DSB inspired "Supposed great works of art" thread

[William the White]

I suppose the Tracey Emmin & Damien Hirst type stuff goes without saying.

I don't get Gustav Klimt ... seen it in Vienna & again this year in Blurredville & just can't get there.

Frankly the fuss about the Mona Lisa is more about it's technical process than its art. It's actually not much kop at all.

Henry Moore ... I quite agree, bllx, utter bllx.

The Angel of the North ???? A misshapen, angular lump of rust. (the men in the sea at Formby, yes ... excellent, so it's not Gormley per se).

... and Prufrock ... I see your Hardy and raise you Jane Austen. All 5 (yep, read it & digest 5 ... that's F ... I ... V ... E) of her novels.

... & don't even get me started on Shakespeare's Comedies. Laugh ... I thought I'd never start. OK, better than Lenny Henry & Patrick Keilty, but it's close)

Predictable, I suppose, that I'll be drawn into this one...

Shakespeare is never exactly 'easy', but, given a good production, several of his comedies have had me curled up, ribs aching and amazed that through more than four centuries that wit still worked.

The Young Vic, in the early 90s with a production of Midsummer Night's Dream, directed by David Thacker and all three productions (lucky and rare) of Comedy of Errors (the best, i thought, a mod dress one at the Octagon, also early 90s which set the action in a here and now Greek Island resort). The director of that, btw, was Romy Baskerville, big whites fan, and a former contributor to 'Tripe and Trotters'...

But, given a bad production, shakespeare is dire.

[Dr Hotdog]

You get out of art what you put in.

Not necessarily, chum. Some have put great effort into producing it and achieved nothing; some have put similar effort into trying to appreciate it yet found nothing to appreciate. The thread idea came from William the White criticising (rightly, in my opinion) La Dolce Vita, which some will insist to the point of death is the finest ever use of celluloid.

Pedigree Chum.

I don't mean as a producer, William Blake never got a shred of respect during his lifetime but his work is widely celebrated now.
I mean as an onlooker, nothing is beyond comprehension if you read about the history and everything that went into the work.

What's bold is an understandable sentiment, but there is, in my opinion, nearly always something to appreciate in a form of art - whether you find it aesthetically pleasing or not.

I find when I know more about the piece, be it music or painting or book ect and the more I understand about the producer and what they were trying to achieve - then I can gauge whether or not I feel they've succeeded.

If I was to walk up to a piece like Guernica without knowing a shred about it I'd feeling indifferently about it, indeed I'd probably leave underwhelmed and without opinion which would be a shame.

It's all very personal and very subjective but from my point of view, the more I put in the more I get out.

[Lord Kangana]

I know all about Guernica from a historical perspective.Its not that I didn't understand the issues, its that despite the foreknowledge of its provenance I found it rather underwhelming.

Art is surely no more than ones own interpretation of what it is trying to represent. Having seen and read much about the Spanish Civil War, I found a large black and white abstract painting incapable of conveying the sense of misery and loss that war inevitably entails.

[keveh]

The thing I hate about art is that people look too deeply in to it.

One of my favorite quotes ever is from Salvador Dali

I am perfectly aware that my enemies, my friends and the public protest that they do not understand the meaning of the emerging images that I transform in my paintings. And yet, how are they supposed to understand me, since even myself, their 'creator', does not understand them?

He just painted whatever he felt, he was never trying to achieve anything or put across a message.

The fact that I myself, in the act of painting, do not understand the meaning of my paintings does not mean that they have no meaning.

So basically make of it what you will, don't go asking him for the answers.

[Verbal]

Reminds me of a conversation that was had outside the Eight Bells pub in Fulham, between LK, Enfield, DSB, AT and a few others who sadly I forget. It made the point that with dali, you can see the guy was artistically talented in his paintings and drawings, but you can't begin to make head nor tail of them. Guernica on the other hand is steeped in history and bloodshed. Having said that, it still leaves me cold.

After living in Bath for two years, I've had enough Austen to put me off the books.

Don't know if this counts as art but Catcher in The Rye, as I've mentioned somewhere else. If I wanted to listen to adolescent whining I would have become a teacher.

[ratbert]

I have seen many productions at the RSC, and the Shakespeares are all usually great, but Bartholomew Fair (non-Shakespeare, can't remember the author) was the worst. Not the fault of the actors, just unintelligable.

I tend to find something credible in all art, save the Emin, Hirst stuff. If you could make it yourself at home, then you have to question the talent of these people... apart from an ability to bullsh*t the artistic merit of an unmade bed.

Gormley's sculptures are great though. The statues on Crosby beach are amazing.

And surely Verbal the point of Dali was that you couldn't make sense of them (or have to work hard to do so)

[Verbal]

And surely Verbal the point of Dali was that you couldn't make sense of them (or have to work hard to do so)

Yep, that's what I meant I enjoy Dali's stuff, but on a purely aesthetic basis.

[William the White]

I have seen many productions at the RSC, and the Shakespeares are all usually great, but Bartholomew Fair (non-Shakespeare, can't remember the author) was the worst. Not the fault of the actors, just unintelligable.

I tend to find something credible in all art, save the Emin, Hirst stuff. If you could make it yourself at home, then you have to question the talent of these people... apart from an ability to bullsh*t the artistic merit of an unmade bed.

Gormley's sculptures are great though. The statues on Crosby beach are amazing.

And surely Verbal the point of Dali was that you couldn't make sense of them (or have to work hard to do so)

Ben Johnson. A mad mess of a play.

[William the White]

I think Dali is clever, wildly imaginative and emotionally unengaging. I find him remote. Easy to appreciate a self-serving aesthetic intelligence. Impossible to love.

Picasso, on the other hand...

[superjohnmcginlay]

Back to yer modern art:

http://www.nme.com/news/nirvana/40130

[Verbal]

That is absolutely disgusting, and more than likely not true.

[Montreal Wanderer]

First rate piece of journalism but I wonder what "symobillically" means.

[Prufrock]

Thats ridiculous. The second one is even worse. Modern art is such a pile of shit. got an a in my lit theory essay last year in what was just a big rant at it. teacher obv agreed. The whole point of art is you go to it , you see what the artist has put his/her life and soul into, and you apply it to your life, your knowledge, your feelings. Your reaction is what makes it come to life. It is that contemplation that makes it art. The difference is modern 'art' is just there as an excuse to think, there is nothing wrong with that per se, but the 'art' is irrelevant. The only people who seem to defend it as 'ar't are the ones with a vested interest in the big conspiracy of popularity to make idiots fork out astronomical prices for shite.

[Puskas]

Aye.

I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.

A nice painting. Some fruit. Or maybe a bloke on an 'oss with a dog.

Gah. That Picasso bloke - they don't even look like people. Some of them have square heads and that.

Modern art - burn it all.

[Di Stefano]

Aye.

I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.

A nice painting. Some fruit. Or maybe a bloke on an 'oss with a dog.

Gah. That Picasso bloke - they don't even look like people. Some of them have square heads and that.

Modern art - burn it all.

What about this one?

[TANGODANCER]

I don't suppose many of the Phillestines on here have toured many Cathedrals (Bruce excepted of course). The carving, paintings and sculpture in some of these perfectly highlights some amazing examples of art, that explain by viewing just how wide the gulf is between the Emins of this world and the true artists.

Have a look at the carvings of Grinling Gibbons ( born 1648) alone as an example.

[sluffy]

Anyone ever seen the violin hanging on the door at Chatsworth House?

"The Night Watch" is a bit underwhelming, it must be said.

Totally agree Zulu - Wasn't even the best painting in the room in my opinion.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

I don't suppose many of the Phillestines on here have toured many Cathedrals (Bruce excepted of course).

Au contraire, TD!

A particular hobby of mine. I will make a fairly large detour, if time allows, when travelling on business or pleasure to visit a cathedral. I've visited most in the UK at least once and I've racked up quite a few around Europe too.

Fascinating and awe inspiring - if you like that sort of thing, of course.

[TANGODANCER]

I don't suppose many of the Phillestines on here have toured many Cathedrals (Bruce excepted of course).

Au contraire, TD!

Ah, but you're ex Thornleigh mate.

[Lord Kangana]

Not really my bag Zulus, but if you haven't seen it before I suggest Murcia in Spain to you - the fact a philistine like myself could spend a couple of hours in there must be a ringing endorsement.