what passes as art [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

SolaresLarrave

02-29-2008, 19:00

**Ahem. Steps on soapbox**

Excuse me... but this thread sounds a bit like a rant.

In truth, the art we see in galleries is extremely experimental, and only its toned down, or less wild (i.e., experimental) form makes it into the mainstream. Hence, we see some wild things in galleries and modern art museums that may seem like they "pass" as art, but in truth are exploring new languages, media and possibilities. Sure, it's easly to make fun of some exhibits we see, especially when they seem downright silly. However, these things that look silly to us, may inform art in some time. Not in the exact same form we see, but in some way or another will influence the artistic expression of the future. Just think that at their moment, things that we take for granted today, such as the artsy TV ads for United Airlines, were the artistic avant-gard also known as surrealism.

Yes, it's easy to make fun of, but art is essentially an exploration.

**steps down from soapbox**

iamzip

02-29-2008, 19:32

I have the feeling that galleries promote new art solely on the basis of profit potential and what can be sold to collectors who are also largely motivated by investment opportunities. The art gallery community is just a money grubbing business as opposed to something more pure which I attribute to art. What think you?
I don't know anything about galleries, but if it's anything like the music business...

dcsang

02-29-2008, 19:59

I knew a gallery owner.
He was also a very good salesman - probably couldn't sell a refrigerator to an Inuit but likely would be able to sell an air conditioner. Galleries, unless they're run out of a home, have overhead that has to be paid - and pay only comes in if the art sells - no one's "paying" to walk into a gallery to see an unknown artist or photographer. So do they hawk based on potential for selling the "art"? ya.. I think so.
Soon after sales started drying up; the guy I knew sold the gallery.

That said, he would always say that most "art" is something that everyone can appreciate and hang on their wall (or place in their homes).

Things, paintings, or photographs that were just too "personal" could never sell.

An image of the girlfriend of the artist, for example, really, means very little to everyone else other than the artist themselves.

Dave

rjporter

02-29-2008, 20:25

I am totally guilty of producing images to sell at lower price venues that i think will be great sellers, but would never think of showing them to a gallery for consideration. i have a different body of work entirely that i think of as gallery material (although i haven't had a gallery show in 8 years, so maybe i am just fooling myself). the stuff i make for the lower price sales may be less of my heart and soul, but i still think of it as my art. I was told years ago by several gallery owners that black and white doesn't sell well, but if i had any big color prints they would take a look at it. guess what I sell on a regular basis?

NB23

02-29-2008, 22:25

rjporter

02-29-2008, 22:40

Did anyone see the movie Art School Confidential? it deals with the lengths you need to go to to be an artist and get your 15 minutes of fame. Daniel Clowes, the writer, has some very bitter but true opinions of the art world.
I think too to address FrankS original question also, what does an investor buying at a gallery compare to a museum buying a piece? The gallery is obviously in it for the money, but when a museum buys a photographers work, does that give the photographer more merit?
Brooks Jensen of Lenswork magazine has a great podcast called free wine and cheese night, which is what he calls the gallery opening night where everyone shows up not to discuss the merit of the photos on the wall, but to be seen by the art community as a way to belong.

thorirv

02-29-2008, 22:52

Art appreciation is subjective, right?

i would like to twist this into "visual stimulation is subjective"

So who can say what is good and what is not on a level beyond personal opinion?

for example, those who have studied it, no?

did i misread the original post, or did it sound slightly of an irritation (over perhaps that contemporary art is a specialized field, and not accessible to those who step in from the street) ??

Roger Hicks

02-29-2008, 23:40

Dear Frank,

I take it you are familiar with Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word?

Cheers,

R.

MickH

03-01-2008, 01:40

Art appreciation is subjective, right? So who can say what is good and what is not on a level beyond personal opinion? I'll give you that in hindsight, art academics are in a position to judge what was historically significant. I have the feeling that galleries promote new art solely on the basis of profit potential and what can be sold to collectors who are also largely motivated by investment opportunities. The art gallery community is just a money grubbing business as opposed to something more pure which I attribute to art. What think you?

Talk about stating the bleeding obvious!

Dunno about this purity thing though. Lots of the established great masters produced acknowledged works of art (sculptures and paintings in particular) to fulfill a commission - likewise several great music albumns were completed as a result of "contractual obligations". And for heaven's sake there is acknowledged "art" that comes out of magazine commission's in the photographic world. I don't think it is that easy to separate the asrtistic endeavour from needing to put bread on the table, or petrol in the Bentley for that matter.

We have a romantic notion of the starving artist in his garret pouring his heart out into some wonderful earth shattering/life changing Meisterwerk for which he receives little or no recognition until after his death. And sure, in some cases this is true, but I'll stick my neck out here and say that if he could have sold his stuff at the time and moved from his garret onto a luxury yacht, spent his time dining on the most succulent cuts, supping Dom Perignon there wouldn't have been much thinking about it going on. Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. ;)

Morca007

03-01-2008, 01:55

chikne

03-01-2008, 02:51

In England there has been something going on for the past few years, they're called Temporary Autonomous Art (TAA) exhibitions. They are free exhibitions, free galleries, hosted in squatted venues just for the occasion. The next one will be in Brighton from the 2nd till the 6th of April 2008.

Check it out:

http://www.taaexhibitions.org/

http://www.randomartists.org/

nico

03-01-2008, 03:33

Chikne, thanks for the links,
I was looking for this guy website but I did not remeber his name:
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/horizontal_1.htm (this is art for me and I'd bet it would sell alot in the galleries)
Ciao

retnull

03-01-2008, 03:36

In the early 1960s, Conceptual Art developed. Its basic premise is that the artist's idea or artist's process is more important than what is visible in the gallery. Art is not the visual artifact we see; it's the ideas and process that were involved in the creation of that artifact.

Conceptual Art was a hugely important development in the art world, and has pretty much defined all art ever since. It also marks the dividing line between the public's easy enjoyment of art and the art-literate person's specialized knowledge of it.

Just want to say: if you can get your head around Conceptual Art, the art world opens up for you. Boom, it's there, and there's a lot more going on than you realized. I recommend the PBS series "Art 21" (available on DVD) as a good entry point.

MickH

03-01-2008, 03:47

Conceptual Art is bollocks. Emperor's new clothes or what?!

I have loads of ideas, does that make me an artist?

Avotius

03-01-2008, 03:50

Art always attempts to defend itself by evading definition and description

thorirv

03-01-2008, 03:51

Conceptual Art is bollocks. Emperor's new clothes or what?!

I have loads of ideas, does that make me an artist?

no. you just said it was bollocks.

FrankS

03-01-2008, 04:25

Hey, thanks for everyone's input! My post may have sounded bitter, but it is not based on a bad personal experience I've had. My cyniscism shows through though. Modern art is jsut something I have trouble appreciating/understanding and I try to explore those areas. I should have left out "the pure" part.

And thanks, now I have a new movie and book to check out!

FrankS

03-01-2008, 04:41

I prefer art that does not require paragraphs of explanation, in sentences that don't make sense to me. Most if not all of those art critics' analyses of an artist's intent or concept sound like completely made up fabrications, and I simply do not believe that the artist had those thoughts in mind as he/she was executing the work.

nextreme

03-01-2008, 04:52

Although not a gallery experience, my whole outlook on photography/art changed after visiting the Canadian Museum of contemporary photography in Ottawa. It really expanded my view on art photography.

Trius

03-01-2008, 05:12

I know Frank has already responded to some of this, but I wanted to throw in my two cents...

Me thinks you are bitter at someone that didn't see your work as being art?
Ah, I think that's very presumptive and unfair on your part. I know Frank personally. An internet forum is not an easy place to make assumptions about other people, no matter how close the community seems to be. You might want to lighten up a bit.

did i misread the original post, or did it sound slightly of an irritation (over perhaps that contemporary art is a specialized field, and not accessible to those who step in from the street) ??

I didn't read any irritation, just musing/wondering.

thorirv

03-01-2008, 05:16

I didn't read any irritation, just musing/wondering.

that's good to hear.

and now i'm going to agree with myself that art is trying to copy the work of a dead guy or two, and go out with a camera.

FrankS

03-01-2008, 05:49

No artists I know are aiming at a "target audience" that does not understand their work.

Do you think we sit in our studios and think "now I better dumb this down a bit, so them stupid people will understand what I am doing."

Artists just make the work, in that sense the work is pure. Sure the world is full of idiots making puppy-eye paintings to sell in malls, for above your sofa, but surely we aren't talking about the work that is sold at Target and Walmat here?

This whole thread is way off base, but it does show the mistrust and anger toward those perceived as too smart for their own good. The idea of keeping everyone mediocre, starts in school when the creative or unusual kids are given a hard time in grade school, and it just never ends.

I can only speak of my experience currently as a teacher: this does not happen at my school. It did back when I was a student, but things improve. Take our approach to bullying: teachers simply ignored it back then. When I was in grade 5, I knew a grade 4 student at my school who had an "accident" in the basement with his fathers shotgun. I know, that this was a result of endless bullying he endured. He was a different kind of guy and unfortunately a target. Nowadays, teachers are all over the bullying problem with specific programs and interventions.

"...those perceived as too smart for their own good"? No. I do not perceive modern artists, art critics, or art academics as too smart for their own good. They may have a specialized knowledge, but in other areas have proven themselves to be not so smart.

dcsang

03-01-2008, 05:56

<snip>Artists just make the work, in that sense the work is pure. Sure the world is full of idiots making puppy-eye paintings to sell in malls, for above your sofa, but surely we aren't talking about the work that is sold at Target and Walmat here?</snip>

Well.. to just address this portion of your response Fred, I agree with your first sentence; that is, "artists" just make their "art" - I think, and this is my opinion only, that one's "art" is a very personal thing.

If that art connects on a level with other people, then that art is not only personal but also accessible.

If you're trying to sell "art" at Target or Walmart, then yes, you have to make the art accessible and have a target demographic. To cross pollinate this thread with any number of threads here on RFF; consider Leica. Some would say they create "art" and they definitely have a target market :)

Cheers
Dave

sirius

03-01-2008, 05:59

Art appreciation is subjective, right? So who can say what is good and what is not on a level beyond personal opinion? I'll give you that in hindsight, art academics are in a position to judge what was historically significant. I have the feeling that galleries promote new art solely on the basis of profit potential and what can be sold to collectors who are also largely motivated by investment opportunities. The art gallery community is just a money grubbing business as opposed to something more pure which I attribute to art. What think you?

This is painting with a rather broad brush. It think any large scale human endeavor is complex and flawed.

There tends to be a few greats, many who try to be great, and many many more who don't even try. Just because the fellow selling his painted saw blades at the flea market also produces the same thing which is called "art" which hangs at the national gallery, does not mean that either kind of art invalidates the other.

Business puts food in people and roof over head. Business even creates surplus cash so that some lucky people can make a living producing art. I'm glad that the Sebastiao Salgados of the world can live off their work and still produce such fine work.

If you look at an ancient society like greece, what is left? It was the business that allowed the people to flourish and the population to survive. It was the the cultural efforts that defined the culture and people to future generations, much more than the crumbled buildings.

It's really not fair to negate entire art movements. Again there are people who did it brilliantly and many who were mediocre. It's like saying people who speak French have nothing important to say because I don't speak French!

All that said, good topic Frank. Thanks for starting it.

FrankS

03-01-2008, 06:02

Sorry Fred, you misunderstood me. I did not call all artists stupid, I was jsut countering your claim that some folks including me distrust artists because they are too smart. That is equally ludicrous.

As for bullying, like I said, I can only speak to my experience about respecting differences in students nowadays.

I consistently and adamantly disagree with Rush L.

antiquark

03-01-2008, 06:10

I thought in general, contemporary artists tried to be creative and original. Of course with the ever-increasing pile of artistic history, that becomes harder, so they have to do things that are less accessible to the public.

Isn't art that's intended to be pleasing and familiar, commonly referred to as "decoration?"

FrankS

03-01-2008, 06:17

Roger Hicks

03-01-2008, 06:57

My first wife had a collection of books where all you needed to read was the title.

The vast majority of conceptual art strikes me as the same thing. If I've 'got' the idea, I don't even need to see the work, much of the time.

Incredibly, there's a very fine museum of modern art just a few miles from where I live, deep in rural France, in the Chateau d'Oiron. Some of it, I enjoy very much. Other stuff, I think, "All right, I see what you're saying, what else can you do?"

Cheers,

Roger

FallisPhoto

03-01-2008, 07:15

Personally, I think if a guy throws paint at a canvas from across a room, he is an artist -- in the same way that a pigeon taking a dump on a sidewalk is an artist.

FrankS

03-01-2008, 07:21

Erik, I liked the furry cup, saucer, and spoon! :)

chikne

03-01-2008, 07:26

Crartp ....

robertdfeinman

03-01-2008, 08:09

1. Some of you may have seem my essay on Conceptual Photography (http://robertdfeinman.com/conceptual_photography.html) before, but I'll offer it again, for those who missed it...

2. Rather than discussing "what is art", I'll ask, instead what do you have hanging on your own walls? How about those of your friends and relatives? What does this tell you about the concept of "art" and the average person?

I was at a concert yesterday where they played some Beethoven and I was reminded again of what a genius he was. The world of western classical music can be divided into the pre- and post-Beethoven periods. Before Beethoven composers (and visual artists) were treated not much better than servants and their art was mostly commissioned by wealthy patrons either in the Church or the aristocracy.

Beethoven changed all that, he defined himself as an "artist" and as one who was superior to those who inherited their social status. He produced some work in response to commissions, but generated much of it as an entrepreneur. He was the one who defined art for art's sake and the idea of the starving artist in the garret. His ideas in music quickly spread to literature and the visual arts and led to the Romantic Age.

We are still living in the post-Beethoven period. Those who create works just to make money are looked down on as not true "artists".

sirius

03-01-2008, 08:10

Thanks for the quiz, ErikFive. I got 15/16. A lot better than I thought I would do! That was fun.

meltedARTS

03-01-2008, 08:30

As far as "what passes as art?" and "who can say what is good and what is not?," anyone can pass anything for art, and anyone can say what is good and what is not. The real question is, "how much weight will their opinion hold?" The role of the artist has shifted dramatically in the last century, and I suspect will continue to do so. Part of the reason is because the general public are not as educated about art as they used to be. It used to be that everyone would study art history just as they would study literature. Having an understanding of art was considered essential to being a well-rounded member of society. Today, not so much. The only people who study art are "creative types." *cringes* The other reason is that the financial support infrastructure on which artists used to rely is no longer in place. It used to be that artists would be sponsored by patrons (investors, if you will) who would provide financial support so the artist would be free to work without worrying about money. So nowadays, it's not unusual to see gallery owners who aren't necessarily interested (or even trained) in promoting work for cultural value. And it's not unusual to see artists work from a more commercial angle, either. That isn't to say there aren't exceptions, though. My accountant has been and avid art collector for years, and finally opened his own (photography-centric) art gallery. He's both educated in art history AND has a talented eye for what is "good" (from both a cultural AND a commercial perspective) AND is a shrewd businessperson. Just MHO, but declaring "what's good" in the art world is a matter of educating the public by bridging the language of cultural value with the language of commercial value (the one they already understand). I'm not suggesting that a work of art has to have a high price tag in order to have cultural value. But I am saying that there are two types of art buyers: the uneducated ones (the norm. . . selling to them just takes a good saleperson), and educated ones (rare. . . selling to them takes someone with credibility, which is only obtained by having a thorough understanding of an artwork's relevance in the context of art history). [/rant]

Did anyone see the movie Art School Confidential?
Yeah, that was awesome. Another great film that raises some of the same issues is John Waters' Pecker (featuring a Canonet 28!).

http://www.timeout.com/film/img/dvd/58725/cover.w200.jpg

Pablito

03-01-2008, 08:34

"The artist is the world's scapegoat." (Jacob Epstein)

jan normandale

03-01-2008, 09:03

Art appreciation is subjective, right? So who can say what is good and what is not on a level beyond personal opinion? I'll give you that in hindsight, art academics are in a position to judge what was historically significant. I have the feeling that galleries promote new art solely on the basis of profit potential and what can be sold to collectors who are also largely motivated by investment opportunities. The art gallery community is just a money grubbing business as opposed to something more pure which I attribute to art. What think you?

'Art..... money grubbing business' : like everyone, gallery owners have to eat Frank. A lot try hard to represent good artists. So you can go to Mira Godard Gallery and get original work from Alex Colville or Cutts Gallery and get original work from Michael Snow.. then there are galleries that offer art for people who don't want to spend their money on reproductions of Renoir or Degas. These galleries offer work ranging from $200 -$ 1,000. They are providing a service to the consumer. If that's money grubbing then aren't we are all money grubbers?

Thought du jour... Vincent Van Gough.. sold almost all of his art to one person. There was no appreciation for his work during his lifetime and even subsequent to his passing there was little interest. The main buyer for his work... his brother. During his brief career he had sold one painting.

FrankS

03-01-2008, 09:21

pingle

03-01-2008, 09:26

It's like saying people who speak French have nothing important to say because I don't speak French!

This is an excellent analogy.

I'm conflicted at times about "art", for exactly the sorts of reasons mentioned above. I feel (at times) like the art world is populated by a bunch of self-important people who think they have deep things to say, but are really just enjoying the echo chamber. I get similarly conflicted about my own work as a mathematician, which is essentially the same thing (only I see it from the other side). But research mathematics, just like contemporary (i.e., research) art, does trickle down in unexpected ways.

It's easy to criticise things like these. I get annoyed whenever I see politician or pundit X decrying the use of public funds to sponsor experiments into gorilla mating patterns, or whatever (or the purchase of a particular piece of conceptual art for a national gallery). It's easy to make these works of science/art sound stupid, but for these individuals to claim that these works have no merit is extreme hubris. There are some cases in which non-experts (in fact, even the experts) are just not going to have any idea of the impact that certain explorations will have. Non-experts often don't realise the impact of something, even if the impact is felt every day of their lives. My own area of research in mathematics could have been convincingly criticized as completely useless sixty or seventy years ago. Today, it is the keystone that makes secure communication possible. Without it, there would be no ebay, no paypal, no credit cards, no atm machines. The world of finance would operate as it did in the 19th century (hmm... that's starting to sound good...).

I don't have similar examples of "out-there" contemporary art trickling down into the "know-your-audience" world of art, but I'm going to assume that this is due to my ignorance (the only reasonable response).

As for the art world being dominated by people who are just interested in making money... My Philosophy of Art prof, back in undergrad, used to remind us that 95% or everything is crap. If you're going to criticise something, criticise the top 5% (otherwise you're just going at a straw man). Maybe the art world is partially driven by the need to make money, but that can't be the main motivation for many people. I think there are easier ways to make way more money.

Dektol Dan

03-01-2008, 09:26

The art business is gay. If you aren't gay, find a gay friend.

FrankS

03-01-2008, 09:52

The art business is gay. If you aren't gay, find a gay friend.

That's just not helpful at all.

About the French language analogy, because I don't understand it, no one who speaks French has anything valuable to say: art critique and art language is not a foreign language, it doesn't HAVE to be unintelligible to most folks. (French acually is a different language, it can't help but be very difficult for a non French speaker to understand.) How would you feel if doctors only spoke to you in highly technical medical terms that you couldn't understand? The art world seems to be doing this on purpose to demonstrate its superiority. Perhaps it needs to be unintelligible, because if it explained itself clearly, more folks would realize it's all hype and verbage with no substance. I guess the snooty attitude is mainly what gets to me.

Again, I'm not all hot and bothered about all this, it's just an interesting topic, I think.

chikne

03-01-2008, 09:59

That's just not helpful at all.

About the French language analogy, because I don't understand it, no one who speaks French has anything valuable to say: art critique and art language is not a foreign language, it doesn't HAVE to be unintelligible to most folks. (French acually is a different language, it can't help but be very difficult for a non French speaker to understand.) How would you feel if doctors only spoke to you in highly technical medical terms that you couldn't understand? The art world seems to be doing this on purpose to demonstrate its superiority. Perhaps it needs to be unintelligible, because if it explained itself clearly, more folks would realize it's all hype and verbage with no substance. I guess the snooty attitude is mainly what gets to me.

Again, I'm not all hot and bothered about all this, it's just an interesting topic, I think.

The "Decisive Moment" comes to mind....

dll927

03-01-2008, 10:13

There is a story that when one of Pablo Picasso's paintings was first put on exhibit at an art exhibit in Paris, one "critic" said it looked "like an explosion in a shingle factory". But Picasso went on to become world-famous.

Be it art, music, literature, drama, or whatever "critics" may "criticize", I have long held the opinion that they are just giving their own personal opinion. Yes, it may have some experience to it, but it's still their opinion.

There has to be some difference given between new productions and things that have "stood the test of time". But even in the academic world, there's a lot of tendency to just regurgitate what they had thrown at them when they were slaving away for their Ph.D's.

Sparrow

03-01-2008, 10:30

I would argue the definition of what art is, is whatever the artist thinks it is. I don’t think anybody else can decide.
Weather it’s good or bad or if you like it or dislike is a decision for the audience, the impressionists didn't stop being artists in the 1870s just because a the jury at the Académie didn't understand it.

Al Patterson

03-01-2008, 10:37

Personally, I think if a guy throws paint at a canvas from across a room, he is an artist -- in the same way that a pigeon taking a dump on a sidewalk is an artist.

I've had that feeling with certain paintings I've seen. Less so with photography.

At least the guy throwing the paint makes more than the pigeon...

sirius

03-01-2008, 10:48

Hi Frank,

Art/design/form is very similar to language. Text and visuals have a symbiotic relationship. I think there definitely is a visual language and one must be visually "literate" to talk about it and understand how it works.

Art and design use a visual language to communicate. Where the words are line, colour, texture, shape, and whitespace; and the grammar is repetition, alignment, contrast, and proximity. These elements can be used to give emphasis, group like information, and communicate hierarchies of importance—all to enhance clarity. Visual language can be used rhetorically and to illustrate complex abstract ideas. Artists look for visual metaphors, similes, and puns to tell a story… taking images beyond the obvious.

Just because people have eyes, it doesn't mean they can "see". For example, I did not understand Picasso for many years and it was through a long period of study and my own practice that I finally came to understand how important his work was. It's not a bad thing that his work is not accessible to everyone, in a way it is a reflection of his greatness---that there is so much depth to be explored.

Yes, the language can run away with itself and fall in love with itself. Just because I can speak English doesn't mean I can use it like Marin Luthar King. (To continue my annoying language analogies ;) )

nextreme

03-01-2008, 10:50

There were a bunch of interesting podcasts from the publisher of Lens Work Magazine (Brooks Jensen I think) on the price being asked for by galleries. I think he is of the thinking that lower prices would make owning (and buying) photography more accessible to the general public. He podcasts a lot, but they're usually quite short. I found them interesting (I have no knowledge of fine art photography sales).

FrankS

03-01-2008, 11:12

Good point, what art do you actually buy? Really, the art you are willing to actually pluck your hard earned money down on, is what really counts.

I will start, a very small collection:

Cindy Sherman
Lauri Simmons
Robert Whitman
Bruce Nauman
Edward Ruscha

If you are not buying any art then any discussion about how "you" are being exploited by the dealers is really just trolling.

Can't we just have a disussion on a topic? This is how I feel about this topic. I make art (depending on definition), so I have an opinion.

Nice collection Fred. I've put my money into supporting my family, college funds, mortage, etc. Wish I had enough left over to buy art. On the other hand, I'm not that interested in actually owning pieces of other people's art. I like looking at it, but actually owning and collecting it is not my interest.

chikne

03-01-2008, 11:12

Aren't books way more convenient?

Anyway I think this quite irrelevant, unless strictly speaking about visual art. Buying a record and sticking on your wall won't change anything to help you understand the whole thing =)

pingle

03-01-2008, 11:24

art critique and art language is not a foreign language, it doesn't HAVE to be unintelligible to most folks. (French acually is a different language, it can't help but be very difficult for a non French speaker to understand.)

Art/design/form is very similar to language.

To push this further, I think the distinction between the language "French" and the language "art critique" (just in spoken/written form, not the art itself as a language) is not as strong as one might think. Back to the mathematics analogy: I have problems explaining my research to people. sometimes people think I'm being snooty, because when they ask me about my research I say "It's hard to explain". It's not that I think the person (or anyone, really) couldn't fundamentally understand, it's just that they don't know the language (a language which took me years to learn, so I'm probably not going to be able to bridge the gap in two minutes). The problem is that the language of mathematics (well, of mathematics "in English") sounds a lot like the day-to-day language of Enlgish. People think that they ought to be able to understand it. This isn't the case with French, because it sounds quite clearly different. Both French and "mathematics" have some overlap with common-use Enlgish (i.e., "Bon voyage" or "exponential growth"), but the overlap with mathematics is greater. The language of art criticism has the same problem, multiplied by ten. But if you consider "language" to be the literal language, combined with the context, and history, and special context-specific meanings of words and phrases (i.e., jargon), then I'd argue that art criticism really is a foreign language. And maybe necessarily so... we certainly couldn't, practially, convert mathematics into the langauge of everyday English (just image trying to do your taxes without the notation of numbers... "I earned fourty-two thousand one-hundred fifty-six dollars and twelve cents, of which thirty percent is..." Good luck completing your T1 this century). I'm not saying for sure that what the art critics are saying can't be said in plain Enlgish, but it doesn't seem totally implausible either.

