The Great Art Debate

[William the White]

It's cutting down their insurance bill, anti-vandalism patrol, and costs for getting the graffiti removed.

It should stay in the Sculpture Park because it looks great there... And tens of thousands of visitors will see it each year.

It would probably look good in lots of places (if you like it).

But it's not owned by any national collection.

Why should a deprived area lend a prized asset to a middle class recreation facility in perpetuity?

Evidence, please, on it being a middle class recreational facility...

It was full of families on a day out when I last went...

It's not a prized asset - they couldn't house it safely and want to sell it...

A private collector would, in all probability, restrict access to a work of art (whose quality we seem to disagree on - have you actually seen it?) that the artist himself wanted on public display...

It fits excellently in that excellent place... Aesthetically, it's where it belongs...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Evidence, please, on it being a middle class recreational facility...

It was full of families on a day out when I last went...

It's not a prized asset - they couldn't house it safely and want to sell it...

A private collector would, in all probability, restrict access to a work of art (whose quality we seem to disagree on - have you actually seen it?) that the artist himself wanted on public display...

It fits excellently in that excellent place... Aesthetically, it's where it belongs...

Ha, the middle class thing wasn't said seriously, but there is some research out there the demographics of people visiting places that display art, but I don't have it to hand. (And I'm not sure a prevalence of families proves anything one way or the other...).

Ok, so the asset isn't prized by Tower Hamlets but they know it is prized by other people, which gives it its value, and they believe they can use that money in a way that benefits its residents more than a loan to where it 'aesthetically belongs'.

I haven't presumed to pass judgement on 'quality' - that's way above my pay grade. Just that it isn't to my taste and I don't really get it. I have only seen photos of this one, but have seen one similar enough to render the differences unimportant in Kew Gardens.

[William the White]

Evidence, please, on it being a middle class recreational facility...

It was full of families on a day out when I last went...

It's not a prized asset - they couldn't house it safely and want to sell it...

A private collector would, in all probability, restrict access to a work of art (whose quality we seem to disagree on - have you actually seen it?) that the artist himself wanted on public display...

It fits excellently in that excellent place... Aesthetically, it's where it belongs...

Ha, the middle class thing wasn't said seriously, but there is some research out there the demographics of people visiting places that display art, but I don't have it to hand. (And I'm not sure a prevalence of families proves anything one way or the other...).

Ok, so the asset isn't prized by Tower Hamlets but they know it is prized by other people, which gives it its value, and they believe they can use that money in a way that benefits its residents more than a loan to where it 'aesthetically belongs'.

I haven't presumed to pass judgement on 'quality' - that's way above my pay grade. Just that it isn't to my taste and I don't really get it. I have only seen photos of this one, but have seen one similar enough to render the differences unimportant in Kew Gardens.

I don't have proof of the social class either - but it feels the least like an art gallery I've ever seen - and all the better for that. It sure didn't feel exclusive, and the families weren't picnicking on the stuff they do at Twickers and Glyndebourne, that's for sure.

I think we are just in the usual 'price v value' debate which is so predictable we really should come to an agreement to avoid where possible... In any case the reason Tower Hamlets is deprived is not its ownership of a work of art... If you are concerned about that you could suggest ways in which that poverty might be overcome...

I've never been to Kew, which surprises me given the number of times I've stayed in West London over the last nearly 30 years... But I think it's bordering on the foolish to claim a piece of art is 'one of the worst' and the evidence you offer is you've seen one that isn't all that different...

I really liked this piece, and in this place, which allows a great number of perspectives, all of which change your perception (or - tbh - did mine). It has space. I'm surprised, even on postcard size, that you don't think it graceful - as I looked at it for the first time that was the word that sprung to mind immediately.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think we are just in the usual 'price v value' debate which is so predictable we really should come to an agreement to avoid where possible... In any case the reason Tower Hamlets is deprived is not its ownership of a work of art... If you are concerned about that you could suggest ways in which that poverty might be overcome...

I've never been to Kew, which surprises me given the number of times I've stayed in West London over the last nearly 30 years... But I think it's bordering on the foolish to claim a piece of art is 'one of the worst' and the evidence you offer is you've seen one that isn't all that different...

I really liked this piece, and in this place, which allows a great number of perspectives, all of which change your perception (or - tbh - did mine). It has space. I'm surprised, even on postcard size, that you don't think it graceful - as I looked at it for the first time that was the word that sprung to mind immediately.

No, it's not the price v value debate at all. I'm just saying that Tower Hamlets are entitled to settle on their idea of both.

I suppose I should be pleased not to be thought of as having actually crossed the border into foolishness. That said, you have taken the phrase 'one of the worst' out of context. It is interesting to note that several articles on the plight of the old lady of Tower Hamlets mistakenly used a photo of the Kew version (of the same name) to illustrate the story!. One such example here: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/n ... 98236.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think it is partly this sense of ubiquity that rubs me up the wrong way with him sometimes.

[bobo the clown]

You could always both admit you're bluffing and that, actually, it's all a heap of old shite and getting more than scrap value would be daylight robbery !!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You could always both admit you're bluffing and that, actually, it's all a heap of old shite and getting more than scrap value would be daylight robbery !!

I'm not bluffing - I think Moore reached some very notable and refined heights, even if over a lifetime he can be accused of a Gormleyian lack of variety and the production of some unattractive things along the way.

Unlike somebody like, say, Anthony 'any old iron' Caro, to whom what you have just written could apply comfortably.

[Bruce Rioja]

I believe that the Turner Prize this year has been won by footage of Woolies Piccadilly burning down in 79. A fire that cost 10 people their lives. Oh what a fecking masterpiece that must be.

[thebish]

I believe that the Turner Prize this year has been won by footage of Woolies Piccadilly burning down in 79. A fire that cost 10 people their lives. Oh what a fecking masterpiece that must be.

plenty of art depicts scenes of tragedy, surely??

[Bruce Rioja]

I believe that the Turner Prize this year has been won by footage of Woolies Piccadilly burning down in 79. A fire that cost 10 people their lives. Oh what a fecking masterpiece that must be.

plenty of art depicts scenes of tragedy, surely??

It does, but you're confusing Granada Reports with art.

[thebish]

I believe that the Turner Prize this year has been won by footage of Woolies Piccadilly burning down in 79. A fire that cost 10 people their lives. Oh what a fecking masterpiece that must be.

plenty of art depicts scenes of tragedy, surely??

It does, but you're confusing Granada Reports with art.

I may well be - but what I intended to do was simply point out that the fact that it depicts tragedy doesn't preclude it from being good art - which seemed to be the assertion you were making...

[Bruce Rioja]

I believe that the Turner Prize this year has been won by footage of Woolies Piccadilly burning down in 79. A fire that cost 10 people their lives. Oh what a fecking masterpiece that must be.

plenty of art depicts scenes of tragedy, surely??

It does, but you're confusing Granada Reports with art.

I may well be - but what I intended to do was simply point out that the fact that it depicts tragedy doesn't preclude it from being good art - which seemed to be the assertion you were making...

It may have seemed like that to you. Firstly it's the fact that someone's done nothing other than collect footage and presented it as art, but yes, to pick the Woolworth's fire is pretty base, to me.

[thebish]

It may have seemed like that to you. Firstly it's the fact that someone's done nothing other than collect footage and presented it as art, but yes, to pick the Woolworth's fire is pretty base, to me.

I haven't seen the work in question - so can't really have an opinion one way or the other.. (have you?)

If I had, though, then the SUBJECT wouldn't be my main criteria for judging it - and the fact that it depicts a recent tragedy wouldn't, in my eyes make it "base" or not base... it would be how well it was done and whether the artist had succeeded in somehow moving me with the work...

is your objection that it depicts a recent tragedy (and art shouldn't go there?) - or that it doesn't look as if it was very hard to do ("done nothing other than collect footage") - or both?

[William the White]

I believe that the Turner Prize this year has been won by footage of Woolies Piccadilly burning down in 79. A fire that cost 10 people their lives. Oh what a fecking masterpiece that must be.

Some of the greatest works of art deal with tragic events. I've not seen this and I wouldn't want to make an assessment of it without that.

So...

Have you actually seen it, Bruce? This critic found it not at all cynical, but very moving, painful, complex and honest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... MUSTXT9383" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bruce Rioja]

I believe that the Turner Prize this year has been won by footage of Woolies Piccadilly burning down in 79. A fire that cost 10 people their lives. Oh what a fecking masterpiece that must be.

Some of the greatest works of art deal with tragic events. I've not seen this and I wouldn't want to make an assessment of it without that.

So...

Have you actually seen it, Bruce? This critic found it not at all cynical, but very moving, painful, complex and honest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... MUSTXT9383" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes I have, and your critic is a cock. I'll enter footage of planes flying into the world trade centres next year. I look forward to your support

[William the White]

I believe that the Turner Prize this year has been won by footage of Woolies Piccadilly burning down in 79. A fire that cost 10 people their lives. Oh what a fecking masterpiece that must be.

Some of the greatest works of art deal with tragic events. I've not seen this and I wouldn't want to make an assessment of it without that.

So...

Have you actually seen it, Bruce? This critic found it not at all cynical, but very moving, painful, complex and honest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... MUSTXT9383" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes I have, and your critic is a cock. I'll enter footage of planes flying into the world trade centres next year. I look forward to your support

I'll respond with my response to the artwork when I've seen it.

Do you have a link?

[Hoboh]

So Kim Phuc would be 'art' too?

People who vote things like the Woolies fire as 'Art' should be taken out and their shooting videoed for next years presentation!

[William the White]

So Kim Phuc would be 'art' too?

People who vote things like the Woolies fire as 'Art' should be taken out and their shooting videoed for next years presentation!

Excellent! I've really missed those hobohesque shots of grotesque outrage. Still not quite on top form, but much, much better than the almost-reasonable human being you have recently projected. Go hoboh!

[William the White]

I believe that the Turner Prize this year has been won by footage of Woolies Piccadilly burning down in 79. A fire that cost 10 people their lives. Oh what a fecking masterpiece that must be.

Some of the greatest works of art deal with tragic events. I've not seen this and I wouldn't want to make an assessment of it without that.

So...

Have you actually seen it, Bruce? This critic found it not at all cynical, but very moving, painful, complex and honest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... MUSTXT9383" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes I have, and your critic is a cock. I'll enter footage of planes flying into the world trade centres next year. I look forward to your support

I've only managed to find very brief glimpses of her artwork... Really, I'd like the link you found, if poss...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I believe that the Turner Prize this year has been won by footage of Woolies Piccadilly burning down in 79. A fire that cost 10 people their lives. Oh what a fecking masterpiece that must be.

Bruce - you're better than giving the Turner prize the attention that Serota and the rest of his Tate acolytes crave.

The whole thing depends on commercial sponsorship and doesn't do its job if it doesn't generate column inches.

The article in the Guardian, the exhibition's media sponsor, seems to suggest the video has been compiled. edited and added to effectively, with the exercise of some skill and judgement that goes beyond the mere retrieval of archive footage. It sounds artful enough...

The emaciated paragraph on the prize's own website hardly fills one with enthusiasm for its remit:

The Turner Prize is a contemporary art award that was set up in 1984 to celebrate new developments in contemporary art. It is awarded each year to ‘a British artist under fifty for an outstanding exhibition or other presentation of their work in the twelve months preceding’.

http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-br ... rner-prize" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, to be fair to them, they only set out to achieve that weasel word 'celebration', rather than anything approaching a judgment on merit. And only 'newness', measured every 12 months, is to be recognised.

With such meagre ambitions, I'm not sure why people feel so indignant every year, unless their specific complaint centres on Turner's association without consent, or the fact it has been used for the diversion of public money into the Tate clique's hands.

Much more upsetting to me is that I am unable to attend this sale at Sotheby's tonight (although I did see the 'star' lots 50-52 in the saleroom a couple of months ago):

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

[William the White]

I note with curiosity that, on the 'Royal Baby' mummy used the interesting phrase 'the cultural dark ages we are entering'...

That's an interesting observation, that surely belongs in this thread.

Care to elucidate further, mummy?