airfrogusmc
Veteran
Talentless according to who?
Is what passes for Art today really just something unusual ??
- Thread starter CameraQuest
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 80
- Views 8K
Talentless according to who?
peterm1
Veteran
OK I don't want to stir up a controversy here. But my point is a valid one. When I wrote my original post here is one image I had in mind, a piece which won an award in its day, for "visual art".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
Now I am not even a Christian, but am appalled by it partly because it seems to be designed to offend. But also because I can't for the life of me see what artistic merit it has. I suppose it is meant to bring into question the nature of religion or some such thing (the artist claims its a comment on the cheapening and misuse of religion in modern culture - which definitely sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black). But to me its just a bottle of urine with a cheap plastic statue in it, made by an "artist" who did not have the ability to come up with a better idea.
Is that art? Does it take talent to create? Not really in my view. All it takes is a desire to make a name for oneself by creating a controversy. It does not even strike me as being particularly good commentary. The overwhelming message I get from this piece of "art" is that the "artist" needed to empty his bladder and was too drunk to make it to the toilet. Or maybe not..........
So, you tell me was the artist talented? Was the piece an insightful piece of art? Does this compare to other pieces of art like a Caravaggio or even a Turner, a Modigliani, a Picasso or a Miro who were all "shocking" in their day, or even a..... (insert name here of pretty well classic or modern artist) ? I think I know how I would answer those questions.
If I had my way this artist would still be starving in a garret. Which is where he belongs. (How is that for being mean spirited) 🙂 But of course this is only one example of my more general point.
cheers Peter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
Now I am not even a Christian, but am appalled by it partly because it seems to be designed to offend. But also because I can't for the life of me see what artistic merit it has. I suppose it is meant to bring into question the nature of religion or some such thing (the artist claims its a comment on the cheapening and misuse of religion in modern culture - which definitely sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black). But to me its just a bottle of urine with a cheap plastic statue in it, made by an "artist" who did not have the ability to come up with a better idea.
Is that art? Does it take talent to create? Not really in my view. All it takes is a desire to make a name for oneself by creating a controversy. It does not even strike me as being particularly good commentary. The overwhelming message I get from this piece of "art" is that the "artist" needed to empty his bladder and was too drunk to make it to the toilet. Or maybe not..........
So, you tell me was the artist talented? Was the piece an insightful piece of art? Does this compare to other pieces of art like a Caravaggio or even a Turner, a Modigliani, a Picasso or a Miro who were all "shocking" in their day, or even a..... (insert name here of pretty well classic or modern artist) ? I think I know how I would answer those questions.
If I had my way this artist would still be starving in a garret. Which is where he belongs. (How is that for being mean spirited) 🙂 But of course this is only one example of my more general point.
cheers Peter
airfrogusmc
Veteran
We'll see if that is still in the conversation in 50 years. I doubt it. For every piece that is like that there are hundreds of other pieces that will still be in the conversation in 50 years from now. Some seem to take the fringes and try and convince others that is the norm when in reality it is just that. Only time will tell what is truly relevant and if I have to weed through a few pieces I might not agree with then so be it but I do not want anyone deciding for me who is talented and who isn't. I'm sure George Washington would agree with me one this one.
peterm1
Veteran
I am sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. I made no comment about art funding (and for the record, I am in favour of there being some level of public support for art) or gay military service (which I am also in favour of).
With the utmost respect, I think you are getting a bit fevered and over wrought. As well as making unwarranted assumptions about who I am, what I think and what I believe. The point I have made is a simple one which is that a lot of talentless tosh gets lauded as "art" simply because it is different. Which I think is the point made by the original poster.
emraphoto
Veteran
i find myself a bit confused by most of the 'photography as art' threads. i spend a good deal of my time seeking out and viewing photography these days and frankly, a lot of what i see is stunning. i was recently at a show where a good number of very successful and talented friends were discussing how much great work they have seen lately. in galleries, online etc. i tend to echo their sentiment. no longwinded abstracts. no gerwurtzraminer and cheddar cubes. just awesome prints were on order that evening.
maybe it's the galleries one frequents? i can't quite figure it out?
it ranks up there with 'photojournalism is dying'. my reality is just not lining up with what i'm reading on much of the internet.
maybe it's the galleries one frequents? i can't quite figure it out?
it ranks up there with 'photojournalism is dying'. my reality is just not lining up with what i'm reading on much of the internet.
emraphoto
Veteran
'In particular, most artists who see their art as serving a purpose of "social commentary" are not artists at all - they are wannabe revolutionaries but do not have the guts to really do it. (And maybe we should be thankful for that).'
again, my experience involves some folks with more guts than half of Toledo combined. maybe i'm delusional.
again, my experience involves some folks with more guts than half of Toledo combined. maybe i'm delusional.
Chris101
summicronia
Piss Christ nailed it for 'end-of-millenium' rejectionist art. Andres Serrano is an older guy, but he totally gets the 'meh' generation You gotta grab 'em but the ... you know, glands. Piss Christ was just the beginning. He went on to explore the rest of the stuff that humans - and other animals - make with their unattended bodies. The ejaculate flying across the frame (as seen on The Colbert Report), Blood and Milk, Sh!t. But look, he's a really innocent guy! After his lecture (he was paid, or coerced, by a patron of my college, and me, being his first place photography winner in our annual, guest artist judged contest) I got invited to his 'after party'. It was at a dingy, going-out-of-business bar near the museum. I sat down next to him, and bought him local beers for an hour or so, and of course, picked his brain.
At first I didn't ask him any questions, but rather prompted Irina - his girlfriend and an artist in her own right, who was sitting to his left - what she was doing lately. She said she was watching Andre (she left off the 's',) then nudged him to address me. He had been conversing with the president of our college, who was sitting next to me.
... awkward ...
He told me a story about buying blood from his butcher. He liked his butcher, and would get a choice piece of meat every week . But he wanted blood - the meat cutter thought it was for soup. Andres always insisting on it's freshness (the color had to be just so - I'm colorblind, so red is just a mental construct to me.) The milk, he said, was just grocery store stuff, although he thought milk came in a cardboard carton. I guess it did back them.
He's a cool guy, and said the beer would be on him next time. He painted a great picture of the thought process that went into his blood and milk series (after PC, but before Sh!t.) But I told him that my favorite picture that he did during that period was the portrait of Snoop Dog. He looked at me with dime slot eyes, and said, "Yeah, that figures."
At first I didn't ask him any questions, but rather prompted Irina - his girlfriend and an artist in her own right, who was sitting to his left - what she was doing lately. She said she was watching Andre (she left off the 's',) then nudged him to address me. He had been conversing with the president of our college, who was sitting next to me.
... awkward ...
He told me a story about buying blood from his butcher. He liked his butcher, and would get a choice piece of meat every week . But he wanted blood - the meat cutter thought it was for soup. Andres always insisting on it's freshness (the color had to be just so - I'm colorblind, so red is just a mental construct to me.) The milk, he said, was just grocery store stuff, although he thought milk came in a cardboard carton. I guess it did back them.
He's a cool guy, and said the beer would be on him next time. He painted a great picture of the thought process that went into his blood and milk series (after PC, but before Sh!t.) But I told him that my favorite picture that he did during that period was the portrait of Snoop Dog. He looked at me with dime slot eyes, and said, "Yeah, that figures."
Attachments
Addy101
Well-known
I can and I almost forgot the (successful) publicity stunt with that dress. Just listen to her music, you may like it.....
Ranchu
Veteran
I'm not sure I have an answer, but after reading, "Seven Days in the Art World", I felt somewhat informed. It says on the back it was translated into 15 languages, and it's a fairly recent book. I figured it was worth a shot. None of it really talked about art in a way that I relate to it, though.
Jaans
Well-known
The only thing missing in this thread is Roger with his latin lesson for the day.
But in all seriousness, the art market is something that I have a hard time trying to comprehend (its all Latin to me). Recently I read on the internet about the 10 most expensive photos - and low and behold there was a Gursky.
I rate Gursky as the photographic equivalent of the art worlds Damien Hirst. The skewed prices for his work as well as Gursky tells me the art market is run by the noveau rich who have no real sense of taste. Don't get me started on Jeff Wall.
Photography has always been about the magic moment that cannot be replicated. It always staggers me that people pay top dollar for a Gursky when they can have a Cartier Bresson man jumping puddle for around $30,000-
I also read on the internet that a lot Hirst's work is popular in China, which explains many things>
But in all seriousness, the art market is something that I have a hard time trying to comprehend (its all Latin to me). Recently I read on the internet about the 10 most expensive photos - and low and behold there was a Gursky.
I rate Gursky as the photographic equivalent of the art worlds Damien Hirst. The skewed prices for his work as well as Gursky tells me the art market is run by the noveau rich who have no real sense of taste. Don't get me started on Jeff Wall.
Photography has always been about the magic moment that cannot be replicated. It always staggers me that people pay top dollar for a Gursky when they can have a Cartier Bresson man jumping puddle for around $30,000-
I also read on the internet that a lot Hirst's work is popular in China, which explains many things>
jsrockit
Moderator
Well, you remembered the piece. That's better than most of us accomplish.
jsrockit
Moderator
If you choose to be a fan of photography, you will find great work. I agree.
willie_901
Veteran
charjohncarter
Veteran
I felt like you when I went to the LACMA, and saw a 300 square foot room with match boxes in each one was a dead small bird.
jbf
||||||
Whats the point if you arn't going to take a look a specific works and analyze them? Talking in generalizations doesnt really prove anything. Lets talk about baseless opinion. Yaay.
Whats more informing is actually critiquing work. Otherwise it's like asking, "Do all chevrolets look terrible now? Yes or no?"
Its about as silly as online "clickbait" sites with headlines like, "You'll never guess what this man found in his cd rom drive! Click to find out more!"
With that being said, it goes without saying that every place in the world has people who "make it" without talent. Talent is only a piece of the pie. The rest is being at the right place at the right time, and being passionate / obsessed (which you cannot will).
jbf
||||||
I think this is cool though. The fact that you can go to a space and be like "*** is this that i am looking at?" is a beautiful thing. It's an entirely human thing.
For me art that i like is art that I "get". But often times I've found that years down the line I revisit that same artwork and it "clicks" with me.
Sometimes that is because that my personal sensibilities and aesthetic taste has evolved or grown to like the work. Other times it is because I was missing pieces of the puzzle to understand what the work was about. Of course there are always the pieces that never click, and I find not so great still today.
One big important thing for me was when I discovered I could dislike the aesthetic or presence of a piece of work, but still very much enjoy that same artwork for its concept and idea.
Art is humanity. It carries our same emotions, hubris, and character flaws (sometimes even 'fatal' for a piece of work).
That is precisely why I love "art".
back alley
IMAGES
my step dad used to say the only difference between nixon and any other president was that nixon got caught...
back alley
IMAGES
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Good post BA I like the line Aspire to intelligence, don't belittle it..