I'm not hot and bothered, either... I'm just glad that other people worry about these things!

Gabriel M.A.

03-01-2008, 11:28

Conceptual Art is bollocks. Emperor's new clothes or what?!

I have loads of ideas, does that make me an artist?
As far as your ideas are well executed, yes.

Unfortunately, most "artists" nowadays just crank out stuff and call it "art", diluting what really is art.

Since "art" is very subjective, the so-called artists (as opposed to the "real" artists), they get away with the loophole question "what is art"?

Art used to follow a set of rules and skill. Rules and skill are inconveniences nowadays.

Rabid conservative absolutists don't make this any better.

sirius

03-01-2008, 11:38

To push this further, I think the distinction between the language "French" and the language "art critique" (just in spoken/written form, not the art itself as a language) is not as strong as one might think. Back to the mathematics analogy: I have problems explaining my research to people. sometimes people think I'm being snooty, because when they ask me about my research I say "It's hard to explain". It's not that I think the person (or anyone, really) couldn't fundamentally understand, it's just that they don't know the language (a language which took me years to learn, so I'm probably not going to be able to bridge the gap in two minutes). The problem is that the language of mathematics (well, of mathematics "in English") sounds a lot like the day-to-day language of Enlgish. People think that they ought to be able to understand it. This isn't the case with French, because it sounds quite clearly different. Both French and "mathematics" have some overlap with common-use Enlgish (i.e., "Bon voyage" or "exponential growth"), but the overlap with mathematics is greater. The language of art criticism has the same problem, multiplied by ten. But if you consider "language" to be the literal language, combined with the context, and history, and special context-specific meanings of words and phrases (i.e., jargon), then I'd argue that art criticism really is a foreign language. And maybe necessarily so... we certainly couldn't, practially, convert mathematics into the langauge of everyday English (just image trying to do your taxes without the notation of numbers... "I earned fourty-two thousand one-hundred fifty-six dollars and twelve cents, of which thirty percent is..." Good luck completing your T1 this century). I'm not saying for sure that what the art critics are saying can't be said in plain Enlgish, but it doesn't seem totally implausible either.

I'm not hot and bothered, either... I'm just glad that other people worry about these things!

Interesting, but can one really ever explain an image? It's all an approximation, the old "thousand words" adage? What we see is a foreign language because it can never really be anything other than what it is. There are terms in French which deny translation and words that translate but do not have the same connotations. I actually do speak passable French (a beautiful language) and different languages actually change how you think and form thoughts! Maybe this is why foreign policies seem so futile (uh oh, here come politics, now all we need is a little sex and religion for this discussion).

MickH

03-01-2008, 12:14

If some smart-arsed metropolitan art photographer popped in and took a photo of my provincial front room and gave it an ironic title would it then become art?

On the other hand, could the miscellaneous accumulation of odds and ends accumulated over 51 years hung up and distributed around the place be construed as art? If not, would I have to have either an artistic reason for collecting and displaying this stuff as it is, or an acknowledged art qualification (MFA?), or something else?

Help!

Sparrow

03-01-2008, 12:18

I think art encompasses more than "what you'd put on your own walls". Guernica may be great art, but it would be a bit much to look at every day over breakfast.

Even with my own photgraphs there are many shots I might want to keep in albums or present some other way but wouldn't want on my walls (along with plenty that I don't print at all 'cause they're NBG, even to me).

...Mike

agree completely, I don't like or fully understand Guernica, but wouldn't dream of denying it the status of "art"

chikne

03-01-2008, 12:28

Art is someone's way of expressing themselves, why must it have anything to do with financial reward?

You need some time to explore how you like best to express yourself, what makes you tick, how you like to react to certain situation.
We are all influenced by our surroundings, an artist from one place will produce art that will most certainly look different from what the artist on the other side of the planet will produce, hence the support, from councils.

Financial help is nice but any other form of help could do.

Sparrow

03-01-2008, 12:39

You need some time to explore how you like best to express yourself, what makes you tick, how you like to react to certain situation.
We are all influenced by our surroundings, an artist from one place will produce art that will most certainly look different from what the artist on the other side of the planet will produce, hence the support, from councils.

Financial help is nice but any other form of help could do.

You could be correct, but the support would influence the expression and you would be on the road to Arno Breker, no?

chikne

03-01-2008, 12:53

You could be correct, but the support would influence the expression and you would be on the road to Arno Breker, no?

The support might influence the expression, if you're getting the same support no matter what or how much you produce, then do you think it could be more of a problem?

Regarding Arno Breker, I don't really know enough about him to elaborate on that matter but thanks for pointing that out.

FrankS

03-01-2008, 13:10

Nothing is pedestrian if you liked it and supported the artist by buying the work.

Hanging your own work counts, I have some of mine up, it helps you to really understand what you have been doing, and frankly your friends will enjoy seeing it there.

I think it is just important to call the trolls on their trolling.

Feel free to report any offending posts to RFF administration. It's a little grey button with an orange triangle. (at least in my colour scheme.)

Sparrow

03-01-2008, 14:36

Keith

03-01-2008, 14:41

There's only one thing I can say say here ... Andy Warhol!

There is an exhibition of his work here in Brisbane that has been running for a few weeks now and I feel I should get to see it but the tickets are expensive. A friend of mines eleven year old son saw it as part of a school arts program and loved it. He's a pretty 'out there' kid and does some amazing drawings that are completely his own style and I would imagine that Warhol's work would ring his bells!

Incidentally ... what do we think of Warhol here?

FrankS

03-01-2008, 14:52

The most cynical view would be that the only difference between the next big thing and a wannabee, is whether or not the art community embraces you (because they see income potential) or not.

imajypsee

03-01-2008, 15:15

than his art; when art entered the American "mainstream" (the Life magazine article on Pollock comes to mind here) Warhol was almost inevitable. Warhol succeeded in forwarding the idea that art was/is anything that we see all around us. That the banal is beautiful. Warhol tapped into our ever more visual culture; he changed the emphasis of what art is. At least for those who keep track of such things.

There's only one thing I can say say here ... Andy Warhol!

There is an exhibition of his work here in Brisbane that has been running for a few weeks now and I feel I should get to see it but the tickets are expensive. A friend of mines eleven year old son saw it as part of a school arts program and loved it. He's a pretty 'out there' kid and does some amazing drawings that are completely his own style and I would imagine that Warhol's work would ring his bells!

Incidentally ... what do we think of Warhol here?

ruben

03-01-2008, 15:26

I have been reading this thread and one thing jumps to my mind. Quite often we see at our Gallery very very outstanding pictures, with a great consensus behind that they are outstanding indeed.

Aren't those images artistic through and through ?

Perhaps not all of us are qualified enough to understand the intricacies of abstract creations in paint or sculpture. But in the photographic field, it is my opinion we are quite entitled to appreciate an artistic photo. And here it doesn't matter if the photographer belongs to any "milie" or if her/his images are at a NY street gallery.

Cheers,
Ruben

nextreme

03-01-2008, 16:00

Art is someone's way of expressing themselves, why must it have anything to do with financial reward?
It doesn't have to (if the artist can afford to give it away), but then again, why shouldn't he get paid for his work ?

nextreme

03-01-2008, 16:16

MickH

03-01-2008, 16:17

Of all the just plain [innocent] silliness in this thread, this is my favorite.

So artists should just live on air? Or try to fit their work into weekends? Of course we want to be paid, commercial and fine artists, have families and real lives.

Many do have terrible part time jobs, but it is not a choice anyone wants to stay with. Among artists, actors, and writers seem to be more understood as part time employees, but fine artists, photographers have a harder road to explaining why they "don't go out and get a real job."

Fred, I'm trying not to take this out of context, but why should artists expect to be paid simply because thay are artists?

Certainly, if their artistry can sell, they are entitled to as much dosh as they can squeeze out of any buyer. I struggle with the idea that just because someone is an artist they deserve financial support. If someone's artistry finds a commercial outlet then great. However, if they work until their fingers bleed and their stuff never finds an appreciative audience, so be it. I've already stated my feelings about conceptual art, but if Tracey Emin can pull the wool over Mr Saatchi's eyes, good on her. Maybe her artistry lies not so much in her inability to make a bed (yes, I know that's an easy target), but more in her ability to to present mundanity to the intelligentsia as something profound and scoop up the pennies a-la Warhol.

Please excuse me if I have misunderstood the point you are making.

Cheers.

MickH

03-01-2008, 16:27

I agree matey. He took the p1ss and the money. Well done!

