Bricks, Dung, Sharks & Unmade Beds: The World Of 'Modern Art'
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- art & artists modern art
A
Anonymous
Guest
See! See!
Y'know, in the right light, she does remind me a little bit of Barbara Hepworth.
Bless her little cotton socks.jima said:
Y'know, in the right light, she does remind me a little bit of Barbara Hepworth.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I think that elitist is probably not quite the right word. But I can't think of another, either. Nor can I think of anything popularist (the contrary?) which is interesting.
I don't see anything pejorative about elitism. Art has always been like that. If the man who buys the Daily Mail (plays golf, listens to TalkSport or Classic FM and thinks medium cooked steak is a treat) likes your work then you might as well be making horse brasses for Essex pubs.
It's important that rich people support art. And anyway - the Saatchi generation of 1960s/70s advertisers were significant in their own way too. Like them or loath them (some became Tories some went to the left of Labour) - but they absolutely understood the changing state of Britain. They also had a good understanding of culture.
My parents couldn't understand why I liked The Clash. Now most people understand that they were absolutely perfect. Labour still isn't working!
EDIT: I'm a big fan of the photographer / artist Andreas Gursky - who exists as part of the same gallery system. I'm not particularly interested in Tracy Emin's work but can understand that she is significant and perhaps typical - and therefore important.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Simply not true.alb said:
In terms of human history and culture, the institution of "Art" is so new, it's still sporting its price tag.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: MAd Ranting Thickie Blockhead Alert!
But you're not being TOLD what you should consider of worth. That's the point.
Look...I read comic books. To me, a well drawn comic book page is art. But you don't see it hanging in the national, do you? And just because it isn't doesn't mean I'm being told it's not art. As far as I'm concerned its art. In the same way that someone who sees a light going on and off and decides to award it £25k thinks that THAT is art.
And that's essentially it. That's what its about. Some contemporary art I like. Some I don't.
You have your own opinion, therefore why should you feel like people are TELLING you something is art? Through your fillings, voices in your head? How?
It's a nonsense, it doesn't exist. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, accept no substitute.
The is it art or isn't it argument is actually a nonsensical load of old bollocks. it's a bullshit argument. It goes NOWHERE. Never had done, never will....and it never will for as long as you are able to formulate your own opinions...which is partly what art is there for. You don't like it? Fine, nobody says you're supposed to. move on to the next piece. You like that? Good, why? How does it make you feel? What does it say to you? right, next....and so on. Hence...bullshit argument.
The cows are coming home.
AndroMan said:I'm getting a bit too old to be told what I should consider of worth and know full well just how much of value really gets cast aside as pearls before swine.
But you're not being TOLD what you should consider of worth. That's the point.
Look...I read comic books. To me, a well drawn comic book page is art. But you don't see it hanging in the national, do you? And just because it isn't doesn't mean I'm being told it's not art. As far as I'm concerned its art. In the same way that someone who sees a light going on and off and decides to award it £25k thinks that THAT is art.
And that's essentially it. That's what its about. Some contemporary art I like. Some I don't.
You have your own opinion, therefore why should you feel like people are TELLING you something is art? Through your fillings, voices in your head? How?
It's a nonsense, it doesn't exist. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, accept no substitute.
The is it art or isn't it argument is actually a nonsensical load of old bollocks. it's a bullshit argument. It goes NOWHERE. Never had done, never will....and it never will for as long as you are able to formulate your own opinions...which is partly what art is there for. You don't like it? Fine, nobody says you're supposed to. move on to the next piece. You like that? Good, why? How does it make you feel? What does it say to you? right, next....and so on. Hence...bullshit argument.
The cows are coming home.
A
Anonymous
Guest
In response to AndroMan: New or not, since any definition, art has always been elitist. And I challenge you to show evidence to the contrary.
I am quite certain that the 2d cave painters were considered crazy by the rest of the folk around the fire.
Art, like politics, is always elitist. The best of the ideas and styles filter down into popularist culture. So now the bloke at the golf club likes psuedo Impressionism because it seems familiar. But it is done in the style of art from 100 or more years ago.
But a wider audience should remember that impressionism and then cubism was not simply a form of visual intellectual elitism - it was also about ideas. In it's day, impressionism was also conceptual. It was about ideas.
I am quite certain that the 2d cave painters were considered crazy by the rest of the folk around the fire.
Art, like politics, is always elitist. The best of the ideas and styles filter down into popularist culture. So now the bloke at the golf club likes psuedo Impressionism because it seems familiar. But it is done in the style of art from 100 or more years ago.
But a wider audience should remember that impressionism and then cubism was not simply a form of visual intellectual elitism - it was also about ideas. In it's day, impressionism was also conceptual. It was about ideas.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Re: MAd Ranting Thickie Blockhead Alert!
There's a reason the rich spend spend spend on what's judged to be "Art" it validates their aesthetic Authority. What more could a super-annuated advertising executive (who sold his soul for Thatchism) ask for to at least partially redeem his reputation for cutting edge good taste and discernment. Of course such a system needs no end of panders and puffers to keep reinforcing the message.
When those who appear to have expressed feeling a certain amount of schadenfreude over the recent conflagration are compared to book burning brownshirts, then surely the message is getting through.
The Media "tells" me what has worth these days. Or tries to. The Media and it's creatures, the "Personalities and Celebrities."Hook Innsmouth said:
There's a reason the rich spend spend spend on what's judged to be "Art" it validates their aesthetic Authority. What more could a super-annuated advertising executive (who sold his soul for Thatchism) ask for to at least partially redeem his reputation for cutting edge good taste and discernment. Of course such a system needs no end of panders and puffers to keep reinforcing the message.
When those who appear to have expressed feeling a certain amount of schadenfreude over the recent conflagration are compared to book burning brownshirts, then surely the message is getting through.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I think that you are fundamentally ignoring the possibility that art can also be about ideas. And art has always been about ideas - that's what conceptualist thinking has made very clear.
I also think that you are allowing your anti - (a particular) tory prejudices to affect what you think intellectually about art. I think you are assuming that a person whose politics differ from your own is less qualified (or has other motives) when judging cultural significance.
I think that it is excellent that a once high tory buys work from people who obviously have nothing in common with him but who he understands to be high - typical and representive of the culture.
Charles Saatchi could just have bought pre war water colours (like I do) - but perhaps he thought that would have been rather boring.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Are you making some sort of allegation about Saatchi taking drugs during the Eighties? Cocaine being the "loads of money" drug of choice, back then I believe.alb said:
No. Elitism is just one of the dialogues of power used to disguise the fact that underneath all the hype and trappings of wealth and luxury, the rich and powerful are just as sweaty arsed as the "hoi polloi."
But, that's it. Isn't it?
He being "high" i.e. the right sort of chap, of "taste and discernemt" recognises the"high" nature of the worth of these "Arty types".
His discernment has magical properties, conferring artistic merit, through recognition. Because, he's a conisewer. It's a bit like the touch of the King's robe that can cure scrofula, or the King's Evil.
Or, like Prince Charming having the shoe to fit Cinderella, "You shall go to the ball!"
I don't think!!
A
Anonymous
Guest
I'm not convinced, Androman, that you are really engaging with this subject.
Your last post really makes no sense in the context of a reasonable dialogue.
I think that you just hate the Saatchis and therefore nothing they bought can have any value in your opinion. Tell me I'm wrong.
Due respect etc. Art is elitist (or, at least , obscure) and has always been - in the same way in which radical thinking is obscure. It isn't the domain or sole purchase of any political or economic faction.
I think that the Constructivists were interesting and significant. But Stalin was a git. Politics has little or nothing to do with whether art is significant or not.
EDIT: The contrary of elitism is the kind of popularist 'art' which we see on the walls of McDonalds. Good 'elitism' allows us to watch excellent programmes on BBC 4. Eg.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Obviously, I must have read a different book on Art.alb said:
Mine starts with the use of Art in the Classical World to underline and reinforce the power of religion and state as part of their trappings.
One rushes forwards to the Middle Ages where figurative Art was largely the preserve of Religion and the Feudal State. Only with the coming of the Renaissance and the secular Wealth and privilege of the growing confident petit bourgeoisie does "Art" move slowly from religious to secular subjects. Interior decor for staunch burgers with richly decorated, but dark interiors in need of brightening and illumination with well painted scenes of moral instruction.
