what passes as art

sitemistic said:
Warhol was a poseur.
Click to expand...

That's funny. The typical jealous answer. Not that I'm saying you're jealous, but it is typical.

Why? Because you and me can be poseurs as much as we like ( and eat live Bats, pee in Hitler's helmet and drink it fresh, or anything as twisted) and we'll probably never be recognized as Icons. And yet he did it... as simply as me driving a bicycle.
 
sitemistic said:
Warhol's genius wasn't his art, it was understanding the shallowness of the culture. I'm not sure, though, when he decided to poke holes in the stuffed shirt art community, that he had any clue he would become a cultural icon. He laughed all the way to the bank, though, and threw some incredible parties as well!
Click to expand...

No matter, man. What's left from him is his Art. It's what people all ovre the world pay for lookint at. Too bad me or you could't do what he did. And for this, I applaud him (and no, I'm not a fan).
 
MikeL said:
How about Jeff Koons?
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you mention Jeff Koons, and that this thread seems to keep returning to the theme of money as some sort of validation for art. Before he was an artist, Koons made a fortune as a stockbroker. Also, he was sued for copyright infringement (and lost) for making a sculpture based on an image by photographer Art Rogers. He also holds the record for the most expensive sale at auction by a living artist (I think $23.6 million). All that aside, I like his work. My favorite is his Banality series, which includes the giant gilded porcelain Michael Jackson with Bubbles:

070423_koons08_p465.jpg


When it comes to art, it doesn't matter what you do. . . just that you keep doing it, and do so with intent. Persistence and confidence will bring you more credibility than a big price tag.
 
I remember seeing a program on artists in Holland, where the government supports some (or all?) either with grants or by buying their pieces. They are then simply warehoused and never/rarely seen again. Can any of our Dutch members comment if this still happens? I think I also remember about a protestor who vandalized a piece of classic art, a painting, to draw attention to the fact that none of the new artworks are ever displayed.
 
Well, working in and around the arts has taught me one thing - a shed load of it is not so clever words constructed into very made-up sentences but said in a VERY specific way.

Everyone has a very personal idea of what art is. My own opinion is that for something to be considered art, a certain level of skill has to be involved and it has to have/be a good idea with a certain degree of critical and cultural analysis.

As for the Arts Council, don't get me started on that bunch of <serious amounts of very bad language here>.
 
A little off topic sort of but one of my favourite musicians is an alternate country singer from Texas named Terry Allen ... the music is fairly hard core country but his lyrics are sooo left of centre. A lot of them deal with art and I think I read somewhere that he does have a background in painting and conceptual art!

Actually I just checked wikapedia and he is indeed a very interesting guy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Allen_(country_singer)

I digress ... he wrote a brilliant song called 'Truckload of Art' which is pure genius and the lyrics are well worth the read!

Recitation:
Once upon a time…
Sometime ago back on the east coast
In New York City, to be exact…
A bunch of artists and painters and
sculptors and musicians and
poets and writers and dancers
and architects
Started feeling real superior
to their ego-counter-parts
Out on the West Coast…so,
They all got together and decided
They would show those snotty surfer upstarts
A thing or two about the Big Apple
And…they hired themselves a truck
It was a big, spanking new white-shiny
Chrome-plated cab-over
Peterbilt…
With mudflaps, stereo, tv, AM & FM radio,
Leather seats and a naugahide sleeper…
All fresh
With new American Flag decals and "ART ARK"
Printed on the side of the door
With solid 24 karat gold leaf type…
And they filled up this truck
With the most significant piles
And influential heaps of Art Work
To ever be assembled in Modern Times,
And it sent it West…to chide
Cajole, humble and humiliate…the Golden Bear.
And this is the true story of that truck…
A Truckload of Art
From New York City
Came rollin down the road
Yeah the driver was singing
And the sunset was pretty
But the truck turned over
And she rolled off the road
Yeah a Truckload of Art
is burning near the highway
Precious objects are scattered
All over the ground
And it's a terrible sight
If a person were to see it
But there weren't nobody around
(Yodel)
Yeah the driver went sailing
High in the sky
Landing in the gold lap of the Lord
Who smiled and then said
"Son, you're better off dead
Than haulin a truckload
full of hot avant-garde
(chorus)
Yes…an important artwork
Was thrown burning to the ground
Tragically…landing in the weeds
And the smoke could be seen
Ahhh for miles all around
Yeah but nobody…knows what it means
Yes…a Truckload of Art
Is burning near the highway
And it's a tough job for the highway patrol
Ahhh they'll soon see the smoke
An come runnin to poke
Then dig a deep ditch
And throw the arts in a hole
(Yodel)
Yeah a Truckload of Art
Is burning near the highway
And it's raging far-out of control
And what the critics have cheered
Is now shattered and queered
And their noble reviews
Have been stewed on the road
(chorus)
 
Last edited:
sitemistic said:
Warhol was a poseur.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Certainly one might note that Valerie Solanas showed more than "pose", in opposition, as well as having more creative uses for pinking shears.

