what passes as art

antiquark said:
Speaking of great artists, in 2008 we'll be seeing a movie based on Thomas Kinkade's art:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0999872/
Click to expand...
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.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 🙂
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
meltedARTS said:
My favorite is his Banality series, which includes the giant gilded porcelain Michael Jackson with Bubbles:

070423_koons08_p465.jpg


<snip>

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

The first one was the return of Disco.
 
FrankS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Keith said:
... he wrote a brilliant song called 'Truckload of Art' which is pure genius and the lyrics are well worth the read!
Click to expand...

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. 😡
 
Pablito said:
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. 😡
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
steamer said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Sparrow said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Al Patterson said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
FrankS said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
sjw617 said:
And humans have been around for over 150,000 years, so the artist should not have looked like a chimpanzee.
Click to expand...
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 🙄

Debunking science with mere political posturing, now that is an art!
 
sjw617 said:
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
Click to expand...

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 🙄
 
Last edited:
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.)
 
Last edited:
sitemistic said:
So what art do the posters here have hanging on their walls? Lets bring the discussion home.
Click to expand...

some original art

• Wall art, William Ronald, Norval Morriseau, Augusto Barcia, Jason McLean
• Sculptural art, Michael Snow, David Byrne, Philippe Starck, Haida, Hopi, Innuit
• Photographic art, Freeman Patterson

I'm going to develop some film now. Good posts Gabriel, Roger, Fred, Francisco
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom