ART - not just pretty pics

[Atilla]

Hands up in the air, who remembers oranges in my painting?

Did Van Gogh like oranges?

 

[timsk]

. . . Art or not?

Aha, very good Richard!
You've picked two classic examples that are discussed in art schools up and down the land - the world possibly - about what is or isn't art. Shame you didn't go for the hat-trick and include Peter Andre's bricks. No, hold on a minute - that's not right . . .

Using my earlier definition of art, the urinal could be art, as it's no longer a functional object. It's purpose is defined by its context. Once the context changes, in this case from a (public) convenience to an art gallery, so does its purpose. Now, it has the potential to be or become something else. Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain' was intended as a joke - but there was a point behind it. He wanted to shake up the then established view about what constituted art and what could and couldn't go on public display. He could not have known the impact it would have. It changed the course of art history forever. In 1917, it was to the art world what punk rock would be to the world of pop music in the 70s. And then some. Going back to an earlier point I made about craft, and that nearly all 'good' artists are good craftsmen, this also applies to Duchamp. You wouldn't know it by looking at the Fountain, but he was actually a very fine painter.

The Marilyn image is interesting, not least because Pat uploaded one earlier that I stated categorically is not art. So, what makes the image of her by Andy Warhol art? Again, by my definition, Pat's image was a Hollywood studio shot to promote a film star in order to sell cinema tickets. Warhol's image of her isn't intended to do that - it exists completely independently and in it's own right, serving no purpose or function, other than to get the viewer to engage with it directly and address their thoughts and feelings about a very different representation of a famous actress who, for the most part, they love. Warhol was a very successful commercial artist who was in much demand in New York before making the switch to become an artist. Same man, same talent and same skill, still doing something artistic. But the intent behind what he produced changed, along with the purpose of the work. And that's pretty much all that separates his earlier commercial work from his works of art.
Tim.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Aha, very good Richard!
You've picked two classic examples that are discussed in art schools up and down the land - the world possibly - about what is or isn't art. Shame you didn't go for the hat-trick and include Peter Andre's bricks. No, hold on a minute - that's not right . . .

Using my earlier definition of art, the urinal could be art, as it's no longer a functional object. It's purpose is defined by its context. Once the context changes, in this case from a (public) convenience to an art gallery, so does its purpose. Now, it has the potential to be or become something else. Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain' was intended as a joke - but there was a point behind it. He wanted to shake up the then established view about what constituted art and what could and couldn't go on public display. He could not have known the impact it would have. It changed the course of art history forever. In 1917, it was to the art world what punk rock would be to the world of pop music in the 70s. And then some. Going back to an earlier point I made about craft, and that nearly all 'good' artists are good craftsmen, this also applies to Duchamp. You wouldn't know it by looking at the Fountain, but he was actually a very fine painter.

The Marilyn image is interesting, not least because Pat uploaded one earlier that I stated categorically is not art. So, what makes the image of her by Andy Warhol art? Again, by my definition, Pat's image was a Hollywood studio shot to promote a film star in order to sell cinema tickets. Warhol's image of her isn't intended to do that - it exists completely independently and in it's own right, serving no purpose or function, other than to get the viewer to engage with it directly and address their thoughts and feelings about a very different representation of a famous actress who, for the most part, they love. Warhol was a very successful commercial artist who was in much demand in New York before making the switch to become an artist. Same man, same talent and same skill, still doing something artistic. But the intent behind what he produced changed, along with the purpose of the work. And that's pretty much all that separates his earlier commercial work from his works of art.
Tim.

Great post

I remember seeing the bricks at the Tate (as it was then called) around the mid 70s and was singularly unimpressed. I've never really liked Conceptual art as those conceived ideas are rarely executed, merely presented. Too simplistic and unemotional for my personal taste. Give me a Rothko any day and I'm transfixed with feelings and ideas.
Richard

 

[Pat494]

Great post

I remember seeing the bricks at the Tate (as it was then called) around the mid 70s and was singularly unimpressed. I've never really liked Conceptual art as those conceived ideas are rarely executed, merely presented. Too simplistic and unemotional for my personal taste. Give me a Rothko any day and I'm transfixed with feelings and ideas.
Richard

The exhibition organisers in my view were very feeble even giving space on the floor for those bricks. No guts. They should have treated them and things like carcasses in formaldehyde with the contempt they deserved.
Turner would be turning in his grave if he knew they were using his name to consecrate that sort of garbage.

 

[timsk]

Pat,

The exhibition organisers in my view were very feeble even giving space on the floor for those bricks. No guts.

I've read, heard and debated any number of views about Carl Andre's (in)famous bricks over the past 35 years, but the comment quoted is perhaps the most extraordinary of them all. If exhibiting a pile of household bricks in a major public gallery doesn't display strength of character, conviction in ones views and good ol' fashioned guts - then I don't know what does!

They should have treated them and things like carcasses in formaldehyde with the contempt they deserved.
Turner would be turning in his grave if he knew they were using his name to consecrate that sort of garbage.

Whether or not it's garbage is purely subjective. As to Turner turning in his grave, I can offer you some comfort on that front. The founders of the prize chose to name it after Turner as he was British obviously (the prize is only awarded to British artists) and he himself had wanted to establish a prize for up and coming young artists. Most importantly, in his day, he was regarded as being an innovative and controversial artist. If you look at his later work, it's poorly drawn and the boundaries between figurative representation and abstract shapes and bright colours becomes blurred. This is unsurprising as he was slightly colour blind and, at the latter stages of his life, visually impaired by cataracts.
Tim.

 

[counter_violent]

Hi Pat,
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not clear what the images of Ms. Monroe and Yoda - lovely as they are in their respective ways - have to do with art? Is it that the original posters of the actress and the Jedi master are now collectors items? If so, may I offer this broad rule of thumb as to what is and isn't art . . .

It's fair to say that a work of art is nearly always a one-off bespoke item, of which painting or sculpture are the most obvious examples. The raison d'être is restricted to the work itself; it exists in its own right, independently of anything else and for no other purpose than to be what it is. It doesn't do anything - it has no function - so it's not a utilitarian object such as a bowl or teapot. And it doesn't sell anything - other than itself.

The notable exception that proves the one-off rule are limited edition photographs, lithographs, etchings, screen prints and, to a lesser extent, cast sculptures. The point to note about all of these is in the description; the edition is limited in size and each print or sculpture is numbered in order to identify it as part of the edition. None of the above applies to mass produced marketing material, such as the London Transport posters mentioned earlier or the two images you've attached above. Sure, all of these can be 'artistic', visually striking and contactable in the eyes of many people. But their appeal is merely a by-product of what they were originally produced for and intended to do. Namely, to put bums on seats in trains and cinemas. If you accept the definition I've provided here, that means they are not art.
Tim.

Carefully chosen words.

The problem is that even a unique single work of art has a history, sketches, scribbles, reworks, etc. Only really applies to artists of note I suppose, but some collectors would probably purchase a dead fly that was found in "the artists" studio, if they thought it had association and might go up in value !

At least 4 versions of the scream too. I don't suppose you would throw it out if you didn't have the right one !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream

 

[counter_violent]

Hi TRF,
I have a 2:2 honours degree (referred to as a 'Desmond' here in the U.K. after the famous bishop) in Fine Art, although I specialised in printmaking. I like to think I'd have done better and got a 2:1, but one of the assessors was a painter who believed that printmaking wasn't art and so, as a matter of principle, gave all students who made prints a big fat zero. That dragged down the averages somewhat! He was a colourful character (and a good painter to be fair) who, on the first day of the first term with a new intake of fresh faced students, started his class by announcing that great art is all about waste. He then proceeded to take a dozen or so unopened tubes of quality oil paint and squeeze the whole lot into a rubbish bin. Easily £20.00 worth of paint - which was a small fortune to an impoverished art student back in the late 70s. Needless to say, he got our attention.

Regarding art history - my knowledge isn't great, although it was a part of the course and all students had to produce a thesis.

