The Great Art Debate

[Prufrock]

Saying 'creativity is first an act of destruction' isn't the same as saying 'the urge to destroy is a creative one' so maybe no-one copied anyone!

[TANGODANCER]

Creativity is first an act of destruction, for the birth of something new comes out of the death of what already is… and again, that is bound to be a threat.

Not sure that's totally true anyway. Creativity of something new can live alongside something older already existing without putting it to death. Take the art of writing against typing, the internet against the mail service, the railroad against the motorway, tank tracks the wheel, etc, etc. Do the arts die because others are created? Is Michaelangelo dead because of Andy Warhol? Things move on, but mainly as progression and evolution rather than just purely creation, so whilst there might be some truth in some things it certainly isn't true of all and everything..Destruction and creativity exist. Before the wheel, there was no wheel to destroy.

[TANGODANCER]

American artist Leah Yerpe does amazing work with figures, detail and human anatomy. Not sure why here creations are all tumbling in space, but she sure does them well:

http://tinyurl.com/ljlao47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gary the Enfield]

American artist Leah Yerpe does amazing work with figures, detail and human anatomy. Not sure why here creations are all tumbling in space, but she sure does them well:

http://tinyurl.com/ljlao47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I like that TD

[thebish]

walked up from Fingle Bridge to Castle Drogo today...

they had this very moving sculptural tribute to the workers (building the castle) who had to down tools and leave for the First World War. The building had to be scaled down from the original plans because of the number of young men who left the area... so - here they are - disappearing into the walls - as, not many of them ever returned...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Urgh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/ ... hones.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vote no!

[thebish]

Urgh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/ ... hones.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vote no!

no - I won't!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I knew you'd be trouble.

[Beefheart]

Why would anyone want to take photographs of paintings?! I'm pretty sure you can view all of the paintings at the National Gallery on the websites 'virtual gallery' anyway.

[thebish]

I knew you'd be trouble.

seriously, though - no tripods, no flash and measures to stop people obscuring other peoples' view... why does it bother you if someone sees an ace picture and wants to share their excitement with a friend?

it's not summat I'd do myself - you can't do a painting justice with a photo - but I don't see why i'd get upset if someone else thinks differently... surely it's no skin off my nose?

[bobo the clown]

It's a shame in a way, but we've all (mostly) taken photos now & again and later looked at the results and thought "why did I do that ?"

The issue will be whether the controls work which, on a Wednesday morning in February they probably will, whereas a Saturday afternoon free for all in high summer may not. I suspect there will be a focus on the highlight paintings .... maybe 15 or 20 ... which everyone knows. There won't be queue's at many.

I see why it's not a good thing but how many people do it already, surreptitiously, now that phones or small digital cameras are ubiquitous ?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I knew you'd be trouble.

seriously, though - no tripods, no flash and measures to stop people obscuring other peoples' view... why does it bother you if someone sees an ace picture and wants to share their excitement with a friend?

it's not summat I'd do myself - you can't do a painting justice with a photo - but I don't see why i'd get upset if someone else thinks differently... surely it's no skin off my nose?

The Grumpy Art historian expresses what I think on this better than I could.

Read this and the link to his previous piece: http://grumpyarthistorian.blogspot.co.u ... gs-at.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thebish]

^ hmmm - paragraph one - he is already moaning about "intense flashlights" - which is NOT what is being proposed... - and "noisy" smartphones?? they are no more noisy than some nobby tart clacking past in high heels..

epic fail... just disguised snobbery...

also - taking a photo - and standing to contemplate art - these things are not mutually exclusive. If this says what you think better than you can say it - then you haven't got a very smart thing to say!

[William the White]

I did vote 'no'.

And so far, on that link, am in a minority. A sizeable minority, but still a minority.

People can't do this and seriously engage with the art.

I stopped doing it myself two hours into my first visit to the Alhambra in 1983, when I realised that in my anxiety to capture this incredible experience for 'the future' by taking loads of photos I was failing to luxuriate in it right then. The Alhambra is stunning - so stunning that no photograph could ever capture it. So stunning that I needed to get the most out of being there, at that moment, for I might never be there again.

(In fact, I have visited again since - thankfully).

I have to say, though, that I think this battle is lost - such is the ubiquity of devices available.

[thebish]

People can't do this and seriously engage with the art.

why not? or do you mean that YOU can't do this and seriously engage with art? serious question...

[William the White]

People can't do this and seriously engage with the art.

why not? or do you mean that YOU can't do this and seriously engage with art? serious question...

Yes, it's certainly true in my case.

But try standing in front of many a famous painting with scores taking pictures and it's clear that many are not truly trying to get to the heart of the art, and, they are, to a certain extent, diminishing the experience of others.

If you want a picture of a famous work of art - download one, download twenty, it isn't hard.

I think what is going on is a tourist experience - I was there in front of Mona Lisa/the Night Watch/ Guernica - whatever!

My desire to understand more about art started on that same 1983 trip when, in Madrid, I saw Guernica, then behind a bullet proof screen, and was able to stay for a couple of hours, with my wife-to-be and concentrate intensely on that extraordinary picture. No one took a photo the whole time. Many stayed a long time. Some wept - I can only imagine the memories it evoked for many Spanish people. In a small, but important for me, way it changed my life, by injecting the new possibility of art into it. I'd gone expecting a political work and found something more profound. Lucky me. It certainly isn't impossible now to obtain a version of that experience, obviously. But more difficult, I suspect.

[Beefheart]

^ hmmm - paragraph one - he is already moaning about "intense flashlights" - which is NOT what is being proposed... - and "noisy" smartphones?? they are no more noisy than some nobby tart clacking past in high heels..

epic fail... just disguised snobbery...

also - taking a photo - and standing to contemplate art - these things are not mutually exclusive. If this says what you think better than you can say it - then you haven't got a very smart thing to say!

I think his point is that what is being proposed and what may actually happen aren't necessarily the same thing, given his experience of other galleries that allow photography but not flashes. I imagine there are a lot of people who would take a photo without knowing whether they've got the flash turned on.

If I see a painting I like, I'm more likely to just make a mental note of the artist (or note it on my phone if I think I'll forget) and with particular reference to the national gallery. You can see all the paintings here anyway http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/visit ... tral-hall/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Prufrock]

I'd be a 'no'. I don't think people can't necessarily do it and engage with the art, but I know from other places where it is allowed that plenty don't. They just walk around 'collecting' pictures to show prove they've seen [insert painting name].

[thebish]

yes - those are different arguments...

one argument is about is diminishing YOUR experience - that would be (I think) a valid criticism if it could be shown that this is the case any more than simply having other people around - clacking their heels, talking, giggling, jostling, sneezing, coughing... or any other distracting thing that other people do... short of allowing people in one at a time to silent spaces - there will always be noise.. but - I can understand that objection - adding one more noise to the equation.

it's the other argument I was interested in..

that you would ban something because the people doing it are not appreciating the art - or, rather, you surmise that they are not appreciating the art - in the way that you think they should appreciate it - the way YOU appreciate it.

who are you or I or Jon to make that kind of judgement on how other people should approach or experience art and conclude that they should be subject to some kind of a ban? It seems a bit draconian to me. Other people may have a different approach to at than you do - and I do - or Jon does - and whilst I may wish that they understood and appreciated things as deeply as you and I do - I don't see why you or I should feel it necessary to insist that they change their way by imposing a ban.

I'd also dispute the idea that everyone taking a snap on a mobile is simply having a cheap tourist experience. maybe many are - but not necessarily. they might have contemplated the picture every bit as deeply and knowledgeably as you have - and drunk it in - and then taken a snap because it reminds them of an experience shared with someone else - "saw this and thought of you"...

I think I am in favour of letting art speak to people in whatever way they might come to it - it's big enough - it won't break - rather than police the approach to a narrower "right way" of viewing art.

it seems to me that the National Gallery have recognised the potential distraction to other viewers by not allowing tripods or flash and being aware of people blocking the view (though people do this with or without cameras - it's the downside of letting the public into galleries in the first place - the buggers will insist on turning up!) - and then taken a perfectly reasonable approach in allowing people to experience the art in the way which suits them best.

[thebish]

I'd be a 'no'. I don't think people can't necessarily do it and engage with the art, but I know from other places where it is allowed that plenty don't. They just walk around 'collecting' pictures to show prove they've seen [insert painting name].

and why should that bother you?