modern art = shit

TrixieCat

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Which might be why we like to assign pain, anguish and horror to clowns - the contrast between a brightly painted smile and a darkened heart is quite captivating.

This is so invigorating. I love it.

No really, it holds alot of truth. You and Jamie have really convinced me.
I haven't seen Hostel, but Saw is not just about murdering people. It is artfully thought out.

Rhinocerous Surprise

jamie uk wrote:

You're making sense. Well between us all, maybe we can sort of:)
Personally, I am really put off Saw, Hostel and the like, I can't be watching them types of films. The idea of murdering people in ever more imaginative ways, just kinda leaves me cold.
Saying all that, I realy love sepia photographs.

TrixieCat wrote:

This is so invigorating. I love it.

No really, it holds alot of truth. You and Jamie have really convinced me.
I haven't seen Hostel, but Saw is not just about murdering people. It is artfully thought out.

I've only seen the first Saw movie, and I never bothered seeing Hostel. We really are all on the same page on this one.
So, next question: by subverting the meaning of the clown - from happy to sad - have we made him into a piece of conceptual art?

Jeremy1012

jamie uk wrote:

I woudnt like to say, I guess the latter is at first glance more appealing to me. I can though, look at each (and not having a clue who did them, or when or where) and appreciate that they both took a considerable amount of time, effort, talent and skill.
It's the dead sheep, the white blocks, the piles of bricks and the coloured block painting I'm not so keen on Whatever that says about me, it says it......honestly

So, purely on aesthetic grounds, you prefer the latter? The stuff you say at the end about dead sheep etc and not liking them is interesting since you appreciate that second piece I posted I don't want to say too much because I find it interesting that you like it and appreciate the talent it took to produce but I imagine if you had more background knowledge of the piece, you would have probably had a different reaction which would indicate a degree of prejudice

It is also really supports what I said earlier about the annoying description plaques in art galleries. I think appreciating an artwork on its own merits before you know too much about it is valuable.

As for the first piece, the Kinkade painting, it makes me feel violently ill and goes to show that technical skill =/= art and often = horrible.

harmless_little_f***

Jeremy1012 wrote:

So, purely on aesthetic grounds, you prefer the latter? The stuff you say at the end about dead sheep etc and not liking them is interesting since you appreciate that second piece I posted I don't want to say too much because I find it interesting that you like it and appreciate the talent it took to produce but I imagine if you had more background knowledge of the piece, you would have probably had a different reaction which would indicate a degree of prejudice

It is also really supports what I said earlier about the annoying description plaques in art galleries. I think appreciating an artwork on its own merits before you know too much about it is valuable.

As for the first piece, the Kinkade painting, it makes me feel violently ill and goes to show that technical skill =/= art and often = horrible.

The Kinkade is horrible... urgh... Right, that's all I came here to say.

dunkman

Jeremy1012 wrote:

So, purely on aesthetic grounds, you prefer the latter? The stuff you say at the end about dead sheep etc and not liking them is interesting since you appreciate that second piece I posted I don't want to say too much because I find it interesting that you like it and appreciate the talent it took to produce but I imagine if you had more background knowledge of the piece, you would have probably had a different reaction which would indicate a degree of prejudice

It is also really supports what I said earlier about the annoying description plaques in art galleries. I think appreciating an artwork on its own merits before you know too much about it is valuable.

As for the first piece, the Kinkade painting, it makes me feel violently ill and goes to show that technical skill =/= art and often = horrible.

you clearly misled Jamie

one is a painting and the other is a photo of a plastic jeebus dropped into a beaker of piss.

the 2nd one i could have done... the first one i couldnt have.

i think you were trying to pass them off as paintings... which was kinda duplicitous

Jeremy1012

dunkman wrote:

you clearly misled Jamie

one is a painting and the other is a photo of a plastic jeebus dropped into a beaker of piss.

the 2nd one i could have done... the first one i couldnt have.

i think you were trying to pass them off as paintings... which was kinda duplicitous

I know they are I wanted them to be judged for how they look, not for the fact that one is a crappy mass-produced evangelist pile of poopoo and the other is a crucifix in wee. And Jamie fell for it

Oh and also, I wanted to show that, though you couldn't have painted the Kinkade one, that is a good thing, since it is horrific and as far from art as you can get.

harmless_little_f***

dunkman wrote:

i think you were trying to pass them off as paintings... which was kinda duplicitous

You just said 'duplicitous'.. :eek:

jamie uk

Jeremy1012 wrote:

So, purely on aesthetic grounds, you prefer the latter? The stuff you say at the end about dead sheep etc and not liking them is interesting since you appreciate that second piece I posted I don't want to say too much because I find it interesting that you like it and appreciate the talent it took to produce but I imagine if you had more background knowledge of the piece, you would have probably had a different reaction which would indicate a degree of prejudice

It is also really supports what I said earlier about the annoying description plaques in art galleries. I think appreciating an artwork on its own merits before you know too much about it is valuable.

