art –noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
Nothing there saying that toilets encased in perspex boxes, unmade beds or cows in formaldahyde isn't[/] art.
Infact, as I see it, expression, realm and aesthetic principles can quite easily be conceptual.
I get tired of the attitude (not saying that you have it, Mark) that art is only art if it takes skill and talent. There are no rules. Things are only as 'shit' or 'brilliant' as people see them as individuals. One person's Monet is another's Hirst... it's all subjective.
Like alot of people, I used to hate the work of Damien Hirst. That was until I actually went and saw it, was in it's presence... my opinion swiftly changed. Seeing an artist's work on the internet or in a book certainly doesn't do it justice. People don't visit art galleries enough anymore... go and see some art in the flesh with an open mind...you'll be surprised at what affects you
fantastic post.
one of *THE* most beautiful things i have ever seen, was a conceptual piece at P.S.1 in queens. i REALLY wish i took note of the artist, b/c i have mentioned it numerous times in conversation. it was simply perfect squares of vellum, perfectly spaced/arranged on the wall....and carefully pinned in place, in the upper left corner of each square, with one silver straight pin. it was *perfect*...it was unbelivably peaceful, and it covered almost an entire wall...in a perfect square. amazing.
art Is meant to be seen...in person...to truly appreciate it's many facets. even something 2D such as a painting, NOT the same unless viewed in person. to look at the edge of a van gogh and see the layers of paint, the impasto quality.....brilliant. to look upon the canvas of a rotko painting and see it glow with luminousity.....beautiful......
Rothko's work is sublime. The Turner Prize entries are tired, derivative, faux-conceptual rigmarole. Here's what Orwell said about English "art":
"Here one comes back to two English characteristics that I pointed out, seemingly at random, at the beginning of the last chapter. One is the lack of artistic ability. This is perhaps another way of saying that the English are outside the European culture. For there is one art in which they have shown plenty of talent, namely literature. But this is also the only art that cannot cross frontiers. Literature, especially poetry, and lyric poetry most of all, is a kind of family joke, with little or no value outside its own language-group. Except for Shakespeare, the best English poets are barely known in Europe, even as names. The only poets who are widely read are Byron, who is admired for the wrong reasons, and Oscar Wilde, who is pitied as a victim of English hypocrisy. And linked up with this, though not very obviously, is the lack of philosophical faculty, the absence in nearly all Englishmen of any need for an ordered system of thought or even for the use of logic."
'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.'
Rothko's work is sublime. The Turner Prize entries are tired, derivative, faux-conceptual rigmarole. Here's what Orwell said about English "art":
"Here one comes back to two English characteristics that I pointed out, seemingly at random, at the beginning of the last chapter. One is the lack of artistic ability. This is perhaps another way of saying that the English are outside the European culture. For there is one art in which they have shown plenty of talent, namely literature. But this is also the only art that cannot cross frontiers. Literature, especially poetry, and lyric poetry most of all, is a kind of family joke, with little or no value outside its own language-group. Except for Shakespeare, the best English poets are barely known in Europe, even as names. The only poets who are widely read are Byron, who is admired for the wrong reasons, and Oscar Wilde, who is pitied as a victim of English hypocrisy. And linked up with this, though not very obviously, is the lack of philosophical faculty, the absence in nearly all Englishmen of any need for an ordered system of thought or even for the use of logic."
When I went to art college we used to visit the Turner exhibitions regularly. My art teacher loved it.. For her it was akin to the best comedy show ever.
'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.'
we really shouldn't forget that some of people's favorite "real" artists fall under the 'modern art' category:
Picasso
Seurat
Matisse
Modigiliani
Van Gogh
Klimt
Dali
what about Jackson Pollock? can you splatter paint better than him?
what about Warhol? are soup cans art?
so many questions....
Good point raised right there.
Alot of people are selective in what they consider to be modern art. Matisse's 'L'escargot' is considered a piece of fine art and yet Ofili's 'The Holy Virgin Mary' is considered modern and bunched in with the likes of Emin... Have a look at the two pieces, although Ofili's work is controversial it took alot more talent to compose... and by all accounts, talent = art :rolleyes:
ART IS SUBJECTIVE.
Been to this many PJ shows: Reading 2006 London 2007 Manchester & London 2009 Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen & Berlin 2010 Manchester 1 & Manchester 2 2012...
... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
to dismiss "modern art" in one feel swoop, short-sighted at best.
AMEN!
Been to this many PJ shows: Reading 2006 London 2007 Manchester & London 2009 Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen & Berlin 2010 Manchester 1 & Manchester 2 2012...
... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
throw in some marc chagall...perhaps some georgia o'keeffe.......bliss.
Indeed! I wanted to put some Mark Rothko down but he's already dismissed that style.
'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.'
When I went to art college we used to visit the Turner exhibitions regularly. My art teacher loved it.. For her it was akin to the best comedy show ever.
I remember, when I did my art foundation, we went to look at some quite literally bloody awful exhibition, featuring a collage of used hospital tampons. The collage was accompanied by some huge manifesto on a placard, outlining what it was supposed to "mean". As a deconstructionist I'd be asking whether the manifesto was, intertextually, part of the exhibit itself and, if so, whether it "deferred", or plainly bollocksed up, the supposed emotional er, value of the "art" by trying to qualify it with a display of pseudo-intellectual shite.
ok, that pissed ME off. lol. what a piece of crappola. "But longer viewing reveals more than one shade of black and an underlying geometric structure."
wtf? does it just not work on computer or did I not stare at it long enough. :rolleyes:
I don't like/understand art that I could easily make myself. like painting a canvas with just one colour or something. it makes me furious, that just cause someone did that and came up with a clever story explaining why what he just did is clever and important, people will pay insane amounts of money for it.
argh!
I actually saw it on my monitor...tilt your head a bit. It is pretty wild, though I would never have looked for it.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
People don't visit art galleries enough anymore... go and see some art in the flesh with an open mind...you'll be surprised at what affects you
I agree. I'd love to be able to go to more galleries.. but alas! I live in a city with not too many of those.
we do have some interesting statues and stuff spread around the centre though.
even a big big O-HOY sitting on top of a cliff, facing the sea, saluting the sailors of days gone, present and to come.
"Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
I remember, when I did my art foundation, we went to look at some quite literally bloody awful exhibition, featuring a collage of used hospital tampons. The collage was accompanied by some huge manifesto on a placard, outlining what it was supposed to "mean". As a deconstructionist I'd be asking whether the manifesto was, intertextually, part of the exhibit itself and, if so, whether it "deferred", or plainly bollocksed up, the supposed emotional er, value of the "art" by trying to qualify it with a display of pseudo-intellectual shite.
I've always loved the inherent irony of placards explaining what conceptual art is supposed to 'mean'.. you get 'em at every exhibition.
'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 dont need to try them out mate.. i'm a graphic designer, i studied at an art college and got a qualification on Art & Design... i know all about colour theory, depth, other such bollocks...
but a fucking 4 foot paing of 4 black squares isnt art my friend... and the cerebral waffle that accompanies is even more pretenious than the accompanying art piece...
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 actually saw it on my monitor...tilt your head a bit. It is pretty wild, though I would never have looked for it.
I tilted my head, tilted the screen.. I did all I could. and I think I did see the three lowest smaller squares..
"Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
Indeed! I wanted to put some Mark Rothko down but he's already dismissed that style.
i dismissed that one piece as it looks like someone gave Helen Keller a packet of crayola and asked her to "go wild"
i dismissed the piece.. not him or the style
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.
As a deconstructionist I'd be asking whether the manifesto was, intertextually, part of the exhibit itself and, if so, whether it "deferred", or plainly bollocksed up, the supposed emotional er, value of the "art" by trying to qualify it with a display of pseudo-intellectual shite.
I love your technical and accurate terms 'bollocksed up' and 'pseudo-intellectual shite', Fins
Been to this many PJ shows: Reading 2006 London 2007 Manchester & London 2009 Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen & Berlin 2010 Manchester 1 & Manchester 2 2012...
... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
i dont need to try them out mate.. i'm a graphic designer, i studied at an art college and got a qualification on Art & Design... i know all about colour theory, depth, other such bollocks...
Woah. My apologies. I was proving the point that Modern Art = shit is a false blanket statement.
'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 dont need to try them out mate.. i'm a graphic designer, i studied at an art college and got a qualification on Art & Design... i know all about colour theory, depth, other such bollocks...
but a fucking 4 foot paing of 4 black squares isnt art my friend... and the cerebral waffle that accompanies is even more pretenious than the accompanying art piece...
and hey, opinions are like assholes eh? and we're all entitled to em. doesn't make one *right* though of course. we all can think what we want to think, but i personally think it's rather closed to say YOUR particular definition of 'what art IS' is the ONLY acceptable definition. i may not 'like' someone's art...may question it....but i don't think it's for ME to decide what someone else deems their 'art.' i may not support it, certainly won't buy it...but there are VERY many differing opinions out there on it, period.
and hey, don't forget scupture and photography.
to dismiss "modern art" in one feel swoop, short-sighted at best.
nobodies done that..
modern art (that equals) shit
then i gave examples.
songs = shit
Candle In The Wind
am i now saying all pop songs written between 1970 and 1978 are shit.. no... that one song is.
not one of you has posted a pic that otherwise disproves the theory thus far... ergo... shit.
even being short-sighted i can make better art using a potato thats had a daisy carved into it
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.
Surrealists and expressionists and add some cubism in there.
To be fair, all those subgroups come under the umbrella of 'Modern art'.. Conceptual art comes later.
'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.'
Been to this many PJ shows: Reading 2006 London 2007 Manchester & London 2009 Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen & Berlin 2010 Manchester 1 & Manchester 2 2012...
... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
Surrealists and expressionists and add some cubism in there.
and ALL of those art movements = modern art.
dunk to say modern art = shit to me reads as A:LL modern art = shit. for me, that equation is wrong, pure and simple. i see plenty of examples of fantastic, brilliant amazing art posted in this thread. apparently you do not. differing perspetives eh?
visit the art wall and view the 'favorite artists' thread......you'll probably think most is shite ....but most is sublime to me and many others.
Dunk, this is one of my favorite photographers. He does digital manipulation.
I think he is awesome.
His name is Jeffrey Scott.
The opening page has one of my favorite pieces by him. It is SWF, some of his other stuff is not.
and hey, opinions are like assholes eh? and we're all entitled to em. doesn't make one *right* though of course. we all can think what we want to think, but i personally think it's rather closed to say YOUR particular definition of 'what art IS' is the ONLY acceptable definition. i may not 'like' someone's art...may question it....but i don't think it's for ME to decide what someone else deems their 'art.' i may not support it, certainly won't buy it...but there are VERY many differing opinions out there on it, period.
quite clearly that was my opinion.... 4 foot painting of black squares isnt art...
where did i say that was *right*.. i didnt... i said it wasnt art... my opinion.
latin du latin, ad nauseous
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.
Comments
fantastic post.
one of *THE* most beautiful things i have ever seen, was a conceptual piece at P.S.1 in queens. i REALLY wish i took note of the artist, b/c i have mentioned it numerous times in conversation. it was simply perfect squares of vellum, perfectly spaced/arranged on the wall....and carefully pinned in place, in the upper left corner of each square, with one silver straight pin. it was *perfect*...it was unbelivably peaceful, and it covered almost an entire wall...in a perfect square. amazing.
art Is meant to be seen...in person...to truly appreciate it's many facets. even something 2D such as a painting, NOT the same unless viewed in person. to look at the edge of a van gogh and see the layers of paint, the impasto quality.....brilliant. to look upon the canvas of a rotko painting and see it glow with luminousity.....beautiful......
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
"Here one comes back to two English characteristics that I pointed out, seemingly at random, at the beginning of the last chapter. One is the lack of artistic ability. This is perhaps another way of saying that the English are outside the European culture. For there is one art in which they have shown plenty of talent, namely literature. But this is also the only art that cannot cross frontiers. Literature, especially poetry, and lyric poetry most of all, is a kind of family joke, with little or no value outside its own language-group. Except for Shakespeare, the best English poets are barely known in Europe, even as names. The only poets who are widely read are Byron, who is admired for the wrong reasons, and Oscar Wilde, who is pitied as a victim of English hypocrisy. And linked up with this, though not very obviously, is the lack of philosophical faculty, the absence in nearly all Englishmen of any need for an ordered system of thought or even for the use of logic."
Wassily Kandinsky:
http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?aid=85097&apnum=324593&LinkTypeID=1&PosterTypeID=1&DestType=7&Referrer%20=http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/kandinsky_wassily.html
Jackson Pollock:
http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=1813739&CID=906573379D2946188198F6D47A6E08FA&PPID=1&search=pollock&f=c&FindID=27450&P=1&PP=4&sortby=PD&cname=Jackson+Pollock&SearchID=
Juan Miro:
http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=311250&CID=906573379D2946188198F6D47A6E08FA&PPID=1&search=Miro&f=c&FindID=31999&P=1&PP=25&sortby=PD&cname=Joan+Miro&SearchID=
Paul Klee
http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=379863&CID=906573379D2946188198F6D47A6E08FA&PPID=1&search=25772&f=c&FindID=25772&P=2&PP=17&sortby=PD&cname=Paul+Klee&SearchID=
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
i subscribe to the artrenewal.org theory on art.
http://www.artrenewal.org/
Bouguereau owns all other artists!
