That's why I get annoyed when people who feel similarly to me get written off as pretentious, fashionista pricks. Why my taste is less relevant than a person who hates Rothko is something I have trouble grasping. That is all.
i said modern art = shit
then posted examples of shit.
thats not pretentious...
saying all modern art is shit might be called 'stubborn ignorance' but not pretentious... far from it.
i think Tool are shit.
Oh no you didn't.
Do you want me to throw you a spade?
(So do I btw, I just wanted to say 'spade'.)
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
I know an awful lot about Rodin. His life, how his work was considered grotesque and that he was charlatan, etc. I enjoyed his work before I knew that..I appreciated it more after I knew more about his life and how he worked.
It affected my opinion.
And for the record, I don't think (think being the operative word) that I ever said anything about you being a jerk for liking Rothko's work. Nor did I say anything regarding my personal opinion of his work.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Thinking Tool are shit is fine. Thinking that someone who likes Tool is shit because of it is not. Not until you justify it (something which is easily done with Tool fans to be fair) beyond something like "Tool are pretentious and therefore so are their fans by association. No one ACTUALLY likes their music, they just pretend to because they like to make out they are interested in alchemy and sexual deviation"
Because some people whose opinions are equally valid DO like Tool.
I am not saying that your thread was inherently bad in intentions, you are of course entitled to your opinion, just don't give shit to those who have sustained it this long by arguing with you
That may just be the single most depressing picture I've ever seen. It looks like fifteen of his clown friends committed mass suicide via carbon monoxide poisoning. In the one tiny little car. :eek:
And okay, no dice on the conceptual art theory - but is face painting a valid form of artistic expression?
Is it not art because it's propoganda, or because you don't like it?
I did this:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2282/1748263710_eb950725d2.jpg?v=0
I grew these:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/2332973603_7cc5a7872e.jpg?v=0
And I made this:
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w215/TrixieCat_album/mommy-and-holden.gif?t=1209943663
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
I'm a decorator by trade Mark, I have recently dealt with interior designers (don't know if they're great or not) but I'll tell you this, they talk a lot, they spout a lot of stuff and they talk themselves into work and their clients out of pocket fulls of money, to me, these guys are the charlatans.
Holden's a really cute kid.:)
Would I be remembering correctly if I said you do fashion shoots? It's a vague recollection from when I lurked more than I posted.:o
Um.....no.
You're the expert Mark, I have no idea who did what, I was just thinking as I said.....I'll stay out of this. Say, there isn't always a deep hidden meaning behind everything
I can believe that Jamie, I've seen it as well... I wouldn't try and say interior designers were great artists... normally, just that they'll be aware of their influences... normally.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
And some lifestyle these days.
And lots of brides.
Thank you for the compliment on Holden.
He is even cuter than that. And yes, I know his nose was in need of a wipe.
Ok, more modern art musings...Disney Pixar: Art? Good? Bad?
I think some of the animation is spectacular, even if it is computer generated.
I also love the old cartoons, with the hand drawings. Awesome, though tedious.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away