As for the first piece, the Kinkade painting, it makes me feel violently ill and goes to show that technical skill =/= art and often = horrible.

Blah, blah.
I glanced, I gave an honest opinion, I thought it was a painting. You loaded the question I'd say, in order to get the answer you were looking for. Quite a pitiful act.
I don't think the one really makes anyone feel ill, in fact it's rather a poncey thing to say. I reckon it upsets the false sensibilities that have been 'taught' into people, prejudices they have maybe had preached into them. I don't get it, I see a painting that maybe someone likes or doesn't, after that it all gets back to the BS.
Whatever

harmless_little_f***

jamie uk wrote:

Blah, blah.
I glanced, I gave an honest opinion, I thought it was a painting. You loaded the question I'd say, in order to get the answer you were looking for. Quite a pitiful act.
I don't think the one really makes anyone feel ill, in fact it's rather a poncey thing to say. I reckon it upsets the false sensibilities that have been 'taught' into people, prejudices they have maybe had preached into them. I don't get it, I see a painting that maybe someone likes or doesn't, after that it all gets back to the BS.
Whatever

I'm a bit bemused by your pigeon-holing of people with strong opinions about art as pretentious snobs. Have you never said that a musical artist made you ill? Nickelback? Creed? Lifehouse?

jamie uk

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

I'm a bit bemused by your pigeon-holing of people with strong opinions about art as pretentious snobs. Have you never said that a musical artist made you ill? Nickelback? Creed? Lifehouse?

They don't make me ill Mark, I just don't like them. Oh hang on, I may have said something along those lines once upon a time....then my balls dropped:p

harmless_little_f***

jamie uk wrote:

They don't make me ill Mark, I just don't like them. Oh hang on, I may have said something along those lines once upon a time....then my balls dropped:p

Ooh nice, nothing like a bit of ageism!

You've NEVER made a derogatory/hyperbolic comment about anyone in the arts? A comedian? A film director? NEVER?

Jeremy1012

jamie uk wrote:

Blah, blah.
I glanced, I gave an honest opinion, I thought it was a painting. You loaded the question I'd say, in order to get the answer you were looking for. Quite a pitiful act.
I don't think the one really makes anyone feel ill, in fact it's rather a poncey thing to say. I reckon it upsets the false sensibilities that have been 'taught' into people, prejudices they have maybe had preached into them. I don't get it, I see a painting that maybe someone likes or doesn't, after that it all gets back to the BS.
Whatever

Of course I loaded the question. Pitiful though? I dunno. I intentionally asked you for an opinion based purely on a cursory look at it because I knew that if I said "This is Piss Christ by Andres Serrano, it's a depiction of the crucifixion suspended in the artist's urine" you would have said "pretentious twat".

All I intend to show here is that you are being more pretentious and elitist than anyone else in this thread with your dismissive comments and that resorting to slurs about my age and maturity comes across as ironic when you appear both immature for doing so and as a boring old fart for your art comments All I can say is, I'd rather be an arrogant bullshitter than be like Brian Sewell

Oh, and if you knew about Thomas Kinkade, you'd understand my violently ill comment. He talks of his mass-production like some sort of public service to white, christian america. He thinks that the commercialisation of art is beneficial to the medium and that the fact 1 in 10 american households contain one of his works is a symbol of christian hope in a world. Give me pseudo-intellectualism over THIS any day:

http://www.villagegallery.com/big025/tk_headinghome.jpg

harmless_little_f***

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Of course I loaded the question. Pitiful though? I dunno. I intentionally asked you for an opinion based purely on a cursory look at it because I knew that if I said "This is Piss Christ by Andres Serrano, it's a depiction of the crucifixion suspended in the artist's urine" you would have said "pretentious twat".