But, overall and as a bloke, I'd prefer to be around Andy than Val. Sometimes the poseur might be more comfortable to be with than the true believer...

...Mike
 
FrankS said:
I remember seeing a program on artists in Holland, where the government supports some (or all?) either with grants or by buying their pieces. They are then simply warehoused and never/rarely seen again. Can any of our Dutch members comment if this still happens? I think I also remember about a protestor who vandalized a piece of classic art, a painting, to draw attention to the fact that none of the new artworks are ever displayed.
Click to expand...

This happened from 1956 to 1987 (BKR-arrangement). Presently, there are initiatives to clear the built-up inventories of musea and municipalities by auctioning these works of art. Appearently one such auction netted 83000 euros with one piece going for 23000 euros. The auction consisted of 'hundreds of items', not all of which were from this BKR.
Auctioning these works is complicated by the fact that when the artists delivered these works, they maintained the right to ask them back on loan from the depot. No doubt legions of public service people have discussed and debated about this arrangement until they came up with a proposal that was convoluted enough that no-one could make any sense of it.
 
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.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Art, the human need to create something and ability to appreciate its creation predates the concept of money by many millions of years, hell it predates modern man.

When the first guy decided to decorate his cave wall it must have been in response to a creative urge not a financial reward, his society may have supported him after the event but it cannot have been the motivation, one only needs to read this thread to see how people that don’t understand “new art” react to it. :rolleyes:
 
Continuing Keith's musical intervention. I feel this ditty has something to contribute. I will, after this, shut my uneducated, council house raised, common, working class gob 'cos you're far too clever for me and it's unfair on me for you to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. :rolleyes: :p :D

Danny Kaye - The King's New Clothes​

This is the story of the King's new clothes:
Now there was once a king who was absolutely insane about new clothes and one day, two swindlers came to sell him what they said was a magic suit of clothes. Now, they held up this particular garment and they said, "Your Majesty, this is a magic suit." Well, the truth of the matter is, there was no suit there at all. But the swindlers were very smart, and they said, "Your Majesty, to a wise man this is a beautiful raiment but to a fool it is absolutely invisible." Naturally, the King not wanting to appear a fool, said:​

"Isn't it grand! Isn't it fine! Look at the cut, the style, the line!


The suit of clothes is altogether

But altogether it's altogether
The most remarkable suit of clothes that I have ever seen.
These eyes of mine at once determined
The sleeves are velvet, the cape is ermine
The hose are blue and the doublet is a lovely shade of green.
Somebody send for the Queen."​

​



Well they sent for the Queen and they quickly explained to her about themagic suit of clothes. And naturally, the Queen not wanting to appear a fool, said:

"Well, isn't it oh! Isn't it rich! Look at the charm of every stitch!

​



The suit of clothes is altogether

But altogether it's altogether
The most remarkable suit of clothes that I have ever seen.
These eyes of mine at once determined
The sleeves are velvet, the cape is ermine
The hose are blue and the doublet is a lovely shade of green.
Summon the court to convene."​

​



Well the court convened, and you never saw in your life as many people as were at that court. All the ambassadors, the dukes, the earls, the counts, it was just black with people, and they were all told about the magic suit of clothes. And after they were told they naturally didn't want to appear fools and they said:

"Isn't it ohhh! Isn't it ahhh! Isn't it absolutely wheee! (whistle sound)

​



The suit of clothes is altogether

But altogether it's altogether
The most remarkable suit of clothes a tailor ever made.
Now quickly, put it altogether
With gloves of leather and hat and feather
It's altogether the thing to wear in Saturday's parade.
Leading the royal brigade."​

​



Now Saturday came and the streets were just lined with thousands, and thousands, and thousands of people, and they all were cheering as the artillery came by, the infantry marched by, the cavalry galloped by. And everybody was cheering like mad, except one little boy. You see, he hadn't heard about the magic suit and didn't know what he was supposed to see. Well, as the King came by the little boy looked and, horrified, said:

"Look at the King! Look at the the King! Look at the King, the King, the King!

