• Things that confuse me...

    1282299100
    KittyPurry [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1492
    • Joined: 22 Aug 2009

    headsouth wrote:

    Why should art be technically difficult? It's a safe thing to say as a reaction to not liking modern art, but the work I do is *VERY* technical.. does that make it art?? Well I think some of my VIsio diagrams are but that's an aside.

    It's not madness at all... the artist in trafalgar square IS the tradesman, and nothing more. All they do is monotonously churn out crude characatures of however sits down in front of them. That's money for old rope. At the same time though, these artists may well also have a varied portfolio of modern art that they do themselves trying to break in.

    I'd suggest you ask those street sketchers what they think of someone like Mark Rothko, and I bet the odds are very high, that they'll regard them as legendary artists of extremely high quality.

    I believe I agreed with WandA who said he didn't get "most modern art" - not all of it! Some of it I think is great but as telemachus said I just don't believe Tracy Emin when she talks about her work, my feeling is that it looks and is utter rubbish.

    I also said I thought art should either be technically difficulr or nice to look at or say something interesting. Basically I just feel that it should be interesting or look like someone has put a bit of effort and/or thought into it to justify charging millions of pounds - I don't think that's unfair at all.

    I think it's also harsh of you to dismiss characature artists. I think people who can simply look at you for a few minutes and capture your features and your personality usually with amusingly truthful results are amazing. These people are also charging a much more reasonable amount to reflect the time spent on their work.

    At the end of the day, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I like my art to be beautiful, interesting and/or soulful, nothing anyone says is going to change that because it's just my taste. If I look at a sculpture by Rodin, something happens inside me - I respond to it, if I look at a herring nailed to a chair I get nothing at all. I am fully aware others will respond differently to the same art but it doesn't change my feelings towards it. I won't ever "get" why if Tracy Emin scrawls the names of everyone she's slept with on a wall it's art but if anyone else does the same it's vandalism!

    xxKPxx

    1282305793
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7876
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    headsouth wrote:

    Escaping from headlines and sensationalism is a great way to see more moden art for what it really is. Using Tracey Emin as a figurehead for all that comes under that banner is unfair to everyone. Just take 3 hours to wander slowly around the Tate Modern and you'll probably come out with a different view.. if you'll let yourself. [Not you KP, I think you're probably just fine, even if you do like look at porn made out or granite too much - I bet it does something inside you!] I took my dad around there last year and he came out with a much more positive view of things - it was this piece which really stuck with him - http://tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=26446&searchid=23539&tabview=work becuase he thought it looked pretty cool, but also took the time to read about what it was, where it came from and why some woman decided to hire a steamroller as part of the process.

    In terms of Tracey Emin's headboard scrawls, there is a better example in Duchamps' Fountain. A few people have "sabotaged" the work, but declared their act art due to their intention, and as it was just a urinal originally, who's to judge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

    What raised this topic was my wander round Tate Liverpool. I've wandered there 3 or 4 times now, beforehand somehow convincing myself that I must be wrong in some way if millions of people find it a great artistic experience and I must be missing something.

    Every time I come out more angry at myself for bothering when I knew most of it was shite in my opinion. I can honestly say I felt only one piece truly 'spoke' to me. A piece my a Japanese artist that was a picture that had been intentionally damaged, this apparently showed the fine line between art and damage/chaos and I could really appreciate that line given this picture was beautiful yet had a whacking great hole in it which added to the piece.

    Beyond that the general rule appears to be 'random rules'.

    There is just so much stuff that has surely been done before, only then people thought that painter was a bit of a tit so he didn't get any recognition in the past. If it's been done before but by a crazy man, say a Pollock like piece, does it really qualify as art only if people of your era and beyond see it as art and with the intention of it being art not the splatterings of a madman? For me, no. What is art will always be art and the intentions behind do not magically turn paint splatters on a board in to art.

    1282306876
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7876
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    Vic Reeves, he still exists. I'm too young to know if he was ever funny but now he pops up on the occasional panel show and is just dull. He'll make a joke about pigeons or something and he's done.

    Was he ever funny anyone?

    1282307001
    DrtyBoy [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 688
    • Joined: 21 May 2010

    Not sure - apparantly he was vaguely amusing on Shooting Stars (i never watched it personally)

    I will probably be branded a heathen or heretic or something but i believe the same can be said about Bruce Forsyth

    1282307007
    Doug [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 667
    • Joined: 4 Jun 2010

    no idea, but i'll tell you what is funny (one of the funniest things i've seen in a long time) mongels. Its pure genius

    1282307128
    DrtyBoy [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 688
    • Joined: 21 May 2010

    havent watched it yet but saw the trailers for it - it did look amusing.

    1282307266
    Doug [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 667
    • Joined: 4 Jun 2010

    ok got the spelling compleatly wrong on that, i ment Mongrels

    1282307309
    DrtyBoy [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 688
    • Joined: 21 May 2010

    and on the word completely!

    1282307405
    Doug [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 667
    • Joined: 4 Jun 2010

    spelling isn't my strong point, stupid dsylexia

    1282307466
    DrtyBoy [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 688
    • Joined: 21 May 2010

    no need to apologise...and I wasnt critisizing just in case anyone points that out i am just messing.

    1282307609
    Doug [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 667
    • Joined: 4 Jun 2010

    dw, take a bit more than saying i cant spell to get at me. Having put up with 5 years of what can only be descired as fearsome banter, which to an outsider would be abuse, gets a thick skin :)

    1282307659
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7876
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    DrtyBoy wrote:

    Not sure - apparantly he was vaguely amusing on Shooting Stars (i never watched it personally)

    I will probably be branded a heathen or heretic or something but i believe the same can be said about Bruce Forsyth

    But he was hilarious!

    In the 1920's or sometime around then...

    1282308420
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4261
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    headsouth wrote:

    Escaping from headlines and sensationalism is a great way to see more moden art for what it really is. Using Tracey Emin as a figurehead for all that comes under that banner is unfair to everyone. Just take 3 hours to wander slowly around the Tate Modern and you'll probably come out with a different view.. if you'll let yourself. [Not you KP, I think you're probably just fine, even if you do like look at porn made out or granite too much - I bet it does something inside you!] I took my dad around there last year and he came out with a much more positive view of things - it was this piece which really stuck with him - http://tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=26446&searchid=23539&tabview=work becuase he thought it looked pretty cool, but also took the time to read about what it was, where it came from and why some woman decided to hire a steamroller as part of the process.

    In terms of Tracey Emin's headboard scrawls, there is a better example in Duchamps' Fountain. A few people have "sabotaged" the work, but declared their act art due to their intention, and as it was just a urinal originally, who's to judge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

    Sorry HS but it seems like you are ignoring massive chunks of what people are saying.

    Noone has said "all modern art is shite", noone has used Emin as a figurehead and noone has said they refuse to look at modern art because they assume it's all shite.

    It's personal preference and some people disagree. That's perfectly fair enough. But I feel KP and WandA have explained their views more eloquently than you are giving them credit for;

    I don't mean this to sound harsh, but I do think you need to reread their posts with a calm frame of mind.

    Adx

    1282309918
    littlepixi [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 351
    • Joined: 1 Sep 2009

    why do renactment people on crime and haunting programs always look nothing like the real people?

    watching one now and the actor was bout 23 very slim with red hair cuts to the real woman shes at least 40 with brown hair and rather rounded :/. xxx

    1282310487
    Wizzie86 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1097
    • Joined: 19 Jan 2007

    People confuse me. How they want to be friends one minute and not the next. Strange.

    1282310529
    Wizzie86 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1097
    • Joined: 19 Jan 2007

    The HMRC also confuse me as they tell you they want information and then make it as hard as the possibly can for you to give it to them! GRRR

    1282310858
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 7876
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    littlepixi wrote:

    why do renactment people on crime and haunting programs always look nothing like the real people?

    watching one now and the actor was bout 23 very slim with red hair cuts to the real woman shes at least 40 with brown hair and rather rounded :/. xxx

    And as for the photo fits... Well, If I'd seen the photofit they showed me I'd bloody remember if I'd seen them! Does no one look normal on those things?

    Also, why on earth is Pamela Anderson doing the Xmas panto by me? Haha! Career fail!

    1282311425
    telemachus [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Brigadier
    • Posts: 378
    • Joined: 10 May 2010

    Ahhh you can't talk about Vic Reeves and how he used to be funny on Shooting Stars -- you need stuff way before then!

    1282311461
    KittyPurry [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1492
    • Joined: 22 Aug 2009

    I have been to the tate modern and I did like a few pieces but I found that for every one piece that I liked there were 20 or more that I thought were ridiculous - hence I don't like most modern art.

    There are some amazing contemporary art works, the petri dish work by Kati Rice is friggin awesome: http://klarireis.blogspot.com/

    I also love paper art: http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/05/100-extraordinary-examples-of-paper-art/

    No idea if it counts as art but I think the Gunther von Hagens anatomical studies are amazing too.

    There's a piece called Fallen Leaves in the Jewish museum in Berlin by Menashe Kadishman that I find incredibly powerful and tragic. http://www.kadishman.com/works/shalechet/Articles/Ulrich_Schneider/

    The kind of crap I hate is this sort of thing:

    - Lysergic Acid Diethylamide by Damien Hirst, it's a wrapping paper design for goodness sake! http://www.britart.com/secondary_works/detail/Damien_Hirst/41666.html

    - Another "classic" is "Damien Hirsts Stalin" ... he didn't even draw the portrait, he drew a red circle on it!!!!! http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/blogon/2007/02/hirst_hits_the_spot_the_man_wi.php

    - Some t**t who thinks keying cars counts art http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4454485.stm

    - Piet Mondrian's composition in black and white (sold for over 9 million pounds!) http://pophangover.com/?p=3770

    xxKPxx

    1282311542
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4261
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    telemachus wrote:

    Ahhh you can't talk about Vic Reeves and how he used to be funny on Shooting Stars -- you need stuff way before then!

    Shooting Stars is dire!

    Adx

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.