All I intend to show here is that you are being more pretentious and elitist than anyone else in this thread with your dismissive comments and that resorting to slurs about my age and maturity comes across as ironic when you appear both immature for doing so and as a boring old fart for your art comments All I can say is, I'd rather be an arrogant bullshitter than be like Brian Sewell

Oh, and if you knew about Thomas Kinkade, you'd understand my violently ill comment. He talks of his mass-production like some sort of public service to white, christian america. He thinks that the commercialisation of art is beneficial to the medium and that the fact 1 in 10 american households contain one of his works is a symbol of christian hope in a world. Give me pseudo-intellectualism over THIS any day:

http://www.villagegallery.com/big025/tk_headinghome.jpg

Man that thing just polluted my eyes. Did I actually just see what I think I saw?

Jeremy1012

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Man that thing just polluted my eyes. Did I actually just see what I think I saw?

You did. I wonder if Kinkade has ever seen the photos of soldiers with missing limbs, met those who went mental from Gulf War syndrome last time around or seen those photos of Lynndie England pointing at the exposed genitalia of untried prisoners. There's an entire Kinkade shop in a shopping centre in Solihull and employees from all the shops there tend to stand outside and try to entice you in. This very nice looking lady attempted to get me inside her Kinkade shop to sell me a print of one of these, no doubt at outrageous prices but hey, can you put a price on salvation? :rolleyes:

THAT is what I consider to be bad art. If a painting does nothing for me then I can just figure that it's not for me but it might be for someone. Stuff like Kinkade, and the reasons for producing it, which has never to do with art at all, is what gets me all riled up like sharks in formaldehyde do for Dunk and Jamie.

jamie uk

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Of course I loaded the question. Pitiful though? I dunno. I intentionally asked you for an opinion based purely on a cursory look at it because I knew that if I said "This is Piss Christ by Andres Serrano, it's a depiction of the crucifixion suspended in the artist's urine" you would have said "pretentious twat".

All I intend to show here is that you are being more pretentious and elitist than anyone else in this thread with your dismissive comments and that resorting to slurs about my age and maturity comes across as ironic when you appear both immature for doing so and as a boring old fart for your art comments All I can say is, I'd rather be an arrogant bullshitter than be like Brian Sewell

Oh, and if you knew about Thomas Kinkade, you'd understand my violently ill comment. He talks of his mass-production like some sort of public service to white, christian america. He thinks that the commercialisation of art is beneficial to the medium and that the fact 1 in 10 american households contain one of his works is a symbol of christian hope in a world. Give me pseudo-intellectualism over THIS any day:

http://www.villagegallery.com/big025/tk_headinghome.jpg

Hey, I wouldn't insult you seriously man, I was kidding.
Back to what we were on about, all you guys have done to prop up your argument is to use ever longer words, and now play a trick on me. I glanced, as I said 'glanced', and assumed it was a painting. So, obviously I was impressed, as a painting it is a striking image, but exactly as you say, if I'd seen the bucket with the figure in it, I'd have dismissed...who wouldn't?
I mean as with the white blocks, if someone painted white blocks, then fine, or even if the 'artist' had actually made the blocks himself...maybe then. And the colour blocks by Rothko, yes of course they can be pleasing to the eye, from what I've read that's what they were comissioned for, to look nice in a hotel lobby. It's just all this rubbish that comes with it I can't stand, it's a falsehood man, and it's been invented by pretentious, elitest people, It doesn't exist outside that specific circle, it's bordering on being a laughing stock, and to belittle people that don't 'get' it doesn't make it anything other than it already is. And I wont point out that your prejudice of this Kinkladze fella (didn't he play for Man City?) seems to be based on his religious beliefs and his commercial mindedness rather than an actual distaste for his paintings. I never saw it as being remotely related to Christianity, just looked like a quaint old fashioned painting to me
Art for art sake?
I haven't had the art school, or university background of you fellas, and to me it is nothing more than what I see. Which maybe then suggests that either I'm a thicko, or that actually, these colour blocks are simply...colour blocks, and the whole 'what is the artist trying to say' scenario is nothing more than a fabrication.
Sorry, I aint here to piss on your picnic guys. I'll let you be to discuss your art...just try not to be annoyed if you see me tutting occassionallly should I accidentally overhear you
I love you though man (is that 'old fart' enough for you?)