MikeL

03-01-2008, 16:30

I agree matey. He took the p1ss and the money. Well done!

How about Jeff Koons?

MickH

03-01-2008, 16:47

He's not alone, geezer. There's gold in them thar fools!

antiquark

03-01-2008, 16:59

Speaking of great artists, in 2008 we'll be seeing a movie based on Thomas Kinkade's art:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0999872/

:):):)
Here's his official page in case you've never heard of him:
http://www.thomaskinkade.com/
(http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.home.web.tk.HomeServlet)

kmack

03-01-2008, 17:13

How about Jeff Koons?

Brilliant, Balloon Dog, in particular, is an inspired work.

meltedARTS

03-01-2008, 18:44

How about Jeff Koons?
It's interesting that you mention Jeff Koons, and that this thread seems to keep returning to the theme of money as some sort of validation for art. Before he was an artist, Koons made a fortune as a stockbroker. Also, he was sued for copyright infringement (and lost) for making a sculpture based on an image by photographer Art Rogers. He also holds the record for the most expensive sale at auction by a living artist (I think $23.6 million). All that aside, I like his work. My favorite is his Banality series, which includes the giant gilded porcelain Michael Jackson with Bubbles:

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2007/04/23/p465/070423_koons08_p465.jpg

When it comes to art, it doesn't matter what you do. . . just that you keep doing it, and do so with intent. Persistence and confidence will bring you more credibility than a big price tag.

FrankS

03-01-2008, 21:02

MickH

03-02-2008, 00:23

No one is suggesting that, so far as I know being paid for just saying you are qualified, only happens in Holland and in the White house.

I have no problem with public money being spent on educating people about art, either high, or low brow. My difficulty is with what is termed over here "publicly funded art"

Here in the UK, I am sure you know, we have the Arts Council that doles out our cash to many and varied arty enterprises supposedly for our own good while presumably chanting the mantra "Man cannot live by bread alone".

I can't help thinking that if this money were withdrawn, real artists would continue to produce their work to general acclaim, or not according to taste, while the others would either find another cash cow to milk, or better still, find something useful to do.

Larky

03-02-2008, 01:25

Well, working in and around the arts has taught me one thing - a shed load of it is not so clever words constructed into very made-up sentences but said in a VERY specific way.

Everyone has a very personal idea of what art is. My own opinion is that for something to be considered art, a certain level of skill has to be involved and it has to have/be a good idea with a certain degree of critical and cultural analysis.

As for the Arts Council, don't get me started on that bunch of <serious amounts of very bad language here>.

Keith

03-02-2008, 02:07

A little off topic sort of but one of my favourite musicians is an alternate country singer from Texas named Terry Allen ... the music is fairly hard core country but his lyrics are sooo left of centre. A lot of them deal with art and I think I read somewhere that he does have a background in painting and conceptual art!

Actually I just checked wikapedia and he is indeed a very interesting guy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Allen_%28country_singer%29

I digress ... he wrote a brilliant song called 'Truckload of Art' which is pure genius and the lyrics are well worth the read!

Recitation:
Once upon a time…
Sometime ago back on the east coast
In New York City, to be exact…
A bunch of artists and painters and
sculptors and musicians and
poets and writers and dancers
and architects
Started feeling real superior
to their ego-counter-parts
Out on the West Coast…so,
They all got together and decided
They would show those snotty surfer upstarts
A thing or two about the Big Apple
And…they hired themselves a truck
It was a big, spanking new white-shiny
Chrome-plated cab-over
Peterbilt…
With mudflaps, stereo, tv, AM & FM radio,
Leather seats and a naugahide sleeper…
All fresh
With new American Flag decals and "ART ARK"
Printed on the side of the door
With solid 24 karat gold leaf type…
And they filled up this truck
With the most significant piles
And influential heaps of Art Work
To ever be assembled in Modern Times,
And it sent it West…to chide
Cajole, humble and humiliate…the Golden Bear.
And this is the true story of that truck…
A Truckload of Art
From New York City
Came rollin down the road
Yeah the driver was singing
And the sunset was pretty
But the truck turned over
And she rolled off the road
Yeah a Truckload of Art
is burning near the highway
Precious objects are scattered
All over the ground
And it's a terrible sight
If a person were to see it
But there weren't nobody around
(Yodel)
Yeah the driver went sailing
High in the sky
Landing in the gold lap of the Lord
Who smiled and then said
"Son, you're better off dead
Than haulin a truckload
full of hot avant-garde
(chorus)
Yes…an important artwork
Was thrown burning to the ground
Tragically…landing in the weeds
And the smoke could be seen
Ahhh for miles all around
Yeah but nobody…knows what it means
Yes…a Truckload of Art
Is burning near the highway
And it's a tough job for the highway patrol
Ahhh they'll soon see the smoke
An come runnin to poke
Then dig a deep ditch
And throw the arts in a hole
(Yodel)
Yeah a Truckload of Art
Is burning near the highway
And it's raging far-out of control
And what the critics have cheered
Is now shattered and queered
And their noble reviews
Have been stewed on the road
(chorus)

delft

03-02-2008, 02:34

I remember seeing a program on artists in Holland, where the government supports some (or all?) either with grants or by buying their pieces. They are then simply warehoused and never/rarely seen again. Can any of our Dutch members comment if this still happens? I think I also remember about a protestor who vandalized a piece of classic art, a painting, to draw attention to the fact that none of the new artworks are ever displayed.

This happened from 1956 to 1987 (BKR-arrangement). Presently, there are initiatives to clear the built-up inventories of musea and municipalities by auctioning these works of art. Appearently one such auction netted 83000 euros with one piece going for 23000 euros. The auction consisted of 'hundreds of items', not all of which were from this BKR.
Auctioning these works is complicated by the fact that when the artists delivered these works, they maintained the right to ask them back on loan from the depot. No doubt legions of public service people have discussed and debated about this arrangement until they came up with a proposal that was convoluted enough that no-one could make any sense of it.

Roger Hicks

03-02-2008, 02:37

Well civilized cultures have always had publicly funded art.
I'm not totally convinced about that. Is money spent on self-aggrandizement by a prince 'public money'? Or money spent by a religious organization? I'd argue that the concept of 'publicly funded art' (fine art paid for from general taxation by a government owing its legitimacy to popular consent) is essentially a 19th century invention and derives from burghers wanting to show how cultured they were and how rich their city was.

Publicly funded art is especially interesting because it is the only art we are forced to buy. My own view is that public galleries are justified in taking a punt on new, far-out stuff because even if they are wrong (in the sense that their taste is not echoed by history) 9 times out of 10, the tenth time they can acquire new work that will be seen as a stroke of genius, foresight, and (of course) economy. But in terms of value for money and the progress of art, I'd rather see 'em buy 10 works from little-known artists than one from a Big Name.

My antipathy to the Arts Council is based solely on the vast amounts they spend on subsidizing a hobby of the rich that has little pretension to art, namely, repeat performances of well-established operas with overpaid 'stars'. Cut out the 18th and 19th century 'classics' -- leave 'em to commercial opera houses, assuming such a thing could survive in large numbers -- and perform lesser-known or modern stuff, and I'd find the Arts Council a lot easier to take.

Cheers,

Roger

Pistach

03-02-2008, 02:45

Would like to add matter for further discussion:
http://blogs.photopreneur.com/the-most-expensive-photographs-ever-sold
An apology if it was taken to attention before.
Along with galleries we have to mention Auction Companies. Which are very active in the photography sector.
Cheers
Paul

Roger Hicks

03-02-2008, 03:02

MickH

03-02-2008, 03:07

Well civilized cultures have always had publicly funded art. Those that spent money on art were generally measured as more valuable than those who spent their public money on war. The only dilemma for anyone in this mix, is for the artist, can he bend to the wishes of Cardinal Carafa when painting the Sistine Chapel? As we all should know The genitalia in the fresco were later covered by the artist Daniele da Volterra, forever made fun of.

Using phrases like "cash cow to milk" continues to mystify me, where does this almost universal hatred of culture, from certain members of the working class come from?

Are you jealous (after all this money is just as available to you as anyone else) where does your anger stem from? Especially since you are on a forum somewhat related to creativity.

Fred, It's always difficult on Forums such as this when attempting to keep a conversation going and getting ones point across in a succinct fashion without being unintentionally ambiguous. I think you have misunderstood my meaning when I refer to cash cow milking. I did not use this expression in reference to artists, I used it to illustrate my point that artists will always produce art, whether it is funded or not and those others who are after fame/notoriety or more likely money will chase it elsewhere.

Hell's teeth I'm not jealous, I just feel feel it's a rotten shame that con-men can screw the public purse while being backed up by the so-called enlightened ones.

As for class, I don't think your "almost universal hatred of culture" exists as a universal phenomenon, or is restricted to any particular class - if classes still exist. Bringing class into this debate is, I feel, irrelevant.

Sparrow

03-02-2008, 03:12

Art, the human need to create something and ability to appreciate its creation predates the concept of money by many millions of years, hell it predates modern man.

When the first guy decided to decorate his cave wall it must have been in response to a creative urge not a financial reward, his society may have supported him after the event but it cannot have been the motivation, one only needs to read this thread to see how people that don’t understand “new art” react to it. :rolleyes:

MickH

03-02-2008, 03:59

Continuing Keith's musical intervention. I feel this ditty has something to contribute. I will, after this, shut my uneducated, council house raised, common, working class gob 'cos you're far too clever for me and it's unfair on me for you to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. :rolleyes: :p :D

Danny Kaye - The King's New Clothes

This is the story of the King's new clothes:
Now there was once a king who was absolutely insane about new clothes and one day, two swindlers came to sell him what they said was a magic suit of clothes. Now, they held up this particular garment and they said, "Your Majesty, this is a magic suit." Well, the truth of the matter is, there was no suit there at all. But the swindlers were very smart, and they said, "Your Majesty, to a wise man this is a beautiful raiment but to a fool it is absolutely invisible." Naturally, the King not wanting to appear a fool, said:

"Isn't it grand! Isn't it fine! Look at the cut, the style, the line!

The suit of clothes is altogether

But altogether it's altogether
The most remarkable suit of clothes that I have ever seen.
These eyes of mine at once determined
The sleeves are velvet, the cape is ermine
The hose are blue and the doublet is a lovely shade of green.
Somebody send for the Queen."

Well they sent for the Queen and they quickly explained to her about themagic suit of clothes. And naturally, the Queen not wanting to appear a fool, said:

"Well, isn't it oh! Isn't it rich! Look at the charm of every stitch!

The suit of clothes is altogether

But altogether it's altogether
The most remarkable suit of clothes that I have ever seen.
These eyes of mine at once determined
The sleeves are velvet, the cape is ermine
The hose are blue and the doublet is a lovely shade of green.
Summon the court to convene."

Well the court convened, and you never saw in your life as many people as were at that court. All the ambassadors, the dukes, the earls, the counts, it was just black with people, and they were all told about the magic suit of clothes. And after they were told they naturally didn't want to appear fools and they said:

"Isn't it ohhh! Isn't it ahhh! Isn't it absolutely wheee! (whistle sound)

The suit of clothes is altogether

But altogether it's altogether
The most remarkable suit of clothes a tailor ever made.
Now quickly, put it altogether
With gloves of leather and hat and feather
It's altogether the thing to wear in Saturday's parade.
Leading the royal brigade."

Now Saturday came and the streets were just lined with thousands, and thousands, and thousands of people, and they all were cheering as the artillery came by, the infantry marched by, the cavalry galloped by. And everybody was cheering like mad, except one little boy. You see, he hadn't heard about the magic suit and didn't know what he was supposed to see. Well, as the King came by the little boy looked and, horrified, said:

"Look at the King! Look at the the King! Look at the King, the King, the King!

The King is in the altogether

But altogether the altogether
He's altogether as naked as the day that he was born.
The King is in the altogether
But altogether the altogether
It's altogether the very least the King has ever worn."

All the courts positioned to call an intermission. His majesty is wide open to ridicule and scorn.

The King is in the altogether

But all together the altogether

He's altogether as naked as the day that he was born.

And it's altogether too chilly a morn!

FrankS

03-02-2008, 04:20

I freely admit to not understanding most of the "new art", and said so in my original post. There are those that claim (with a superior attitiude) that they do. I question whether there is actually anything there to understand (in most modern art). How can we tell? Certainly not by just looking at it. Artists' statements are required, which ultimately may be the most creative aspect of modern art. The art community (artists, dealers, galleries, and critics) blame the lack of understanding and acceptance to the uneducatedness and inferior intelligence of the public. Seems the arts community only interested in communicating and serving themselves. This Mohamed will not go to the mountain.

On another tack, IF, as Warhol and others have attempted to demonstrate, that everything is art, then what's the point of making an effort to create art specifically? All we need do is look around and enjoy that banal coffee table clutter as sublime. Has modern art inadvertantly shot itself mortally? Rendered itself redundant by making everything art? Perhaps, as has been suggested, this really was Warhol's big joke on the arts community.

I don't know. Just asking because I don't understand modern art.

mfunnell

03-02-2008, 04:59

I question whether there is actually anything there to understand (in most modern art). How can we tell? Certainly not by just looking at it.I certainly can't speak to all "modern art", and would not try to.

However, in my experience sometimes "just looking at it" really works. Not in reproduction in a book, but the actual experience of standing in front of the original art-work.

A long time ago (early '70s, I was still in high school) our then government was roundly castigated for paying a then-million dollars for Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles. This was almost contemporaneous with Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word which I was predisposed to agree with and which particularly targeted Jackson Pollock as a fraud and charlatan. It seemed, in small glossy reproductions that Blue Poles might be an object or abject example.

So I went to our National Gallery and looked at Blue Poles the actual painting. I go there frequently. I liked the painting the first time around, and like it more and more, the more I look at it. The artwork itself really speaks for itself, but you have to look at it, and you have to see the original. It is really worth it. I spend time there, in front of Blue Poles every time I go to the gallery, and the more I look at it the more sure I am that it is a great painting.

And you would never know it (or at least I wouldn't) if you never saw the original. A glossy reproduction in an "art book" simply can't do it justice.

So, on the one hand I have an instinctive recognition of the "prententious twats" view of a lot of abstract art, but I also have the lived and visceral experience that tells me there's at least one instance otherwise.

I prefer, for that reason alone, to figure that sometimes (when I "get it") that some is "real art"(tm), other stuff that I don't get is more-or-less the same (but I don't get it; my failure alone) and some is abject bovine output. I'm not sure I'm sufficiently well-disposed to tell the difference between the last two, especially when I'm working from reproductions rather than assessing the original artworks.

...Mike

Sparrow

03-02-2008, 05:01

Gabriel M.A.

03-02-2008, 05:12

Speaking of great artists, in 2008 we'll be seeing a movie based on Thomas Kinkade's art:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0999872/

Oh, for the love of kripes.

What's next, a movie based on the guy who painted the crying clown on suede?

OK, maybe the guy who painted the dogs playing pool will make it...if there ever was a lower common denominator that didn't involve a glistening naked girl on a Ferrari.

Gabriel M.A.

03-02-2008, 05:17

A further thought from my wife, who has an MA in arts administration (specifically, theatre administration).

There is an enormous difference between accessibility (physical) and comprehensibility (often disguiised as 'accessibility').

Publicly funded art is obliged to be accessible tp all, e.g. free gallery admission, affordable opera tickets, but it is not obliged tp be comprehensible to all. With any luck, greater access will translate to greater comprehension.
That is a pointy, rusty can of worms. Have you ever heard Peter Schickele (aka PDQ Bach) 's "The Short-Tempered Clavier"? He mocks that approach when taken too far (meaning, when "accessibility" is brought down many notches to the Barney the Poiple Dinosaur level) in a not-so-subtle way.

The pieces are hilarious, in any case. And the pianist brings it up to a "respectable", art-like level :)

FrankS

03-02-2008, 05:18

Hi Stewart, the example you show certainly has historical significance as an early human artifact. The fact that there is a geometric pattern, suggests interesting ideas.

sirius

03-02-2008, 05:18

Hi Frank,

I don't think most artists set out to be obscure. If you sincerely wish to understand then set a course for looking and exploring what artist are doing today, I know that you will find a lot to enjoy. Make it your project to visit a different gallery every weekend in a major city. Look and explore with an open mind. I do feel you will start to feel less negative about what is being done. I don't know where you live but the major cities in Canada have wonderful collections and galleries to see: Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Vancouver (are ones I can vouch for).

Your question is hard to respond to because it is painting with a very broad brush. There is a lot of work out there now and the internet has connected even more. There tends not to be a current art movement. It's a huge variety which history sorts into movements and groups judging what was historically important and influential. Andrew Wyeth was painting at the same time as Jackson Pollock.

I have been involved in the fine arts community for quite a while. I feel some of the things you are saying are stereotypes and the only cure for that is experience. There is no way I can convince you but you need to go out and see for yourself. There is everything under the sun out there, but on a whole, I feel so strongly that cultural pursuits are of value and importance to a community and to individuals.

cheers

Gabriel M.A.

03-02-2008, 05:20

My favorite is his Banality series, which includes the giant gilded porcelain Michael Jackson with Bubbles:

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2007/04/23/p465/070423_koons08_p465.jpg

<snip>

Persistence and confidence will bring you more credibility than a big price tag.
OK, that's the third sign that the End of the World is coming.

The first one was the return of Disco.

Sparrow

03-02-2008, 05:40

Hi Stewart, the example you show certainly has historical significance as an early human artifact. The fact that there is a geometric pattern, suggests interesting ideas.

It was the fact that the pattern was inscribed on a flat prepared surface that I find significant.

Whoever made it thought about what he was doing, it was conceptual before it was an object, like stretching a canvas or polishing a silver plate it first existed in the mind of the artist, the fact the artist looked like a chimpanzee his brain worked like ours.

Then some 70,000 years we conceived money and were able to start buying and selling such objects, did they not have a value prior to that?

Pablito

03-02-2008, 06:07

... he wrote a brilliant song called 'Truckload of Art' which is pure genius and the lyrics are well worth the read!

I'm all for poking fun at the elitism and snobbism that certainly constitutes part of the art world, but this song just celebrates ignorance. I find NOTHING redeeming about it, it's not even clever. :mad:

Keith

03-02-2008, 06:20

I'm all for poking fun at the elitism and snobbism that certainly constitutes part of the art world, but this song just celebrates ignorance. I find NOTHING redeeming about it, it's not even clever. :mad:

Did you click on the wikapedia link and check the guy's background ... the lyrics of the song are written by a highly acredited artist who was being somewhat ironical. He also writes some very astute stuff about the Nashville music scene. Find out a little more about him before you misinterpret his lyrics! :)

Terry Allen is represented by Gallery Paule Anglim in San Francisco, CA. His works are represented in the collections of many international museums including the New York Museum of Modern Art, the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Nelson/Atkins Museum in Kansas City, the San Diego Museum of Contemporary Art, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, l’Espace Lyonnais d'Art Contemporain, Musee Saint Pierre, Lyon, France, the Houston Museum of Fine Arts, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Dallas Museum of Art, and the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art.

steamer

03-02-2008, 06:28

Terry Allen has been a favorite artist since I first heard that song in the 70's (76?) He was always good and now it looks like he has some mighty cred.

Keith

03-02-2008, 06:35

Terry Allen has been a favorite artist since I first heard that song in the 70's (76?) He was always good and now it looks like he has some mighty cred.

He's a legend and at last count I had five of his CD's! That track is off 'Lubbock (On Everything)' :)

Terry Allen recorded eight albums during the years 1979 to 2004 and collaborated with David Byrne on the soundtrack for Byrne's movie True Stories. Allen's music is far from traditional. A quote attributed to Allen states: "People tell me it's country music, and I ask, 'Which country?'" Allmusic.com calls his 1979 release, Lubbock (On Everything), "one of the finest country albums of all time" and a progenitor of the alt-country movement.

sjw617

03-02-2008, 06:43

It was the fact that the pattern was inscribed on a flat prepared surface that I find significant.

Whoever made it thought about what he was doing, it was conceptual before it was an object, like stretching a canvas or polishing a silver plate it first existed in the mind of the artist, the fact the artist looked like a chimpanzee his brain worked like ours.

Stewart I think you are assuming too much. Most likely the rock was found and not prepared. A prepared surface should be smoother. And humans have been around for over 150,000 years, so the artist should not have looked like a chimpanzee.

Steve

Pablito

03-02-2008, 06:43

I know who he is, Keith. Let's agree to disagree. He's not a bad sculptor.

FallisPhoto

03-02-2008, 06:48

I've had that feeling with certain paintings I've seen. Less so with photography.

At least the guy throwing the paint makes more than the pigeon...

I've had that feeling a LOT with paintings.

I think the art world owes a huge debt (of revenge) to all those guys who tried to follow in Jackson Pollock's footsteps -- without having the least iota of a clue what Jackson was doing (his stuff was not AT ALL random). It was mostly thanks to these idiots that the bottom pretty much fell out of the art market back in the late 70s. Turns out that all those people saying "My kid could do better than that" were right. They damaged the art world so badly that the art market is only just now beginning to recover.

jan normandale

03-02-2008, 07:19

Hi Jan. Yes we are all money grubbers, as we sell our time and talents for a salary to feed our families. Most of us however provide a valuable service in return. I guess I'm critical of SOME modern art galleries because of their lofty rhetoric, purposefully talking over the heads of all but MFA holders, with an arrogant, superior attitude, while selling work of questionable merit.

(I don't totally feel this way, yes I do a bit, but I"m extrapolating somewhat, playing devil's advocate, to stimulate the conversation.)

Okay, Frank I've got it. But then it could be car dealers too.. I remember one time I went into a car dealer to enquire about an 8 year old Porsche convertible they were selling. I was 2 years out of school and wasn't making much but wanted something inexpensive, fun and with some resale appeal... it was arrogance beyond belief. I guess I'm thinking that this problem isn't just in art galleries.

JoeV

03-02-2008, 07:56

This has been observed before, but the funding of an artists activities has been an issue ever since the action of creating art was first deemed a specialty that not everyone, but only a select few, could do.

I'm thinking of a book I recently read on Rembrandt; the financial part of his art-making is crucial to understanding the body of his work. Most of the 'great masters' were funded, underwritten or in other ways sponsored by patrons and benefactors; the struggle to achieve that sponsorship is fundamental to their work.

Before the Renaissance, art-making was directly connected with the Church-State system; one had to confess a specific set of beliefs (their equivalent to the corporate 'mission statement' of our day) in order to gain entry to the club.

In our post-modern art world, public underwriting of art is widely recognized as a confession that a purely capitalist system does not value art as anything beyond the manufacture of items of decor for the purposes of commerce. How does one truly put a value on, say, Leonardo's Mona Lisa, other than as a capitalist instrument for investment purposes? How does one measure beauty and other intangible attributes of the human spirit that art inspires outside of the context of the value of the object as an item of commerce? The problem is that you really can't make that valuation in terms of economics; it really can only be made by saying that the life of the creative artists is worthy of being supported, in order for society to benefit as a whole by the creative output of the artist. That is probably the best argument I can find for why art should not be considered on strictly capitalist terms, but funded and supported as a benefit to society.

~Joe

Gabriel M.A.

03-02-2008, 09:00

And humans have been around for over 150,000 years, so the artist should not have looked like a chimpanzee.
Not according to the Kansas Board of Education! The Earth is shy of over 5,000 years old, according to them. ;) You don't monkey around with the board of education, my monkey-loving friend :rolleyes:

Debunking science with mere political posturing, now that is an art!

Sparrow

03-02-2008, 09:25

Stewart I think you are assuming too much. Most likely the rock was found and not prepared. A prepared surface should be smoother. And humans have been around for over 150,000 years, so the artist should not have looked like a chimpanzee.

Steve

OK I may have got my dates wrong then, I don't have a degree in history I just read that one paper, and they were not my assumptions they were the authors

what has the world come to when ya can't trust a professor at the Cape town Uni :rolleyes:

Gabriel M.A.

03-02-2008, 11:42

Cool, since this wasn't a "Leica thread", this particular horse died pretty quickly. Relatively.

Roger Hicks

03-02-2008, 12:02

I am going to use Roger Hicks as an example (sorry Roger but you are a public figure).

If you go to his web site and read between the lines you will find a person leading a modest, rather unusual life, a life that has clearly been exciting, and eventful. He may not be the next Pulitzer prize winner, but he has written books on everything from motorcycles to HH Dalai Lama (I own that rather good interview).

But when he posts on the RFF he often reads as pompous or even reactionary, possibly simply because he knows so much, and his posts appear to be too didactic.

i am not sure what draws him here. I have asked myself the same thing. Point is Roger is often just too smart for his own good, too much experience.

Dear Fred,

Thanks for the kind words, but I don't agree.

The point is, I'm not smart enough for my own good. That's why I may come across as pompous or reactionary. If I were smarter, I might come across as more everyday.

If I may return the compliment, you sometimes come across with the same flaws you impute (not without justice) to me.

Cheers,

R.

FrankS

03-02-2008, 13:15

Sirius, thanks for your very thoughtful reply. Great advice, I'll try to follow it, if not in the short term, definitely over the long term as my family life allows.

Fred, what's wrong with debate/discussion? Are certain topics sacrosanct to you? Some things simply mustn't be questioned? I say, question everything, especially self-proclaimed authority.

Let me be frank for a moment: Do you realize how superior and arrogant your posts often come across? (this thread and others)

I admit to sometimes exaggerating a position in order to make debate clear. My original post contains the truth that I am uncomfortable with much of what is called modern art. In order to hear the other side of the coin, I set out an extreme position that could easily be debated. Sirius has done by far the best job of doing that. This topic is right up your alley and it should a piece of cake for you to argue against my position. But instead you call me obtuse or malicious, and label those with opinions different from yours as a mob of bullies. All I was hoping for was a good debate and information to help me deal with my uncomfort with modern art. Thank you, Sirius.

Bye the way, the Mohamed that I evoked was not myself, it was the art community that will not go to the mountain (the people.)

FrankS

03-02-2008, 13:57

Small point: I did not type "Modern Art", I typed "modern art" meaning art that is currently produced.

I'm glad that you got lots of PMs Fred. I didn't get any. So, you win because you got more Valentines Day cards?

I've explained to you (once in a PM) why I'm no longer as public as I was before.

Keith

03-02-2008, 14:11

I know who he is, Keith. Let's agree to disagree. He's not a bad sculptor.

'Agree to disagree' ... that sounds far too sensible but yes you're right ... I apologise for my terseness!

Cheers. :)

Roger Hicks

03-02-2008, 14:17

[B]
I suppose part of my problem in expressing myself is I do not really understand the concept of a "hobby."

I admit I find it hard to imagine not making a living from what you love, in some form or another. I tried to have camera collecting as a hobby, but turned it quickly into an obsession and a business, it never had a chance as a hobby.
.
Dear Fred,

Thanks again for the kind words. The thing is, I think I do understand hobbies, and I don't have many. I gave up camera collecting/dealing, except in the most casual sense, decades ago. I'm lazy, and I like getting paid (albeit not very much) for doing the things that others are pay to do: travel, cookery, trying out new cameras, etc.

You are no doubt aware of the saying,

"Take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord."

The trouble is that very few are willing to do either. From what I can see, you have done it. I certainly have. But most are afraid to take what they want, and even more afraid of paying for it. Instead, they whinge about both.

This is not the same as debating a point like this. Unless and until you are in the rarefied relms of publicly-funded High Art, the rules are simple. No-one is forced to buy your work, and you are unlikely to make any more than the most modest living. All the artists I know are teachers of art; or supporting themselves in some other way; or slowly sinking into desperation and poverty, often with state assistance.

Your affectionate beard,

Roger

FrankS

03-02-2008, 14:21

A debate that should never have occurred? I don't know...

But I can wind it down too Fred. I'll continue to have issues with much of modern art (conceptual, non-representational), and you can continue to have issues with bokeh and DOF. :)

amateriat

03-02-2008, 15:26

Brooks Jensen of Lenswork magazine has a great podcast called free wine and cheese night, which is what he calls the gallery opening night where everyone shows up not to discuss the merit of the photos on the wall, but to be seen by the art community as a way to belong.
Free wine and cheese...check. I'll see y'al at my exhibit in September. Bottle o' red, bottle o' white, but maybe not an open bar. ;)

- Barrett (discovering what it takes to put on an exhibit...)

amateriat

03-02-2008, 16:29

Remind us again about what and where you are showing?

Always good to have a little wine at an opening, people will enjoy your work more, hang around longer, say nicer things to you. Well, I'm keeping some details under wraps, but it'll be my first one-person show, and my first serious foray into sticking my big toe into the lightbulb socket of what's supposed to be the Art world. (I did this a few times on a much smaller scale, but compared to this, those almost don't count.)

As far as the wine n' cheese thing goes, it's part of the dictum that says You Get More Flies With Honey (which rhymes with money, but if you're smart, it doesn't have to cost as much for this stuff as you think). If you just get a lot of people to show up, whether a they all get a good look at the art or not, you've more or less done your job. Better still if you get a critic or two to show up (yes, I'll be sending announcements to all the usual suspects in NYC...I'll really be uncaging my ego a bit for this one ;)).

Being the child of an artist, I think I can safely say that declaring yourself an artist takes a certain amount of chutzpah, whether one wants to acknowledge it or not. This is especially true if one intends to earn at least a sizeable portion of one's living from it (that's my high-wire act at the moment...watch me make it to the other side or fall). Whatever cosmic merit your work does or doesn't have, you really do have to believe in it enough to push it out there and get people to pay attention to it. But it means work; no one's going to hand everything to you (something I think too few recent art-school grads grasp very well). Persistence is awfully important...if you decide to give up because you didn't make it big within a year, all I can say is that you might've been better off going for an MBA (although in the current business climate, even that isn't a sure thing). Steady nerves and a thick skin help, too. :)

- Barrett

FallisPhoto

03-03-2008, 08:11

Okay, Frank I've got it. But then it could be car dealers too.. I remember one time I went into a car dealer to enquire about an 8 year old Porsche convertible they were selling. I was 2 years out of school and wasn't making much but wanted something inexpensive, fun and with some resale appeal... it was arrogance beyond belief. I guess I'm thinking that this problem isn't just in art galleries.

The difference is that, in todays society, you NEED a car.

ruben

03-03-2008, 09:33

Finally I read something truly human in this thread, which to me is both interesting concerning our knowledge of Barret and also relates to life in general.

Therefore I would like to add another angle very much found at the thread by its absence: the accessibility of the broad public to Art. This is in my opinion of the greatest importance.

It flows from our very basic approach to life. Is life a commodity for a small elite to enjoy, and the others to envy, or is life something for all to share.

With this I am not discrediting artists who are not known to the broad public because of the complex nature of their work, nor I would like to credit other artists who abused their access to the public for excessive profit and ego.

But the artist who both is loyal to his art and within it takes care his creation can be accessible, is adding another level of depht to his work.

It is the geniousity in the simple, and the simplicity of the genious - a golden quality not easily found, and not to be confused with flat mindness, very often found in talented folks.

Cheers,
Ruben

.............
Being the child of an artist, I think I can safely say that declaring yourself an artist takes a certain amount of chutzpah, whether one wants to acknowledge it or not. This is especially true if one intends to earn at least a sizeable portion of one's living from it (that's my high-wire act at the moment...watch me make it to the other side or fall). Whatever cosmic merit your work does or doesn't have, you really do have to believe in it enough to push it out there and get people to pay attention to it. But it means work; no one's going to hand everything to you (something I think too few recent art-school grads grasp very well). Persistence is awfully important...if you decide to give up because you didn't make it big within a year, all I can say is that you might've been better off going for an MBA (although in the current business climate, even that isn't a sure thing). Steady nerves and a thick skin help, too. :)

- Barrett

larmarv916

03-04-2008, 06:05

The problem really is not about being or not being a artist. But rather the commerical lust the art marketing or gallery owners seem to have. The big players set the tone for everyone else. The old 10 percent tell the other 90 percent what is art and what to buy.

The gallery community so to speak.....then builds up a new "tend" or art type to sell off to the "more money than brains" rich intellectual collector market. that's it !

The guy or gal who is really trying to follow a vision..is now trappped in the tidal flow of greed of the gallery pack. So if they get swept up in the tide of which ever way the water is going then maybe something good happens..

There really is no sense of moral responsibility by the gallery and art marketing world. So the artist is pray and all the sweat and tears of creative effort is secondary. Rejection is a given when ever you show and ask for publc validation.

Money is a whole differnt animal.

Best Regards.....Laurance

Gabriel M.A.

03-04-2008, 06:25

Finally I read something truly human in this thread
Abort. Abort. Operation Lisa has been compromised. But we shall be back. Resistance is futile. :p

Gabriel M.A.

03-04-2008, 06:26

The point is, I'm not smart enough for my own good. That's why I may come across as pompous or reactionary. If I were smarter, I might come across as more everyday.
Yo, yo. I feel you, man. Sometimes we men be such a foo, yo. Like, totally. Like, omg. :angel:

FrankS

03-04-2008, 06:36

To sum it up for me:

Some contempory art that I've seen, I appreciate.
Some contempory art I've seen ,I don' t appreciate but I get the uneasy feeling that it is caused by a deficiency within myself.
A lot of the contemporary art I've seen, I cannot appreciate, and I don't think it is caused by a deficiency within myself.
I have not seen enough contemporary art.
Art dealers and galleries are not about promoting quality, they are profit motivated.
Artists of all kinds are necessary for a culturally healthy society.
Only a small percentage of all artists are really artistically tallented and truely deserve support.
Much of an artist's success has little to do with artistic tallent, but on other factors particularly the marketing ability of the artist or those who attempt to profit from his work. (the way Lawrence explains it)