Back to the thread topic, my advice to anyone wanting to buy art as an investment would be to focus on one area and specialise in that. So, it could be prints as favoured by sminicooper, but equally it could be watercolours, mosaics, photography or pottery etc. I'm afraid there are no short cuts; making money out of art will be as tough as making money out of trading. The main thing is to buy what you like and then, even if it doesn't accrue in value, you can enjoy it.
Tim.

Just be thankful it wasn't a "Vorderman"

 

[timsk]

I remember seeing the bricks at the Tate (as it was then called) around the mid 70s and was singularly unimpressed. I've never really liked Conceptual art as those conceived ideas are rarely executed, merely presented. Too simplistic and unemotional for my personal taste. Give me a Rothko any day and I'm transfixed with feelings and ideas.
Richard

I agree 100% Richard - I've never been a fan of conceptual art either. But that's just us. Interestingly, when the Tate removed the bricks from public display, they received many more letters and complaints from people who wanted to see them than they ever did from people who objected to them in the first place!

For anyone interested in delving deeper into modern art, you could do a lot worse than to watch this 8 part series by the late Robert Hughes, entitled 'Shock of the New'. It was made in the early 80s and, needless to say, includes a section on Carl Andre's bricks.

Enjoy!
Tim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ne7Udaetg&list=PLrI9OVfFUbkLxQ77hfz758M1PdT4iP2aT

 

[Atilla]

I agree 100% Richard - I've never been a fan of conceptual art either. But that's just us. Interestingly, when the Tate removed the bricks from public display, they received many more letters and complaints from people who wanted to see them than they ever did from people who objected to them in the first place!

For anyone interested in delving deeper into modern art, you could do a lot worse than to watch this 8 part series by the late Robert Hughes, entitled 'Shock of the New'. It was made in the early 80s and, needless to say, includes a section on Carl Andre's bricks.

Enjoy!
Tim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ne7Udaetg&list=PLrI9OVfFUbkLxQ77hfz758M1PdT4iP2aT

Do you always believe what salesman tell you???

When I'm negotiating I always start off by expanding on what a super quality product it is how much I like it but my budget unfortunately doesn't quite reach that far.

What I'm really saying is... product not worth the asking price!


Anyhow based on your definition of art, be it Tracy's bed or a wall of bricks, as soon as it is taken down and reconstruted it drops out of your what-is-art-checklist.

Subsequently, if an item can't exist as an object for what it is then that's another cross.


This is the problem from my pov, people can take art to where ever they want, say what they want, create what they want and spin any story they like.

Fingers tapping...

Still waiting to be convinced. Just coz you read what people wanted you to think, don't make it so. We have religion for that and look where that's taken us.

You need to free shackled brain imho.

 

[tomorton]

I sometimes wonder if the point of art isn't simply to generate debate as to what is art.

And if it was true, would that be such a bad thing?

 

[Pat494]

Photography killed off representative art and this new art form grew up.

 

[Atilla]

Photography killed off representative art and this new art form grew up.

Wow, I may have had one too many Heineken today.

Is that mountain with the face of a frog winking at me?


I love it!

 

[timsk]

Do you always believe what salesman tell you???

Salesmen - no idea what you're on about Atilla. I'll put the bulk of last post down to the Heineken - never much cared for it myself!

 

[counter_violent]

Wow, I may have had one too many Heineken today.

Is that mountain with the face of a frog winking at me?


I love it!

Now what are you talking about !

It is obvious that the frog is the seagulls lunch.

 

[Atilla]

Now what are you talking about !

It is obvious that the frog is the seagulls lunch.

Blimey :-0

I see what you see too, at least now that you've highlighted in red.

However, when I first saw that pic enlarged mountain frog leapt at me. Could have sworn I saw it wink.


Timsk,
What I'm saying about salesmanship, is that you should not believe always what you are told.

If the bricks were popullar as stated they would have maintained the exhibition longer.

They'll always talk up artwork on display. A little like hollywood actors. One never says anything bad about anyone else's work as their egos and complexions are so thin and delicate. Everyone is absolutely marvellous and multi-talented as we are all super traders.

 

[Mr. Charts]

I agree 100% Richard - I've never been a fan of conceptual art either. But that's just us. Interestingly, when the Tate removed the bricks from public display, they received many more letters and complaints from people who wanted to see them than they ever did from people who objected to them in the first place!

For anyone interested in delving deeper into modern art, you could do a lot worse than to watch this 8 part series by the late Robert Hughes, entitled 'Shock of the New'. It was made in the early 80s and, needless to say, includes a section on Carl Andre's bricks.

Enjoy!
Tim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ne7Udaetg&list=PLrI9OVfFUbkLxQ77hfz758M1PdT4iP2aT

This was one of the best series on "modern" art ever made. It was repeated on BBC4 a few months ago and I enjoyed it just as much the second time around.
The book is also well worth buying.
Robert Hughes, like Clive James, was an immigrant who enriched our cultural life hugely.

 

[timsk]

HI Atilla,

. . .What I'm saying about salesmanship, is that you should not believe always what you are told.

Yes, the words are very clear, there's just no connection between them and my post about the bricks. I was just making an anecdotal remark - I wasn't sold anything by anyone. I get that you don't have much time for some modern art, and that's absolutely fine, but please don't tell me I've been sold ****e about by someone - least of all the Tate - it's offensive.

If the bricks were popullar as stated they would have maintained the exhibition longer.

With respect, I don't think you understand how a major public gallery like the Tate operates. In a nutshell: too many artists, waaaay too much work - not enough space to display it all. That problem's been alleviated somewhat with the opening of Tate Liverpool, Tate St Ives and Tate Modern. But, when the bricks were first shown, there was just Tate Britain.
Tim.

 

[Pat494]

I think they were basically taking the Mickey and saw what they could get away with. Well it was a lot but like all new things modern art has become old and fusty.
A lot of the rubbish was in Saatchi's warehouse which if I remember rightly had a convenient fire. The insurance claim must have been huge.

 

[Atilla]

HI Atilla,

Yes, the words are very clear, there's just no connection between them and my post about the bricks. I was just making an anecdotal remark - I wasn't sold anything by anyone. I get that you don't have much time for some modern art, and that's absolutely fine, but please don't tell me I've been sold ****e about by someone - least of all the Tate - it's offensive.


With respect, I don't think you understand how a major public gallery like the Tate operates. In a nutshell: too many artists, waaaay too much work - not enough space to display it all. That problem's been alleviated somewhat with the opening of Tate Liverpool, Tate St Ives and Tate Modern. But, when the bricks were first shown, there was just Tate Britain.
Tim.

Don't mean to be offensive or offend. Just a debate on what is art and what not and intrepretation of it all.

I simply don't believe what you were told by more people calling in to complain about removal.

Anyone with half an IQ knows when there is an exhibition on which one is interested in one checks the open/close hours and dates. I know arty farty folk can be lame and high on sh1te and stuff but for them to be that well organised to call in to complain is a bit of a joke.

Like some numbty picking up the phone to say "Oh how dissapointed I am, as I really wanted to see those bricks and I had no idea your gallery would dare to have such a narrow window of opportunity, what a shame!!!"

Then another numpty keeping notes on who complained and who demostrated. In fact it is one of the most outlandish biggest codswollop stories I've heard all year.

I'm genuinely not trying to upset you just finding it incredibly difficult to believe. I'm nearer to believing in God then the gospel of Tate.



fwiw, the university I attended many years ago had a reputation by the Art society for throwing the best parties. On one occassion they invited a stripper. The Lesbian society got to hear of it and raided the party with baseball bats (I wasn't at the party as it was before my time). Lesbian society then got banned for causing £000s pounds worth of damage.

Art students got licked by the Lesbians (forgive the punn)


No offense matey. Festive cheers and Heinekens :drunk:

 

[Atilla]

I think they were basically taking the Mickey and saw what they could get away with. Well it was a lot but like all new things modern art has become old and fusty.
A lot of the rubbish was in Saatchi's warehouse which if I remember rightly had a convenient fire. The insurance claim must have been huge.

That's not funny.

What a dreadful shame.