Jeremy1012

jamie uk wrote:

Hey, I wouldn't insult you seriously man, I was kidding.
Back to what we were on about, all you guys have done to prop up your argument is to use ever longer words, and now play a trick on me. I glanced, as I said 'glanced', and assumed it was a painting. So, obviously I was impressed, as a painting it is a striking image, but exactly as you say, if I'd seen the bucket with the figure in it, I'd have dismissed...who wouldn't?
I mean as with the white blocks, if someone painted white blocks, then fine, or even if the 'artist' had actually made the blocks himself...maybe then. And the colour blocks by Rothko, yes of course they can be pleasing to the eye, from what I've read that's what they were comissioned for, to look nice in a hotel lobby. It's just all this rubbish that comes with it I can't stand, it's a falsehood man, and it's been invented by pretentious, elitest people, It doesn't exist outside that specific circle, it's bordering on being a laughing stock, and to belittle people that don't 'get' it doesn't make it anything other than it already is. And I wont point out that your prejudice of this Kinkladze fella (didn't he play for Man City?) seems to be based on his religious beliefs and his commercial mindedness rather than an actual distaste for his paintings. I never saw it as being remotely related to Christianity, just looked like a quaint old fashioned painting to me : o
Art for art sake?
I haven't had the art school, or university background of you fellas, and to me it is nothing more than what I see. Which maybe then suggests that either I'm a thicko, or that actually, these colour blocks are simply...colour blocks, and the whole 'what is the artist trying to say' scenario is nothing more than a fabrication.
Sorry, I aint here to piss on your picnic guys. I'll let you be to discuss your art...just try not to be annoyed if you see me tutting occassionallly should I accidentally overhear you
I love you though man (is that 'old fart' enough for you?)

I very much dislike the visual aspect of Kinkade's paintings as well as the utterly awful intentions behind them. His paintings, as much as the man himself, live in some idyllic fantasy. Real life doesn't look like that so why go for the realism? I think his paintings look like christmas cards and yet he's the most "collected" artist in America.

Oh, and I haven't belittled anyone for not liking certain art, and I don't think anyone else has either, I've only asked that I, and others, not be belittled in turn and called pretentious and elitist for liking it and I've offered my reasons why I feel that people that do that are worse offenders than those they seek to reject. As for your comment about the blocks, of course the "what the artist is trying to say" thing is a total fabrication. So, however, is a painting. Even a beautiful one. That's why I don't understand your point of view. I don't see how the Mona Lisa is any less contrived than Warhol's brilo boxes. The only difference is technical skill in one compared to a lack with the other. Since technical skill has no bearing on MY appreciation of art, there is no difference between them, it's just what I enjoy. Your definition and understanding of art is no more relevant than anyone else's and that is all this thread is about

And I know you weren't really being insulting, neither was I just friendly banter.

And yep, Kinkladze played for Man City. I wonder what his paintings would look like

harmless_little_f***

jamie uk wrote:

Hey, I wouldn't insult you seriously man, I was kidding.
Back to what we were on about, all you guys have done to prop up your argument is to use ever longer words, and now play a trick on me. I glanced, as I said 'glanced', and assumed it was a painting. So, obviously I was impressed, as a painting it is a striking image, but exactly as you say, if I'd seen the bucket with the figure in it, I'd have dismissed...who wouldn't?
I mean as with the white blocks, if someone painted white blocks, then fine, or even if the 'artist' had actually made the blocks himself...maybe then. And the colour blocks by Rothko, yes of course they can be pleasing to the eye, from what I've read that's what they were comissioned for, to look nice in a hotel lobby. It's just all this rubbish that comes with it I can't stand, it's a falsehood man, and it's been invented by pretentious, elitest people, It doesn't exist outside that specific circle, it's bordering on being a laughing stock, and to belittle people that don't 'get' it doesn't make it anything other than it already is.

I've put it off for fucking ages, because quite frankly it'd take far too long to argue properly and I can't really be arsed. But I don't believe the appreciation of the Abstract Expressionists (Rothko, Pollock, Kandinski, Miro and others) 'doesn't exist outside of that specific circle'.

Almost all designers and anyone into decor, as well as Art Therapists and counsellors know something about the psychology of colour - that colour and texture can directly influence our psychology and be part of the healing of those with psychological disorders etc. The idea that art can be therapeutic and cathartic didn't really exist until Rothko and others made links between art and psychology in the 1940's. That's one of the reasons I love this movement.. Art therapy owes its existence to it.