When I went to art college we used to visit the Turner exhibitions regularly. My art teacher loved it.. For her it was akin to the best comedy show ever.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Good point raised right there.
Alot of people are selective in what they consider to be modern art. Matisse's 'L'escargot' is considered a piece of fine art and yet Ofili's 'The Holy Virgin Mary' is considered modern and bunched in with the likes of Emin... Have a look at the two pieces, although Ofili's work is controversial it took alot more talent to compose... and by all accounts, talent = art :rolleyes:
ART IS SUBJECTIVE.
... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
excellent
excellent
excellent
excellent
throw in some marc chagall...perhaps some georgia o'keeffe.......bliss.
and hey, don't forget scupture and photography.
to dismiss "modern art" in one feel swoop, short-sighted at best.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
AMEN!
... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
Indeed! I wanted to put some Mark Rothko down but he's already dismissed that style.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
I remember, when I did my art foundation, we went to look at some quite literally bloody awful exhibition, featuring a collage of used hospital tampons. The collage was accompanied by some huge manifesto on a placard, outlining what it was supposed to "mean". As a deconstructionist I'd be asking whether the manifesto was, intertextually, part of the exhibit itself and, if so, whether it "deferred", or plainly bollocksed up, the supposed emotional er, value of the "art" by trying to qualify it with a display of pseudo-intellectual shite.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
I agree. I'd love to be able to go to more galleries.. but alas! I live in a city with not too many of those.
we do have some interesting statues and stuff spread around the centre though.
even a big big O-HOY sitting on top of a cliff, facing the sea, saluting the sailors of days gone, present and to come.
I've always loved the inherent irony of placards explaining what conceptual art is supposed to 'mean'.. you get 'em at every exhibition.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
i dont need to try them out mate.. i'm a graphic designer, i studied at an art college and got a qualification on Art & Design... i know all about colour theory, depth, other such bollocks...
but a fucking 4 foot paing of 4 black squares isnt art my friend... and the cerebral waffle that accompanies is even more pretenious than the accompanying art piece...
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
I tilted my head, tilted the screen.. I did all I could.
i dismissed that one piece as it looks like someone gave Helen Keller a packet of crayola and asked her to "go wild"
i dismissed the piece.. not him or the style
I love your technical and accurate terms 'bollocksed up' and 'pseudo-intellectual shite', Fins
... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
Woah. My apologies.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/philosophy1.asp#name
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2002/NYSOPA_speech/bouguereau1.asp
well, they ARE all considered 'modern artists' according to art history books.
every. single. one.
and hey, opinions are like assholes eh?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
nobodies done that..
modern art (that equals) shit
then i gave examples.
songs = shit
Candle In The Wind
am i now saying all pop songs written between 1970 and 1978 are shit.. no... that one song is.
not one of you has posted a pic that otherwise disproves the theory thus far... ergo... shit.
even being short-sighted i can make better art using a potato thats had a daisy carved into it
To be fair, all those subgroups come under the umbrella of 'Modern art'.. Conceptual art comes later.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
yes... but still all "modern artists".
that's why Dunky's thread title is misleading....
it should be more specific:
"crappy-conceptual-pretentious-bollocks-that-i-could-create-myself-(but actually didn't) = shite (IMO)"
These aren't modern art?
http://edubuzz.org/blogs/athelstaneford/files/2007/12/snail.jpg
http://images.andale.com/f2/111/103/10125972/1041638804366_picasso2.jpg
http://www.poster.net/klimt-gustav/klimt-gustav-the-tree-of-life-stoclet-frieze-7001371.jpg
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/english/filmmodules/Filmhistory/lobsterpicture.JPG
... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
and ALL of those art movements = modern art.
dunk to say modern art = shit to me reads as A:LL modern art = shit. for me, that equation is wrong, pure and simple. i see plenty of examples of fantastic, brilliant amazing art posted in this thread. apparently you do not. differing perspetives eh?
visit the art wall and view the 'favorite artists' thread......you'll probably think most is shite
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I think he is awesome.
His name is Jeffrey Scott.
The opening page has one of my favorite pieces by him. It is SWF, some of his other stuff is not.
http://www.factory1019art.com/
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
quite clearly that was my opinion.... 4 foot painting of black squares isnt art...
where did i say that was *right*.. i didnt... i said it wasnt art... my opinion.
latin du latin, ad nauseous