The Great Art Debate

[William the White]

Were I in London this event would be like a magnet. Frieze Masters. The annual art fair this year offers works by the the famous throughout the centuries.

Good article in today's Guardian also, in part discussing art as commodity and access to it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... cret-world" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hooray - get the art debate on the first page again!

The Ribera Aristotle is magnificent.

hooray! One you'd have hanging on your wall.

It is wonderful. I'm off to Seville in a few weeks so I'll be feasting on those 17th century religious painters - Murillo and company - that you like so much. Me too!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Were I in London this event would be like a magnet. Frieze Masters. The annual art fair this year offers works by the the famous throughout the centuries.

Good article in today's Guardian also, in part discussing art as commodity and access to it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... cret-world" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hooray - get the art debate on the first page again!

I'm going to try and get to Frieze and Frieze Masters tomorrow before all the tourists flood in for the weekend. I think the Frieze Masters idea is a terrific concept and one that the art world, wrongly, used to turn its nose up at.

Also of interest, Will, is the contemporary art sale at Sotheby's tomorrow. I went to have a look around for a whistle-stop 45 minutes at lunchtime today. They are also showing pieces from upcoming sales in New York and Paris, so there is a breathtaking array of stuff there this week... Picasso, Miro, Warhol, Kapoor, Moore, Bacon, Freud, Magritte, amongst others, and a beautiful, large, Raphael cartoon from Chatsworth. It's very exhilarating how close you can get to great art when the likes of Sotheby's or Christie's are rammed with top stuff on a handful of weeks in the year.

William, the 'star' of the sale, if we go by the vulgar price scorecard, is this 2m x 2.25m (only medium-large by his standards) abstract by Richter.

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/eca ... otnum.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unbelievably, for me, it's expected to fetch £9-12million. I just can't fathom why Richter has become the most collectable artist alive today. I went to his Tate exhibition (about year ago?) on your recommendation, which you will recall was stuffed with these 'squeegee' abstracts. I have since seen several in various sales, and they always go for what seem to me to incredible sums (and I do think I have seen lots of modern paintings that I would happily lay out the £5m-£15m on if I had it!). This one is perhaps inflated slightly by dint of its coming from Eric Clapton's collection and, to be fair, due to a colour palette I haven't seen before, but I really, REALLY don't get it.

As I said after that exhibition, for me these abstracts are almost entirely process rather than imagination driven. I don't think they make any comment on the world whatsoever. I don't think it's possible even to talk about Richter's judicious or creative colour selections, as I feel like I have seen just about every squeegeed combination going! And the distribution of the paint, although the effect is boringly consistent is, essentially, random. Whether that's important is an interesting question within the study of modern art, I suppose. The practicalities of this process-driven painting, from a sheer supply and demand point of view, means that there are lots of them out there - this makes the price they sustain all the more mysterious to me.

Thoughts?

[William the White]

Were I in London this event would be like a magnet. Frieze Masters. The annual art fair this year offers works by the the famous throughout the centuries.

Good article in today's Guardian also, in part discussing art as commodity and access to it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... cret-world" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hooray - get the art debate on the first page again!

I'm going to try and get to Frieze and Frieze Masters tomorrow before all the tourists flood in for the weekend. I think the Frieze Masters idea is a terrific concept and one that the art world, wrongly, used to turn its nose up at.

Also of interest, Will, is the contemporary art sale at Sotheby's tomorrow. I went to have a look around for a whistle-stop 45 minutes at lunchtime today. They are also showing pieces from upcoming sales in New York and Paris, so there is a breathtaking array of stuff there this week... Picasso, Miro, Warhol, Kapoor, Moore, Bacon, Freud, Magritte, amongst others, and a beautiful, large, Raphael cartoon from Chatsworth. It's very exhilarating how close you can get to great art when the likes of Sotheby's or Christie's are rammed with top stuff on a handful of weeks in the year.

William, the 'star' of the sale, if we go by the vulgar price scorecard, is this 2m x 2.25m (only medium-large by his standards) abstract by Richter.

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/eca ... otnum.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am so jealous, I can't tell you... I agree that the 'masters' frieze is a great idea - indeed, I'd choose it before the 'Art' one... though would love to be able to see both...

I struggle with abstract art myself... the Richter exhibition last year was (almost) the only time I'd got there... What I do know is you can't tell from postcard size depictions... more thoughts anon... too late now...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Rothko = pile of shit. My cat could do better and I haven't got a cat.

[William the White]

Rothko = pile of shit. My cat could do better and I haven't got a cat.

What do you like that your cat could not do?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Rothko = pile of shit. My cat could do better and I haven't got a cat.

What do you like that your cat could not do?

I think you have the essence of the answer contained within the question: I like stuff that my theoretical cat could not accomplish (not on some abstract conceptual level, but physically).
I like (in no particular order) Da Vinci, Turner, Dali, Picasso, Rembrandt, Munch, Bosch, and Durer + many many others.
Rothko and many many others make me want to spit feathers.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'll add Bridget Riley to the like column.

[thebish]

I like (in no particular order) Da Vinci, Turner, Dali, Picasso, Rembrandt, Munch, Bosch, and Durer + many many others.

anything in the more modern era?

[William the White]

I'll add Bridget Riley to the like column.

That's interesting. There is one kind of abstract art you like. What do you like about her work while others make you spit feathers?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I like (in no particular order) Da Vinci, Turner, Dali, Picasso, Rembrandt, Munch, Bosch, and Durer + many many others.

anything in the more modern era?

Yes Bish, but nothing my ageing brain could remember. Is Escher for example more modern. I like him.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'll add Bridget Riley to the like column.

That's interesting. There is one kind of abstract art you like. What do you like about her work while others make you spit feathers?

She has edges that have to be there in order to make the visual illusions work. If those edges were just random then the paintings wouldn’t work. I can understand (sort of, but disagree with) the argument that Rothko isn’t just splashing stuff at random, but he might as well be. My theoretical cat can do a Rothko, she couldn’t do a Riley.

[thebish]

I'll add Bridget Riley to the like column.

That's interesting. There is one kind of abstract art you like. What do you like about her work while others make you spit feathers?

She has edges that have to be there in order to make the visual illusions work. If those edges were just random then the paintings wouldn’t work. I can understand (sort of, but disagree with) the argument that Rothko isn’t just splashing stuff at random, but he might as well be. My theoretical cat can do a Rothko, she couldn’t do a Riley.

that's an interesting and fairly common take on art - one that Tango has often tried to describe - art as "craft" - it being the skilled technique that makes it - as if admiring the skill of the craftsman is the key...

some art does that for me and I wonder at the technique - the sheer skill that goes into making it - but I find it doesn't last long and after a while it soon bores me...

i think this kind of approach to art appreciation underlies the very popular love of the pre-raphaelites - "look at the almost photographic detail - how on earth do they do that?"

[Bruce Rioja]

Rothko = pile of shit. My cat could do better and I haven't got a cat.

Schrödinger? Is that you?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Rothko = pile of shit. My cat could do better and I haven't got a cat.

Schrödinger? Is that you?

Give that man £20 {wait a minute I left it in a box somewhere around here, where did I put that box?}

[William the White]

I'll add Bridget Riley to the like column.

That's interesting. There is one kind of abstract art you like. What do you like about her work while others make you spit feathers?

She has edges that have to be there in order to make the visual illusions work. If those edges were just random then the paintings wouldn’t work. I can understand (sort of, but disagree with) the argument that Rothko isn’t just splashing stuff at random, but he might as well be. My theoretical cat can do a Rothko, she couldn’t do a Riley.

So, you like her precision, and discipline? You dislike work that - to you - seems 'messy'? i can understand that.

I wonder - have you seem much abstract art in person? I ask because, sometimes, it's the sheer scale that makes you stop, and wonder. And, in an involuntary way, cease looking for the artist's 'meaning'.

I think that was how the Richter abstracts that mwciec and I were talking about earlier first got to me. To the extent that when I got to the final room in the exhibition last Christmas - six (I think) massive abstracts - I was kind of overwhelmed, and very reluctant to leave.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'll add Bridget Riley to the like column.

That's interesting. There is one kind of abstract art you like. What do you like about her work while others make you spit feathers?

She has edges that have to be there in order to make the visual illusions work. If those edges were just random then the paintings wouldn’t work. I can understand (sort of, but disagree with) the argument that Rothko isn’t just splashing stuff at random, but he might as well be. My theoretical cat can do a Rothko, she couldn’t do a Riley.

that's an interesting and fairly common take on art - one that Tango has often tried to describe - art as "craft" - it being the skilled technique that makes it - as if admiring the skill of the craftsman is the key...

some art does that for me and I wonder at the technique - the sheer skill that goes into making it - but I find it doesn't last long and after a while it soon bores me...

i think this kind of approach to art appreciation underlies the very popular love of the pre-raphaelites - "look at the almost photographic detail - how on earth do they do that?"

I'm not exactly saying that. Yes there has to be an element of craft to it, but equally there has to be something else as well. If the greatest craftsmanpainter in the world copied a rather mediocre photograph of a boring building set in a boring street with the 'wrong' sight lines, I wouldn't call it art.
I think what I'm saying is that Rothko doesn't possess one of the, what I consider to be, essential aspects of art, which is craft. I also happen to think he lacks another one too, imagination - his works are boring: they don't even engage the eye enough to give them a second glance.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So, you like her precision, and discipline? You dislike work that - to you - seems 'messy'? i can understand that.

I wonder - have you seem much abstract art in person? I ask because, sometimes, it's the sheer scale that makes you stop, and wonder. And, in an involuntary way, cease looking for the artist's 'meaning'.

I think that was how the Richter abstracts that mwciec and I were talking about earlier first got to me. To the extent that when I got to the final room in the exhibition last Christmas - six (I think) massive abstracts - I was kind of overwhelmed, and very reluctant to leave.

I do like her precision and discipline.
As for Rothko my previous answer to the Bish kind of sums it up. He lacks, to me, both craft and imagination - his paintings are tedious. Yes I've seen them in the flesh.
I only mentioned him because of the recent vandalism story. I don't think the vandalism either added or subtracted from it - it already had to me about as much value as wallpaper.

[TANGODANCER]

that's an interesting and fairly common take on art - one that Tango has often tried to describe - art as "craft" - it being the skilled technique that makes it - as if admiring the skill of the craftsman is the key...

I'll never realise why people still try to put art into a definition that everybody has to understand and accept. The skill of the craftsman in having you decide whether what they produce is appealing to the individual is the relevant factor. Period regardless, I can appreciate a simple charcoal sketch or a detailed oil or watercolour, a bronze or marble creation, a wooden carving or a great piece of architecture just as much as the next man. I accept tastes differ as widely as in music, books, women and even football managers, but I can't begin to relate them to something that looks like somebody broke into a Dulux warehouse and went bananas with a bath sponge on a great lump of hardboard in the same way, whether Eric Clapton once owned it or no. When it sells for multi-millons and the artist achieves "genius" status, it makes me accept that "no", I know nothing about art, nothing at all. I'll just stick with saying what I like or don't and leave it at that. Simple.

[thebish]

that's an interesting and fairly common take on art - one that Tango has often tried to describe - art as "craft" - it being the skilled technique that makes it - as if admiring the skill of the craftsman is the key...

I'll never realise why people still try to put art into a definition that everybody has to understand and accept.

just to be clear - has anyone actually tried to do that?

[TANGODANCER]

that's an interesting and fairly common take on art - one that Tango has often tried to describe - art as "craft" - it being the skilled technique that makes it - as if admiring the skill of the craftsman is the key...

I'll never realise why people still try to put art into a definition that everybody has to understand and accept.

just to be clear - has anyone actually tried to do that?

The very fact that so much controversy surround the term seems to indicate, yes, all the time and for donkey's years.