Even more simply, anyone who's ever designed a hotel lobby in relaxing pure white with splashes of other colours, can thank Rothko for his influence.

jamie uk

Jeremy1012 wrote:

I very much dislike the visual aspect of Kinkade's paintings as well as the utterly awful intentions behind them. His paintings, as much as the man himself, live in some idyllic fantasy. Real life doesn't look like that so why go for the realism? I think his paintings look like christmas cards and yet he's the most "collected" artist in America.

Oh, and I haven't belittled anyone for not liking certain art, and I don't think anyone else has either, I've only asked that I, and others, not be belittled in turn and called pretentious and elitist for liking it and I've offered my reasons why I feel that people that do that are worse offenders than those they seek to reject. As for your comment about the blocks, of course the "what the artist is trying to say" thing is a total fabrication. So, however, is a painting. Even a beautiful one. That's why I don't understand your point of view. I don't see how the Mona Lisa is any less contrived than Warhol's brilo boxes. The only difference is technical skill in one compared to a lack with the other. Since technical skill has no bearing on MY appreciation of art, there is no difference between them, it's just what I enjoy. Your definition and understanding of art is no more relevant than anyone else's and that is all this thread is about

And I know you weren't really being insulting, neither was I just friendly banter.

And yep, Kinkladze played for Man City. I wonder what his paintings would look like

You did play a trick on me man, that was a bit off. And then, not you sir, but a partner in crime did have a few rather 'belittling' comments about a certain Mr Ross and our appreciation of his talents.
I agree that the painting earlier looked like a Christmas card, I was suprised there was no snow
I suppose originally we were on about the bloke in a bear suit being art, we got along to painting skills later, and yes of course then it's a matter of opinions.
I still go with the bear suit and the dead sheep being rubbish, I'm not having that as art.... ever Oh and the piss bucket thing, what a crock!

Jeremy1012

jamie uk wrote:

You did play a trick on me man, that was a bit off. And then, not you sir, but a partner in crime did have a few rather 'belittling' comments about a certain Mr Ross and our appreciation of his talents.
I agree that the painting earlier looked like a Christmas card, I was suprised there was no snow
I suppose originally we were on about the bloke in a bear suit being art, we got along to painting skills later, and yes of course then it's a matter of opinions.
I still go with the bear suit and the dead sheep being rubbish, I'm not having that as art.... ever Oh and the piss bucket thing, what a crock!

Piss Christ was VERY controversial apparently, but not really for the reasons you might have, questioning its artistic worth. Obviously people thought it was blasphemy etc but various readings of the MEANING behind it (:p), including that of a consecrated nun who thought it was a powerful symbol of the degradation of religion and not an attempt to degrade religion in itself show that maybe it does have some worth. Of course, you won't buy that at all but the point is, even someone who you'd imagine would be first in line to call it rubbish, a nun, found her own reasons for appreciating it, and that's all that really matters. It evidently had enough of an impact on her that she went on record as saying that she liked it, with whatever risk to her own job that might have brought. So some people, even those who aren't in the business of self-important art critiquing, thought it was more than a crock of shit, or rather, of piss

and my trick wasn't supposed to be out of line or to make a fool out of you, I genuinely wanted to know how a person who dislikes much modern art would react to Piss Christ if they didn't know the details about it. It wasn't about tripping you up.

harmless_little_f***

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Piss Christ was VERY controversial apparently, but not really for the reasons you might have, questioning its artistic worth. Obviously people thought it was blasphemy etc but various readings of the MEANING behind it (:p), including that of a consecrated nun who thought it was a powerful symbol of the degradation of religion and not an attempt to degrade religion in itself show that maybe it does have some worth. Of course, you won't buy that at all but the point is, even someone who you'd imagine would be first in line to call it rubbish, a nun, found her own reasons for appreciating it, and that's all that really matters. It evidently had enough of an impact on her that she went on record as saying that she liked it, with whatever risk to her own job that might have brought. So some people, even those who aren't in the business of self-important art critiquing, thought it was more than a crock of shit, or rather, of piss

I actually know of a church who used Piss Christ as a meditation to symbolise the incarnation... that God himself chose to enter the piss of human life and redeem it. Beat that!