The Great Art Debate
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
The Great Art Debate
Following on from the discussion in the 'I don't get...' thread, I thought the question of what constitutes art deserves a thread of its own.
Is Tracey Emin a self-obsessed con artist? Does only painting and sculpture that is recognisable as 'something' count? Is video art 'art'? Was Lowry too simplistic? Was Pollock just a nutter?
Lets have a heated debate.
Is Tracey Emin a self-obsessed con artist? Does only painting and sculpture that is recognisable as 'something' count? Is video art 'art'? Was Lowry too simplistic? Was Pollock just a nutter?
Lets have a heated debate.
The only work I've really wanted to see was Die Familie Schneider - basically two terraced houses, and you were given a 20 minute slot to wonder around each. Looked bloody terrifying, in the subtlist of ways.
As long as it makes you feel something inside, I believe, art will have a purpose. Film is art, after all.
As long as it makes you feel something inside, I believe, art will have a purpose. Film is art, after all.
"Young people, nowadays, imagine money is everything."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 31675
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
I'm in for this one 
I'm not having all this pretentious crap that you have to get in the mind of the artist to understand what the "art" is about. It's clearly a money making scam, when someone gets an Art Council grant to put a pile of bricks on show. Sorry, I don't see talent there, I just see a pile of bricks and want my money back.
Pollock drops mess onto a canvas no better than my six year old. People displaying half carcasses in formaldehyde is biology not art.
If some deluded people want to pay a huge sum for crap, I have no issues with it, it's their money, but I won't be parting with any of my hard earned anytime soon unless it's for something that's recognisable.

I'm not having all this pretentious crap that you have to get in the mind of the artist to understand what the "art" is about. It's clearly a money making scam, when someone gets an Art Council grant to put a pile of bricks on show. Sorry, I don't see talent there, I just see a pile of bricks and want my money back.
Pollock drops mess onto a canvas no better than my six year old. People displaying half carcasses in formaldehyde is biology not art.
If some deluded people want to pay a huge sum for crap, I have no issues with it, it's their money, but I won't be parting with any of my hard earned anytime soon unless it's for something that's recognisable.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 42781
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
All very much a personal thing. Has to be what your conception of art is. Mine's Da Vinci, Canaletto, Gainsboro, Rembrandt, Turner, Grinling Gibbons, William Russell-Flint and all of their ilk. Sculpture is creating something meaningful and recognisable, not birds on sticks and piles of housebricks or giant bananas. I'm afraid the "stand in a room and watch a light bulb go on and off" form of so-called art is just not for me. Neither are half-cows in formaldehyde tanks. Something sad about people who create such works of "art" Just my opinion.
I watched on TV, a few nights ago, someone pay two grand for a twelve-inch by nine-inch daub that any competent ten-year old could have turned out. A "Well, it's by a famous artist" comment almost had me choking. All a long way away from Venus di Milo, Raphael and Michaelangelo.
I watched on TV, a few nights ago, someone pay two grand for a twelve-inch by nine-inch daub that any competent ten-year old could have turned out. A "Well, it's by a famous artist" comment almost had me choking. All a long way away from Venus di Milo, Raphael and Michaelangelo.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 15355
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
- Location: Vagantes numquam erramus
I like that Elephant art. You can see from the expression on the canvass that what the animal is really thinking is " I can make a feckin killin from this, as long as I smile for the cameras and play along, now pass the bananas".
Beautiful thing, art. Artists, on the other hand....
Beautiful thing, art. Artists, on the other hand....
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
There is no denying the skill and talent of the classical artists, but many of them were doing a straight reproduction of something. Would Constable be a photographer today as opposed to a painter? I like many of the artists Tango mentions but I also like Dali and Picasso for filtering their view of the world through their imaginations.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 42781
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
But at least their talent for doing that was an obvious one. Picasso in particular was a very talented artist in the "straight" field (check his "Blue period" stuff.) I need to be convinced that Tracy Emin in particular has any talent at all exept that of conning people. I'm 100% with Worthy on not needing to get into people's minds in order to understand them. Art and talent should smack you on the nose, not need a guide book. Just my view.ratbert wrote:There is no denying the skill and talent of the classical artists, but many of them were doing a straight reproduction of something. Would Constable be a photographer today as opposed to a painter? I like many of the artists Tango mentions but I also like Dali and Picasso for filtering their view of the world through their imaginations.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
It is quite easy to dismiss artists who can't paint a chapel like Michaelangelo as talentless. Yet this would be very dismissive, and I don't think art is as important in the feeling it envokes rather than the talent it shows off. It takes talent to paint a pretty picture, like it takes talent to do keepy uppys for two hours. But ultimately, if talent is limited to this show pony ability, and is unable to add any persona or meaning to it (in a footballing analogy, sticking the ball in t'net) then it becomes slightly devalued. More whimsical than anything - something to be appreciated but easil forgotten.
Pretty stuff alone is very nice, don't get me wrong. Yet meanings stick with me more than images. Why did punk get an audience if we're all about aesthetics? Most of them couldn't carry a tune in the bucket. It was what they represented more than the music.
That said, when talent and meaning is married I think it is superb. I went to Madrid recently, and visited El Museo del Prado. I'd never purposely visited an art museum, and to be honest most of what was there left me cold, but some images were genuinely striking. Potraits of the apostles in particular and the sprawling behemoth showing a banquet and the head of John the Baptist. Awesome.
Pretty stuff alone is very nice, don't get me wrong. Yet meanings stick with me more than images. Why did punk get an audience if we're all about aesthetics? Most of them couldn't carry a tune in the bucket. It was what they represented more than the music.
That said, when talent and meaning is married I think it is superb. I went to Madrid recently, and visited El Museo del Prado. I'd never purposely visited an art museum, and to be honest most of what was there left me cold, but some images were genuinely striking. Potraits of the apostles in particular and the sprawling behemoth showing a banquet and the head of John the Baptist. Awesome.
"Young people, nowadays, imagine money is everything."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 31675
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Indeed it is, they provide such an easy target, and it it's all the same with you I'll continue to dismiss themVerbal wrote:It is quite easy to dismiss artists who can't paint a chapel like Michaelangelo as talentless. Yet this would be very dismissive..

Surely punk as with many other forms of modern music was as much about rebellion and non-conformance as anything else. Art it wasn't.Verbal wrote:Pretty stuff alone is very nice, don't get me wrong. Yet meanings stick with me more than images. Why did punk get an audience if we're all about aesthetics? Most of them couldn't carry a tune in the bucket. It was what they represented more than the music.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm

Me and the Missus have this from an artist named Neil Dawson, bought from Castle Galleries in Manchester...
Again, could be construed as the work of 'a ten year old' but I love it and various other pieces of his work. When viewed in a dark room with a single light shing towards it, you could swear the whole thing takes on an aura of its own.
You could probably say that modern art is a breakaway from priniciples of art such as aesthetics. I'm not saying I enjoy it, indeed, a lot of it seems tosh, just trying to provide an explanation.Worthy4England wrote:Indeed it is, they provide such an easy target, and it it's all the same with you I'll continue to dismiss themVerbal wrote:It is quite easy to dismiss artists who can't paint a chapel like Michaelangelo as talentless. Yet this would be very dismissive..
Surely punk as with many other forms of modern music was as much about rebellion and non-conformance as anything else. Art it wasn't.Verbal wrote:Pretty stuff alone is very nice, don't get me wrong. Yet meanings stick with me more than images. Why did punk get an audience if we're all about aesthetics? Most of them couldn't carry a tune in the bucket. It was what they represented more than the music.
"Young people, nowadays, imagine money is everything."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
"Yes, and when they grow older they know it."
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:44 pm
- Location: Up, around the bend...
No punk wasn't art but it did have some roots in the artistic world. Did you know that Michaelangelo looked just like Charlton Heston?
Agree with the Emin and Hirst comments. Money making scams.
On another note, were posters aware that a lot of the 'classical' artists used a camera obscura to outline their works? A bit like finding out the Mona Lisa was started on tracing paper.
Agree with the Emin and Hirst comments. Money making scams.
On another note, were posters aware that a lot of the 'classical' artists used a camera obscura to outline their works? A bit like finding out the Mona Lisa was started on tracing paper.
Here I stand foot in hand...talkin to my wall....I'm not quite right at all...am I?
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:09 am
- Location: Enfield.....Duh!
My simplistic opinion is, anything that requires explanation is irrelevent. That is to say I don't want an artist telling what he was trying to convey in the arrangement of bricks or various pickled livestock. I prefer to look at a painting and notice details myself.
I'm quite traditional and conservative in my tastes, although I think Dali is fantastic.
We are spoiled in London with some wonderfully housed (and mostly free) museums and art galleries, and I take advantage of that fact on a regular basis.
By the way, the British Museum stores twice as much behind the scenes as it can display. It has the largest collection of Turners in the world.
It is your right to request to see ANY item in storage, as it is the British people's museum.
I love that.
I'm quite traditional and conservative in my tastes, although I think Dali is fantastic.
We are spoiled in London with some wonderfully housed (and mostly free) museums and art galleries, and I take advantage of that fact on a regular basis.
By the way, the British Museum stores twice as much behind the scenes as it can display. It has the largest collection of Turners in the world.
It is your right to request to see ANY item in storage, as it is the British people's museum.
I love that.
"You're Gemini, and I don't know which one I like the most!"
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Thought I hadn't seen Anthea for a while, nor my Dad and brother for that matterenfieldwhite wrote:My simplistic opinion is, anything that requires explanation is irrelevent. That is to say I don't want an artist telling what he was trying to convey in the arrangement of bricks or various pickled livestock. I prefer to look at a painting and notice details myself.
I'm quite traditional and conservative in my tastes, although I think Dali is fantastic.
We are spoiled in London with some wonderfully housed (and mostly free) museums and art galleries, and I take advantage of that fact on a regular basis.
By the way, the British Museum stores twice as much behind the scenes as it can display. It has the largest collection of Turners in the world.
It is your right to request to see ANY item in storage, as it is the British people's museum.
I love that.
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:09 am
- Location: Enfield.....Duh!
Tina says Hi!boltonboris wrote:Thought I hadn't seen Anthea for a while, nor my Dad and brother for that matterenfieldwhite wrote:My simplistic opinion is, anything that requires explanation is irrelevent. That is to say I don't want an artist telling what he was trying to convey in the arrangement of bricks or various pickled livestock. I prefer to look at a painting and notice details myself.
I'm quite traditional and conservative in my tastes, although I think Dali is fantastic.
We are spoiled in London with some wonderfully housed (and mostly free) museums and art galleries, and I take advantage of that fact on a regular basis.
By the way, the British Museum stores twice as much behind the scenes as it can display. It has the largest collection of Turners in the world.
It is your right to request to see ANY item in storage, as it is the British people's museum.
I love that.

"You're Gemini, and I don't know which one I like the most!"
And that's the point - you could see what Picasso and Dali were thinking because their styles were so distinctive. Their works 'smack you on the nose'.TANGODANCER wrote:But at least their talent for doing that was an obvious one. Picasso in particular was a very talented artist in the "straight" field (check his "Blue period" stuff.) I need to be convinced that Tracy Emin in particular has any talent at all exept that of conning people. I'm 100% with Worthy on not needing to get into people's minds in order to understand them. Art and talent should smack you on the nose, not need a guide book. Just my view.ratbert wrote:There is no denying the skill and talent of the classical artists, but many of them were doing a straight reproduction of something. Would Constable be a photographer today as opposed to a painter? I like many of the artists Tango mentions but I also like Dali and Picasso for filtering their view of the world through their imaginations.
Emin you could say smacks you on the nose, but not in a good way. Used tampons left in public, anyone?
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2125
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:49 pm
- Location: Home. Home, again. I like to be here when I can.
I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.
A bowl of fruit on a table. Or possibly a painting of one.
Anything that makes me think should be banned.
I painted the ceiling of my bathroom last year. Wasn't that hard.
A bowl of fruit on a table. Or possibly a painting of one.
Anything that makes me think should be banned.
I painted the ceiling of my bathroom last year. Wasn't that hard.
"People are crazy and times are strange
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
I know her well......enfieldwhite wrote:Tina says Hi!boltonboris wrote:Thought I hadn't seen Anthea for a while, nor my Dad and brother for that matterenfieldwhite wrote:My simplistic opinion is, anything that requires explanation is irrelevent. That is to say I don't want an artist telling what he was trying to convey in the arrangement of bricks or various pickled livestock. I prefer to look at a painting and notice details myself.
I'm quite traditional and conservative in my tastes, although I think Dali is fantastic.
We are spoiled in London with some wonderfully housed (and mostly free) museums and art galleries, and I take advantage of that fact on a regular basis.
By the way, the British Museum stores twice as much behind the scenes as it can display. It has the largest collection of Turners in the world.
It is your right to request to see ANY item in storage, as it is the British people's museum.
I love that.
She isn't actually a private dancer you know?! She's just a terrible, terrible dancer
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 31675
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
I have heard people suggest you're a bit of an artist in passingPuskas wrote:I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.
A bowl of fruit on a table. Or possibly a painting of one.
Anything that makes me think should be banned.
I painted the ceiling of my bathroom last year. Wasn't that hard.


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Abdoulaye's Twin and 31 guests