​



The King is in the altogether

But altogether the altogether
He's altogether as naked as the day that he was born.
The King is in the altogether
But altogether the altogether
It's altogether the very least the King has ever worn."​

​



All the courts positioned to call an intermission. His majesty is wide open to ridicule and scorn.

The King is in the altogether

​



But all together the altogether

He's altogether as naked as the day that he was born.

And it's altogether too chilly a morn!​

​


​
 
I freely admit to not understanding most of the "new art", and said so in my original post. There are those that claim (with a superior attitiude) that they do. I question whether there is actually anything there to understand (in most modern art). How can we tell? Certainly not by just looking at it. Artists' statements are required, which ultimately may be the most creative aspect of modern art. The art community (artists, dealers, galleries, and critics) blame the lack of understanding and acceptance to the uneducatedness and inferior intelligence of the public. Seems the arts community only interested in communicating and serving themselves. This Mohamed will not go to the mountain.

On another tack, IF, as Warhol and others have attempted to demonstrate, that everything is art, then what's the point of making an effort to create art specifically? All we need do is look around and enjoy that banal coffee table clutter as sublime. Has modern art inadvertantly shot itself mortally? Rendered itself redundant by making everything art? Perhaps, as has been suggested, this really was Warhol's big joke on the arts community.

I don't know. Just asking because I don't understand modern art.
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
I question whether there is actually anything there to understand (in most modern art). How can we tell? Certainly not by just looking at it.
Click to expand...
I certainly can't speak to all "modern art", and would not try to.

However, in my experience sometimes "just looking at it" really works. Not in reproduction in a book, but the actual experience of standing in front of the original art-work.

A long time ago (early '70s, I was still in high school) our then government was roundly castigated for paying a then-million dollars for Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles. This was almost contemporaneous with Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word which I was predisposed to agree with and which particularly targeted Jackson Pollock as a fraud and charlatan. It seemed, in small glossy reproductions that Blue Poles might be an object or abject example.

So I went to our National Gallery and looked at Blue Poles the actual painting. I go there frequently. I liked the painting the first time around, and like it more and more, the more I look at it. The artwork itself really speaks for itself, but you have to look at it, and you have to see the original. It is really worth it. I spend time there, in front of Blue Poles every time I go to the gallery, and the more I look at it the more sure I am that it is a great painting.

And you would never know it (or at least I wouldn't) if you never saw the original. A glossy reproduction in an "art book" simply can't do it justice.

So, on the one hand I have an instinctive recognition of the "prententious twats" view of a lot of abstract art, but I also have the lived and visceral experience that tells me there's at least one instance otherwise.

I prefer, for that reason alone, to figure that sometimes (when I "get it") that some is "real art"(tm), other stuff that I don't get is more-or-less the same (but I don't get it; my failure alone) and some is abject bovine output. I'm not sure I'm sufficiently well-disposed to tell the difference between the last two, especially when I'm working from reproductions rather than assessing the original artworks.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
I freely admit to not understanding most of the "new art", and said so in my original post. There are those that claim (with a superior attitiude) that they do. I question whether there is actually anything there to understand (in most modern art). How can we tell? Certainly not by just looking at it. Artists' statements are required, which ultimately may be the most creative aspect of modern art. The art community (artists, dealers, galleries, and critics) blame the lack of understanding and acceptance to the uneducatedness and inferior intelligence of the public. Seems the arts community only interested in communicating and serving themselves. This Mohamed will not go to the mountain.

On another tack, IF, as Warhol and others have attempted to demonstrate, that everything is art, then what's the point of making an effort to create art specifically? All we need do is look around and enjoy that banal coffee table clutter as sublime. Has modern art inadvertantly shot itself mortally? Rendered itself redundant by making everything art? Perhaps, as has been suggested, this really was Warhol's big joke on the arts community.

I don't know. Just asking because I don't understand modern art.
Click to expand...

Frank; this sliver of red ochre is some 75,000 years old. I, we, cannot begin to comprehend it or it’s maker or hope to ever do so, we probably wouldn't recognize him as human.

Yet I for one would call it’s maker artist and appreciate it as art, whatever the words that accompany it in explanation, in the long term I don’t think you need to understand.


2304708956_66a88e194b_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom