what passes as art

pingle said:
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!
Click to expand...

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).
 
sitemistic said:
"artists should be supported by governments/councils or whatever you want to call it."

Chikne, they tried that in the FSU with camera making and we ended up with the Kiev.
Click to expand...

Art is someone's way of expressing themselves, why must it have anything to do with financial reward?
 
sitemistic said:
So what art do the posters here have hanging on their walls? Lets bring the discussion home.
Click to expand...
  • Two watercolours by Yorkshireman Edward H Simpson (impressionistic landscapes).
  • One watercolour seascape by (I think) Gian Gianni (can't really read the signature).
  • One oil on canvas marine painting by someone called J Orstine (if I read it right).
  • A Black Forest cuckoo clock.
  • A couple of Indian paintings on silk ( 1 x Nautch Girl 1 x Ganesh).
  • School photo's of the little 'un.
  • Paintings by said little 'un.
  • A couple of my own snaps.
 
sitemistic said:
So what art do the posters here have hanging on their walls? Lets bring the discussion home.
Click to expand...
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). And not because I think they're lousy photos (well, I wouldn't, would I? 😀 ) but just because they don't seem to suit that kind of display, or just don't suit the rooms available.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
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!
 
mfunnell said:
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
Click to expand...

agree completely, I don't like or fully understand Guernica, but wouldn't dream of denying it the status of "art"
 
Sparrow said:
Art is someone's way of expressing themselves, why must it have anything to do with financial reward?
Click to expand...

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.
 
chikne said:
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.
Click to expand...


You could be correct, but the support would influence the expression and you would be on the road to Arno Breker, no?
 
Sparrow said:
You could be correct, but the support would influence the expression and you would be on the road to Arno Breker, no?
Click to expand...

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.
 
well

well

no, the kids will lkely teach us.

sitemistic said:
Look at Francis Murray (and I do like some of her stuff). Take, for example, her Self Portrait/Shattered: Bird photo. Dead bird, peace of broken glass, artists head. It symbolizes something. But what? Not a particularly good photo technically. What does that mean to the average person? Can we actually teach kids to comprehend such things?
Click to expand...
 
sitemistic said:
Well, the support most certainly influenced the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, with that I certainly agree.
Click to expand...

Yes certainly but at that time in Italy the term artist simply referred to a craftsman, artist is a later concept.

Anyway one could argue any commissioned work is a craft-work rather than an artwork because it's not the makers expression, it's the clients.

If someone tells you what to photograph you are a journalist not an artist, no?
 
sitemistic said:
So what art do the posters here have hanging on their walls? Lets bring the discussion home.
Click to expand...
One of my grandmother's paintings, and a poster for The Empire Strikes Back. I would only call the former art, but the latter is nice to have up.

About galleries and the appraisal of art: I think that more often than not, the price hanging next to a piece has more impact on the viewer than the art itself. I can't remember who said it, but I recall a discussion here about someone looking to sell prints, and it was decided their prices were too low, and that no one would take him seriously unless he raised his prices. 🙄
 
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?
 
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.
 
I think Warhol is more interesting

I think Warhol is more interesting

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.




Keith said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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
 
Sparrow said:
Art is someone's way of expressing themselves, why must it have anything to do with financial reward?
Click to expand...
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 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom