The Great Art Debate

[TANGODANCER]

We're living in a different age Dujon. The concept of somebody of the Bach era sitting in a garret somewhere and scribbling away by candlelight to produce those soaring masterpieces seems far away from all this. I suppose even classical music has to go on and, in fairness, it hasn't moved on too far since the great days of Bach, Handel, Mozart etc. A lot of classical music by the great composers is in the minds of our era for ever. Maybe the modern one wants or needs something new. Nothing will take away from the past music, although different orchestras and conductors can take the same pice and put their own stamp on it which doesn't seem the target here.

I've seen and heard the Halle Orchestra in action several times. I doubt a computer can ever rival the experience, but nobody's taking it away from us. Music, like everything else has to move on. It will, whether we like it or not. Mike Oldfield and Jean Mickel Jarre didn't exactly play harpsichords and they did music no harm. Let it roll, nothing lost.

[Dujon]

Ah, TANGO, but in this case it's not the computer that reproduces the score:

Her first album, From Darkness, Light, is due for release in spring. It is played by humans on two pianos through six movements.

This of course has the added dimension of a musician's interpretation of the composition (which is always the case regardless of the composer's intent). I've often wondered when listening to an orchestral performance (lucky you with the Hallé and commiserations to your wallet) whether it conforms to the composer's original ideas.

Please note that I am not a music expert and would have great difficulty in reading even a simple sheet of music should it be placed before me. Nor can I play an instrument of any kind (settle at the back!) although I'm pretty nifty when it comes to playing the scales on the keyboard of a piano.

When it comes to your comment regarding so-called Classical Music I agree with you - although the 'moving on' bit would be treated with caution should I think too deeply on the phrase. Then again, pigeonholing style or genre to me has always been something of an anathema. Unfortunately the works of some current, or at least recent, composers seem to be exercises in discord and, although they undoubtedly produce emotions within the (short) time that I listen, they are surely not those intended by the candle-lit composer battling to pay his gas and electricity bills.

Then again, maybe I am turning into a narrow minded old phart; after all is said and done I can't stand the head banging music (that's not the rhythm, it's the result of disgust), the toilet humour lyrics and the general decadence that seems to pervade the popular music of today.

Now, in our day . . .

[TANGODANCER]

(lucky you with the Hallé and commiserations to your wallet) .

For around twenty pounds a ticket (lets face it, you don't go every week, or month even) and transport by train, it's not really an expense on the grand scale. Every now and then the wife and I take off and go to Manchester for some show or other and maybe take in a meal at a Spanish restaurant (that shall remain nameless ). Manchester's Bridgewater Hall ( a magnificent accoustic experience) is the permanent home of the Halle.

[William the White]

(lucky you with the Hallé and commiserations to your wallet) .

For around twenty pounds a ticket (lets face it, you don't go every week, or month even) and transport by train, it's not really an expense on the grand scale. Every now and then the wife and I take off and go to Manchester for some show or other and maybe take in a meal at a Spanish restaurant (that shall remain nameless ). Manchester's Bridgewater Hall ( a magnificent accoustic experience) is the permanent home of the Halle.

Yep - esp for music and very good for voice... And architecturally impressive, outside and in... I love it and don't get there enough...

[Dujon]

Right: I'll back down a bit on the prices. It has always been my impression that performances by the Sydney Symphony Orchestra at the Sydney Opera House tended to be rather like putting one's bank account on a diet for a month or two. To my surprise, after looking at the booking site for this Sydney icon, I found that I was wrong. The next performance to be given by the S.S.O. is but a few day away. The prices and offering are:

Premium $120.00
A Reserve $110.00
B Reserve $98.00
C Reserve $78.00
D Reserve $35.00

PROKOFIEV
Classical Symphony
Violin Concerto No.2
Symphony No.5

Vladimir Ashkenazy conductor
Boris Belkin violin.

(divide the $ x 2 and you'll be pretty close to the sterling value)

Quite apart from that though, TANGO, is the travel time (and cost) and the necessary nosh . . . NO! I digress far too far from the subject.

[William the White]

Where is Modern Art Now? - on BBC 4 - was excellent.

With the starting point the avant-garde of the 1950s and 60, but its real investigative centre the much-reviled (but not by me) Young British Artists of the Hirst/Emin generation, it examined what the current generation of graduates are doing, and found a return to some traditional artistic values, in drawing, colour and sculpture. Had the hilarious sight of england's most famous transvestite Grayson Perry describing himself as conservative, and ended with a very moving set of small scale sculpture of African male subjects that looked lovely.

So, better post this on The Great Art Debate, and continue my curatorship of that thread - anyone interested in modern art's current debates would enjoy - only a few pretentious moments - and a care for skill that might reach even the most frozen-minded traditionalist... consider that a prod in Tango's direction...

[TANGODANCER]

Where is Modern Art Now? - on BBC 4 - was excellent.

With the starting point the avant-garde of the 1950s and 60, but its real investigative centre the much-reviled (but not by me) Young British Artists of the Hirst/Emin generation, it examined what the current generation of graduates are doing, and found a return to some traditional artistic values, in drawing, colour and sculpture. Had the hilarious sight of england's most famous transvestite Grayson Perry describing himself as conservative, and ended with a very moving set of small scale sculpture of African male subjects that looked lovely.

So, better post this on The Great Art Debate, and continue my curatorship of that thread - anyone interested in modern art's current debates would enjoy - only a few pretentious moments - and a care for skill that might reach even the most frozen-minded traditionalist... consider that a prod in Tango's direction...

I just answered on the other thread.

[William the White]

Where is Modern Art Now? - on BBC 4 - was excellent.

With the starting point the avant-garde of the 1950s and 60, but its real investigative centre the much-reviled (but not by me) Young British Artists of the Hirst/Emin generation, it examined what the current generation of graduates are doing, and found a return to some traditional artistic values, in drawing, colour and sculpture. Had the hilarious sight of england's most famous transvestite Grayson Perry describing himself as conservative, and ended with a very moving set of small scale sculpture of African male subjects that looked lovely.

So, better post this on The Great Art Debate, and continue my curatorship of that thread - anyone interested in modern art's current debates would enjoy - only a few pretentious moments - and a care for skill that might reach even the most frozen-minded traditionalist... consider that a prod in Tango's direction...

I just answered on the other thread.

and i just answered you...

[Lord Kangana]

once saw this sh*t at the Guggenheim in NYC:

http://www.cremaster.net/#finalState

Frankly, the design of the building held my attention and fascination far longer than the poor attempt at shock art. Used to go to the Tate Modern loads when it first opened, but the only piece I ever really liked was that reworking of the Tube Map. Fraid I'm not a big fan of modern art, really. I have tried.

[William the White]

once saw this sh*t at the Guggenheim in NYC:

http://www.cremaster.net/#finalState

Frankly, the design of the building held my attention and fascination far longer than the poor attempt at shock art. Used to go to the Tate Modern loads when it first opened, but the only piece I ever really liked was that reworking of the Tube Map. Fraid I'm not a big fan of modern art, really. I have tried.

None? Really? Oh well...

[TANGODANCER]

William the White wrote:
:

So, better post this on The Great Art Debate, and continue my curatorship of that thread - anyone interested in modern art's current debates would enjoy - only a few pretentious moments - and a care for skill that might reach even the most frozen-minded traditionalist... consider that a prod in Tango's direction...

Tangodancer wrote:

I don't particularly categorise what art I like by periods, only what appeals as art. That said, given a choice of a piece by the Emin school of unmade beds, and a Rembrandt, I don't think it would be too tough a choice.

William the White wrote:

What can i say? I offer you a chance - via the BBC iPlayer - to travel out of artistic iceberg land and you launch the Rembrandt 'torpedo' my way (even though you know i love Rembrandt - and loads of artists you admire) when I've identified the programme you've missed as signalling signs of a return in the current generation of emerging artists to forms of traditional artistic thought and method that might interest and appeal to you... I throw you a pearl and you lean over and give it a suspicious snuffle and a little oink...

Tangodancer wrote:

Not so. I may watch it, I may like it. I just haven't done so yet. I'm just a bit startled at what The Royal Academy is accepting as art these days. I think it all started when I passed a building site and saw the foundations of a house room laid out; a pile of housebricks in a rectangle. When the same thing appeared in a room at the RA as some great artwork I though Seddons had gone all artistic and the RA gone mad.

_________________
Who can explain it, who can tell you why? Fools give you reasons, wise men never try.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Ok, so we have had some discussion about Emin and her ilk, and whether or not their work has any merit at all, with a taxing diversion along the way.

Let's go to a simpler question then and get people to offer examples of what they like.


I know the contents of Liverpool's Walker Art Gallery quite well - a fairly small, manageable place, with a decent rage of paintings, so I'll pick out some of my favourites (and lay my incredibly fusty taste on the line) and perhaps others will do the same from with paintings they know.

First up:

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walk ... index.aspx

I love these Victorian paintings that are storytelling mini-dramas all on a canvas.


http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walk ... house.aspx

Another Victorian painting, I really like classical themes - this one depicts the myth of Echo and Narcissus as told by Ovid. I have been accused myself of narcissistic tendencies, but I cannot imagine that I would ignore the girl who sat as a model for Waterhouse's Echo (and she crops up as female characters in other paintings of his) for too long!


So, yes, there are a couple to going on with.

If I had Abramovich's money, I think I would collect Roman antiquities, or perhaps the kind of neo-classical sculpture that they have a good collection of at the Walker. http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walk ... allery.asp The daddy of the genre is Antonio Canova (worked in Rome end of the 18th C), and his statues can go for millions - money well spent if you ask me!

[ratbert]

Anyone passing through Birmingham (yes, it does have culture) could do worse than head for the unversity and spend some time at the Barber Institute. A collection of impressive, erm Impressionist paintings and much more:

http://www.barber.org.uk/

[William the White]

William the White wrote:
:

So, better post this on The Great Art Debate, and continue my curatorship of that thread - anyone interested in modern art's current debates would enjoy - only a few pretentious moments - and a care for skill that might reach even the most frozen-minded traditionalist... consider that a prod in Tango's direction...

Tangodancer wrote:

I don't particularly categorise what art I like by periods, only what appeals as art. That said, given a choice of a piece by the Emin school of unmade beds, and a Rembrandt, I don't think it would be too tough a choice.

William the White wrote:

What can i say? I offer you a chance - via the BBC iPlayer - to travel out of artistic iceberg land and you launch the Rembrandt 'torpedo' my way (even though you know i love Rembrandt - and loads of artists you admire) when I've identified the programme you've missed as signalling signs of a return in the current generation of emerging artists to forms of traditional artistic thought and method that might interest and appeal to you... I throw you a pearl and you lean over and give it a suspicious snuffle and a little oink...

Tangodancer wrote:

Not so. I may watch it, I may like it. I just haven't done so yet. I'm just a bit startled at what The Royal Academy is accepting as art these days. I think it all started when I passed a building site and saw the foundations of a house room laid out; a pile of housebricks in a rectangle. When the same thing appeared in a room at the RA as some great artwork I though Seddons had gone all artistic and the RA gone mad.

I don't think this ever happened. Really.
_________________
Who can explain it, who can tell you why? Fools give you reasons, wise men never try.

[William the White]

my favourite painter is Velasquez.

here's three from the Prado in Madrid...

http://www.spanisharts.info/pictures/ve ... huevos.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _Aesop.jpg

http://www.topofart.com/images/artists/ ... uez006.jpg

[TANGODANCER]

Not so. I may watch it, I may like it. I just haven't done so yet. I'm just a bit startled at what The Royal Academy is accepting as art these days. I think it all started when I passed a building site and saw the foundations of a house room laid out; a pile of housebricks in a rectangle. When the same thing appeared in a room at the RA as some great artwork I though Seddons had gone all artistic and the RA gone mad.

I don't think this ever happened. Really. _________________
Who can explain it, who can tell you why? Fools give you reasons, wise men never try.

[/quote]

Well, it did. It was actually the Tate Gallery in 1976. 120 bricks as minimalist art:

http://www.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/ ... public.htm

[TANGODANCER]

Besides the older masters I like Turner, William Russell Flint ( I've got about eight of his prints, note "prints" not proofs) and (surprise,surprise WTW) the Scottish artist Jack Vetriano. I used to have a large sepia print of Mummy's favourite "When did you last see your father? I also like all the impressioniasts, Degas, Monet etc and the works of Millais, Holman Hunt and Rossetti and co. I also love the brilliant sculptures of Bellini and the amazing wood carvings of people like Grinling Gibbons.

Here's one to make WTW smile: Over the fireplace in the lounge is an extremely modern erm, "painting" called "Spherical Movement". I bought it for the wife ( cost me £125) because she loved it to match her new decor (what a reason to buy a pinting?). I much prefer the print with figures of the interior of the Alhambra that'a now at the foot of the stairs.

[boltonboris]

Besides the older masters I like Turner

I like you too

[William the White]

Not so. I may watch it, I may like it. I just haven't done so yet. I'm just a bit startled at what The Royal Academy is accepting as art these days. I think it all started when I passed a building site and saw the foundations of a house room laid out; a pile of housebricks in a rectangle. When the same thing appeared in a room at the RA as some great artwork I though Seddons had gone all artistic and the RA gone mad.

I don't think this ever happened. Really. _________________
Who can explain it, who can tell you why? Fools give you reasons, wise men never try.

Well, it did. It was actually the Tate Gallery in 1976. 120 bricks as minimalist art:

http://www.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/ ... public.htm[/quote]

So it didn't happen, then... The RA never went mad?... just remained a bit boring?

Oh - I saw it at the Tate - it was there for ages... The controversy did the gallery a lot of good, allegedly... About that time two 'performance artists' got a grant from the Arts Council to carry a plank around the South of england - for about a month IIRC. That got the tabloids talking also...

[TANGODANCER]

Not so. I may watch it, I may like it. I just haven't done so yet. I'm just a bit startled at what The Royal Academy is accepting as art these days. I think it all started when I passed a building site and saw the foundations of a house room laid out; a pile of housebricks in a rectangle. When the same thing appeared in a room at the RA as some great artwork I though Seddons had gone all artistic and the RA gone mad.

I don't think this ever happened. Really. _________________
Who can explain it, who can tell you why? Fools give you reasons, wise men never try.

Well, it did. It was actually the Tate Gallery in 1976. 120 bricks as minimalist art:

http://www.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/ ... public.htm

So it didn't happen, then... The RA never went mad?... just remained a bit boring?

Oh - I saw it at the Tate - it was there for ages... The controversy did the gallery a lot of good, allegedly... About that time two 'performance artists' got a grant from the Arts Council to carry a plank around the South of england - for about a month IIRC. That got the tabloids talking also... [/quote]

And either had whatsoever to do with art though? Did Tracy Emin do the bed thing for the same reason? Surely the argument is about what is art, not publicity stunts?