However, only in the late Eighteenth the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, did the Romantic myth of "The Artist" start to separate the craftsman from the work as craft and create a vacuum between them shortly to be filled with the parasitic "critics," collectors and conisewers.
I'm not too worried about politics of a party political nature. After all, "that nice Mr Tony Blair" used to fill N°10 with just such New British Movement Art types to attempt to add an air of street cred. to his New Labour Administration.
All done as part of the Spin.
A
Anonymous
Guest
With all due respect Androman - I think that you are off at a tangent.
With your analyisis we would therefore also have to reject, on a political analyis, everything from the early Renaissance onwards. And - to be honest - you just seem to be trying to shift the debate .... rather than simply acknowledging that art is an argument and a debate ... the basis of which constantly changes according to the social, economic and political thinking of the day.
And "the social, economic and political thinking of the day" is an important consideration - because those are the standards against which we understand the meaning of earlier art. It is also how the art of now will be understood in the future.
With your analyisis we would therefore also have to reject, on a political analyis, everything from the early Renaissance onwards. And - to be honest - you just seem to be trying to shift the debate .... rather than simply acknowledging that art is an argument and a debate ... the basis of which constantly changes according to the social, economic and political thinking of the day.
And "the social, economic and political thinking of the day" is an important consideration - because those are the standards against which we understand the meaning of earlier art. It is also how the art of now will be understood in the future.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 407
alb said:
So just because a lot of 'average' people like something, it's crap? And if only a few people like it, it's good?
Art is opinion, like religion. Its subjective and personal.
A
Anonymous
Guest
What makes you think I'm suggesting we reject "everything from the early Renaissance onwards" political analysis, or not?alb said:
I'm suggesting that we give every piece of received Artistic and Aesthetic Wisdom since before Ancient Sumeria the glad eye and treat it all with deep suspicion and the deepest cynicism.
In the end, it's all sound and fury signifying nothing.
We live in a World, where the new Art is being written on the bodies of men, women and children in blood and faeces, photographed and videoed with digital cameras and distributed instantaneously via the Internet.
And we're wittering on about some melted plastic soldiers and a few clever canvas sculptures and daubs.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Pretty much. But not exactly. I never wrote "average people". A large number of people don't fit the median 'average' - but typically they are either above or under the curve.
The 'normal' people mostly like stupid rubbish. That's why they bought tacky fake wood laminate floors from B&Q and pictures from Athena (in the 1970/80s) or Ikea (in the 1990s). They went to work discussing East Enders, Friends, Star Trek, Crime Watch and the front page of the Daily Mail. They once voted for Blair and supported the war.
These are the people who reject what they wrongly call 'modern art' - by which they mean conceptualism.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Re: Re: MAd Ranting Thickie Blockhead Alert!
How does the media "tell" you what you should and shouldn't like about art without you being able to make up your own mind? I still can't see how the media or the "rich" "Tell" you what to like and what not to like, other than by rudimentary standards of a class war manifesto as you've set out? You mention brownshirts, yet when I enter a gallery I have yet to hear the click of jack boots and feel I am left utterly to my own opinion, like or loath.
AndroMan said:
How does the media "tell" you what you should and shouldn't like about art without you being able to make up your own mind? I still can't see how the media or the "rich" "Tell" you what to like and what not to like, other than by rudimentary standards of a class war manifesto as you've set out? You mention brownshirts, yet when I enter a gallery I have yet to hear the click of jack boots and feel I am left utterly to my own opinion, like or loath.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 36,446
- Location
- East of Suez
mejane said:Calm down and all that
Is this the place to mention that I really like the Angel of the North? No? Didn't think so...
Jane.
Chequered though the conversation is it's hardly been brutal. Personally, i see absolutely no need for moderation.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 407
alb said:
Could it not be that 'normal' people are those able to see that a square painted blue or a well built brick wall certainly have a certain artistic appeal but they also have that wonderful quality called 'common sense' and realise that there is no way that it is ART and certainly isn't worth more than the cost of the materials and the time of the painter or brickie?
Being conned by self-important 'conceptualists' out of large amounts of money is something that 'abnormal' people suffer from.
A
Anonymous
Guest
well, its was dross seems to be winning 63% of the votes. I wonder how many of those that voted know exactly (other than that bloody tent) what works went up in flames.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Meanderer said:
That's what I've been trying to say for the past four pages....it doesn't appear to have even caused a dent.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Re: Re: Re: MAd Ranting Thickie Blockhead Alert!
As to the New British Art Movement, Hirst, Emin, et al. It's no real accident that their "movement" or whatever it's described as, was brought to the fore around the time that New Labour were setting the spin agenda and repackaging Britain as a more dynamic and innovative place.
Hirst, Emin and the rest were the Establishment 'Pop Idols' of their day.
...
As to the "brownshirts" remark:
...
Who decided that this form of "modern art" was to be labelled "Conceptualism"? The Artists? I think not. Unless they're even more pretentious than I'd given them credit for.
The elitism evidenced here seems to have a textual derivation rather than an any real aesthetic basis.
"For Art to be good, it has to be elitist and difficult." Could this really be true?
I'm informed of cutural trends through the mediation of the media the press, radio and TV act to censor and form the public opinion of Art. Watch and listen to a weeks cultural current affairs programming output from the BBC, for example. Do not be surprised if the same tiny group of topics for critcism and discussion come round, again and again. Who sets the agenda? I'm not sure, but I'd lay bets that most of them frequent the 'Groucho Club'Hook Innsmouth said:
As to the New British Art Movement, Hirst, Emin, et al. It's no real accident that their "movement" or whatever it's described as, was brought to the fore around the time that New Labour were setting the spin agenda and repackaging Britain as a more dynamic and innovative place.
Hirst, Emin and the rest were the Establishment 'Pop Idols' of their day.
...
As to the "brownshirts" remark:
There's the original quote.The Virgin Queen said:
...
Which kind of proves a side issue point about how labels are used in an attempt to control and censor how people are allowed to think about certain subjects.alb said:
Who decided that this form of "modern art" was to be labelled "Conceptualism"? The Artists? I think not. Unless they're even more pretentious than I'd given them credit for.
The elitism evidenced here seems to have a textual derivation rather than an any real aesthetic basis.
"For Art to be good, it has to be elitist and difficult." Could this really be true?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Having a Second Bite of the Cherry
I'd like to think I can form my own opinions, free from outside influences, or pressure. In reality I know that this may, in fact, be very difficult.
We're social animals and like to conform to the group interest. Nowadays, spin merchants, advertising companies and PR consultants are amongst the many vested interests, which manipulate that fact.
Emperor's recent posting of an article, by Mark Pilkington, on 'Peer Pressure' might be relevant here:Hook Innsmouth said:
And that, I would contend, is at least partially how the trick is done.
I'd like to think I can form my own opinions, free from outside influences, or pressure. In reality I know that this may, in fact, be very difficult.
We're social animals and like to conform to the group interest. Nowadays, spin merchants, advertising companies and PR consultants are amongst the many vested interests, which manipulate that fact.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2001
- Messages
- 1,186
Meanderer said:
Most of European art, architectue and music, especially during its high point of 1750-1820, was predicated on the notion of objective beauty. Various people used matamatics to prove why certain proportions and harmonies were naturally better than others. With much conceptual art aesthetics don't get a look in.
A
Anonymous
Guest
It's simply a question of using language accurately. Like it or not conceptual art is, most specifically, an art of ideas and art concepts - hence the term conceptualism. You might not particularly like that use of language - but I don't see anything pretentious about it.
Meaningful categorization is important. It helps us understand and follow ideas. Art, as a discipline, isn't just about making pretty pictures.
Modern Art is a big category. Many people who rant against 'modern art' will then tell you how much they love Cezanne or Renoir or Manet or Monet. All of whom were, self evidently, modernists. It's about ideas.
Meanwhile - would the same people who talk about "common sense" also see no value in the work of difficult writers - like, say, James Joyce. And I wonder how they feel about Shostakovich or Satie. Difficult to whistle.
People with "common sense" scare me. They may well be dangerous.
PS Androman ----
You say "and the rest" .... I challenge you to name, say, 10 artists who you think fall into the group called "and the rest". And you are not allowed to use Google.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Having a Second Bite of the Cherry
I'm glad you answered that question. That's a really interesting angle on the whole thing. Good article Emps. I'd say that only applies to me with buying naff PS2 games that other people have said "oh it's the best game ever". So I think I know where you're coming from, Andro Man.
Stripping away the political leanings and class system remarks and all that extra bumpf we're getting down to the real nitty gritty of perhaps why people like or dislike or feel compelled or whatever (though those elements play obvious parts, there's a lot more to it than that).
Example. What I can't stand is cinema and the way people won't go and see a film because someone else says its rubbish. We've all had that "saw the film before the hype" thing with certain films(and these days, that's becoming more and more of a treat)...but it's annoying trying to convince someone who's view has been tainted by hype why you felt a certain film was actually rather good. In most instances I find this to be true of people who've had the film to built up to something that's made their expectations so high it often falls below par.
With regard to the article, you say "that is patrially how the trick is done"...I would argue "for some".
It's evident there are some who are more open minded than others.
AndroMan said:
I'm glad you answered that question. That's a really interesting angle on the whole thing. Good article Emps. I'd say that only applies to me with buying naff PS2 games that other people have said "oh it's the best game ever". So I think I know where you're coming from, Andro Man.
Stripping away the political leanings and class system remarks and all that extra bumpf we're getting down to the real nitty gritty of perhaps why people like or dislike or feel compelled or whatever (though those elements play obvious parts, there's a lot more to it than that).
Example. What I can't stand is cinema and the way people won't go and see a film because someone else says its rubbish. We've all had that "saw the film before the hype" thing with certain films(and these days, that's becoming more and more of a treat)...but it's annoying trying to convince someone who's view has been tainted by hype why you felt a certain film was actually rather good. In most instances I find this to be true of people who've had the film to built up to something that's made their expectations so high it often falls below par.
With regard to the article, you say "that is patrially how the trick is done"...I would argue "for some".
It's evident there are some who are more open minded than others.
A
Anonymous
Guest
You certainly win that particuliar point, Alb.alb said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Everyone here has a valid point to make, but as Hook's said, there was more than just 'conceptual Britart' in the warehouse, and there seems to be a concentration on just the few well known pieces in there, to the detriment of the other contents.
However, the movement that is under discussion, is, I believe, being misunderstood. There are valid, if rather simple and old fashioned, sometimes blatantly cynical and a bit lazy, ideas behind these pieces, but the works themselves are just a small part of what posterity will remember the movement for. Britart was a last flailing of 20th century 'high' culture, in a similar way as the Aesthetic movement was a dying twitch of the 19th. They both at once rejected and embraced controversy, wealthy patronage, and popular taste, and are phenomena of hype and the media, without which these sorts of art movements would be impossible. As Jayne Mansfield once said 'There's no such thing as bad publicity.'
Yes they are a loss, but I don't think that the work will actually be the most important legacy to future art historians.
However, the movement that is under discussion, is, I believe, being misunderstood. There are valid, if rather simple and old fashioned, sometimes blatantly cynical and a bit lazy, ideas behind these pieces, but the works themselves are just a small part of what posterity will remember the movement for. Britart was a last flailing of 20th century 'high' culture, in a similar way as the Aesthetic movement was a dying twitch of the 19th. They both at once rejected and embraced controversy, wealthy patronage, and popular taste, and are phenomena of hype and the media, without which these sorts of art movements would be impossible. As Jayne Mansfield once said 'There's no such thing as bad publicity.'
Yes they are a loss, but I don't think that the work will actually be the most important legacy to future art historians.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 407
alb said:
I think the difference between (and I use the term in the context of some of items lost in the fire) Modern Art and the artists mentioned above is one of 'input'. Cezanne, Joyce, Shostakovitch all actually produced something new from within themselves. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant - I can see that they have tried to put across a new idea or thought. A dirty bed, a brick wall, a dead sheep are not new ideas.
(And I'm sorry I scare you <g>)
A
Anonymous
Guest
Very well expressed Stella.
But at the risk of this turning into "Quote Unquote" - isn't the quote normally attributed to Barnum.
But at the risk of this turning into "Quote Unquote" - isn't the quote normally attributed to Barnum.