The Great Art Debate

[TANGODANCER]

I have a strong suspicion you don't want me to answer....

You're just suspicious by nature.

Please do. Answer away.

no tango - Zulu would make me kiss you....

That's for insults. This is debate is it not?

the last two times involved no insults from me... seems quite a risk!

You're right. Lets just pass.

[thebish]

but as you ask so nicely!

So, Guernica put aside (my error), and after all the debate, can most great art be defined as something you look at, but wouldn't want around you?

I don't think that really works, for me, as a definition of Great Art at all. There are lots of things that I look at and don't want around me and wouldn't define as Great Art.

I say this because I wouldn't want my house to look like the Cistine Chapel, York Minster, The Alhambra or Sevilla Cathedral, or want it adorned by the Ectasy of St Theresa, or like sculptures, or paintings like aforementioned Guernica or Christ's descent from The Cross. I can appreciate them - some more than others- but not want to live with them.

You seem to be attributing to Great Art the fact that - by definition - nobody would want it in their house. If my house were big enough and had a wall to do it justice - then I would LOVE to have Rembrandt's Prodigal hanging in it - I would also LOVE to have some Henry Moore in the garden. So - again - your "definition" doesn't even begin to work for me.

Exactly what I like amongst them is down purely to personal choice, as is what I'd hang on my walls.

That may be so - but it isn't actually saying anything. We make many choices in life - usually for a reason. I could have a fair stab at telling you why I choose to have most of the things hanging in my house (the ones I have chosen!) - and each would tell a different story. simply to say it is a matter of personal choice tells me nothing at all about what you think about art - to say that is not really to enter into the debate at all - in a free country it is a matter of mundane record that you can choose what you hang on your walls - it is far more interesting to hear an attempt at an explanation WHY you have made that choice.

Does that about do it, or am I missing othr points?

you are missing pretty much all of what Pru just wrote...

[TANGODANCER]

- it is far more interesting to hear an attempt at an explanation WHY you have made that choice.
.you are missing pretty much all of what Pru just wrote...

Answering the latter first; I'm not Pru. He expressed an opinion, fair enough. Is that the benchmark for us all or are we allowed to see it other ways?

The rest:

Maybe I'm just one of those people that can like or dislike something without the need to debate why I do. I know well the history of Spain and I can also well understand th sentiments of the Basques because they were involved. As for making me cry, well, it just doesn't. I don't ask why. Like Bruce I can admire the technique of the artist, but that's it. Goyas's Second of May, and Third of May, although from a diffrent era, far better define the horrors of war for me, but is it great art just because of the artist?

See, it's the word "great" that can only be applied if you personally feel it is. That's where we all differ and don't want rules or explanations as to why when a lot of the time we honestly don't know. Age (ours) also alters perspectives. If something by Michelangelo evokes no particular response, is it great art because of who he was? I like some literature other pooh-pooh. Hardy, Jane Austen, the Bronte's, the classic storytellers like Stevenson, Kingsley etc, because the define periods in history we wouldn't ordinarily relate to in this modern age. They're historical records, explanations if you like. Some paintings are the same.

I like some comediens you may not, does that make them better or worse? My question really is why is art so different, and because some people define things as great, do we all have to agree they are right? If none of this is true, then why are we debating it? For me, it's a totally personal thing that can't truly be defined because it may disagree with someone else. Hope this answers your points.

[thebish]

- it is far more interesting to hear an attempt at an explanation WHY you have made that choice.
.you are missing pretty much all of what Pru just wrote...

Answering the latter first; I'm not Pru. He expressed an opinion, fair enough. Is that the benchmark for us all or are we allowed to see it other ways?

i didn't say you were Pru - I was just referencing what he wrote in answer to your question and to avoid repetition. (and neither did i disallow your opinion - i simply agreed with pru)

[thebish]

- it is far more interesting to hear an attempt at an explanation WHY you have made that choice.
.you are missing pretty much all of what Pru just wrote...

Answering the latter first; I'm not Pru. He expressed an opinion, fair enough. Is that the benchmark for us all or are we allowed to see it other ways?

The rest:

Maybe I'm just one of those people that can like or dislike something without the need to debate why I do.

and that's fine - except that you are posting about it in a debate about what makes great art. if you don't want to debate it and don't think it is worth debating - then - do summat else!

[TANGODANCER]

- it is far more interesting to hear an attempt at an explanation WHY you have made that choice.
.you are missing pretty much all of what Pru just wrote...

Answering the latter first; I'm not Pru. He expressed an opinion, fair enough. Is that the benchmark for us all or are we allowed to see it other ways?

The rest:

Maybe I'm just one of those people that can like or dislike something without the need to debate why I do.

and that's fine - except that you are posting about it in a debate about what makes great art. if you don't want to debate it and don't think it is worth debating - then - do summat else!

Okay.

[William the White]

Goyas's Second of May, and Third of May, although from a diffrent era, far better define the horrors of war for me.

The Goya are magnificent, but depictions of a very different kind of war, and very differently brutal.

Picasso is dealing, for the first time in art, with what became the major brutal innovation of war in the 20th century, the mass bombing of cities, overt and deliberate assault on civilians, without discrimination and with the anonymity of aerial assault. That is why it is fractured, terrifying, chaotic.

The Goya deal with the brutality of massacre, face to face (and with resistance to it). They are brilliant paintings and also horrifying, but they deal with wars of two centuries ago... And, through no fault of goya, who was a genius, cannot possibly define the horrors of war that the the German bombing of Guernica introduced to Europe for the first time, as Hitler practised his tactics for the war he was planning.

Picasso was the first to respond to this as an artist, and that is one of the many reasons why Guernica is one of the most important works of art of the last century, and for many years to come.

[Worthy4England]

So is there only me that thinks it looks like the result of lobbing out some collage pieces into the Y2 class-room and saying "off you go"?

If Picasso thought it was that fecking important, he should have been out trying to find Germans to shoot.

[William the White]

we had a go at Guernica a while back....

http://www.the-wanderer.co.uk/boards/vi ... torder=asc

Indeed. And it's still no better than it was that time around - although some of us, remembering that we've already had one go at it, are refraining from having a second.

Had a little bet with myself you wouldn't hold to it...

[Worthy4England]

we had a go at Guernica a while back....

http://www.the-wanderer.co.uk/boards/vi ... torder=asc

Indeed. And it's still no better than it was that time around - although some of us, remembering that we've already had one go at it, are refraining from having a second.

Had a little bet with myself you wouldn't hold to it...

All I've done is stop refraining.

Jeez Louise - someone will mention tents next....

[fatshaft]

If you drop the 'F' in Fart, you get Art. Says it all really.

[thebish]

If you drop the 'F' in Fart, you get Art. Says it all really.

if you add an "r" to Fatshaft - you get Fartshaft.... says it all really....

[William the White]

Flamenco maestro Juan Martin responds to Picasso's Geuernica with a work commissioned, I think, by the Imperial War Museum...

It's very moving... Though probably not for fatshaft, who could not, i suspect, be moved by much less than a JCB...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orjpc-XW ... re=related

[Il Pirate]

Picasso is dealing, for the first time in art, with what became the major brutal innovation of war in the 20th century, the mass bombing of cities, overt and deliberate assault on civilians, without discrimination and with the anonymity of aerial assault.

I could argue that CRW Nevinson's A Taube, 1916-17; was the first to do this. Currently hangs in the Imperial War museum.
Though there were depictions of aircraft used in war previous to the Nevinson painting, most are depictions of dogfights etc, and didn't address the casualties of bombing from the air. Fernand Leger for example painted many images of crashed planes or the aftermath of a plane being shot down, (in a cubist style of sorts), but he never depicted victims, pilots etc.

[General Mannerheim]

been thinking alot lately about Tattoos, they constitute as art, no?

some absolute belters on here, http://www.nikkohurtado.com/tattoos.asp

personal faves 1800, 1863, 1885, 1910, 1913, 1926, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1968, 1973, 1989, 1992, 2000

would never have anything like that of course, just not cool enough. have got a wanderers badge on my arm (similar to John McGinlays, i copied him) which is frankly hideous. was young and naive at the time i suppose.

suppose if i didnt have that then i could go for summat more artsy, have been thinking about having my daughters name or initials done, i know i know, its incredibly chavvy and common, but if i could do it in more tasteful way somehow?

been playing with designs, quite like this one i came up with, her initials are SC...


[/b]

[Puskas]

been thinking alot lately about Tattoos, they constitute as art, no?

some absolute belters on here, http://www.nikkohurtado.com/tattoos.asp

personal faves 1800, 1863, 1885, 1910, 1913, 1926, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1968, 1973, 1989, 1992, 2000

would never have anything like that of course, just not cool enough. have got a wanderers badge on my arm (similar to John McGinlays, i copied him) which is frankly hideous. was young and naive at the time i suppose.

suppose if i didnt have that then i could go for summat more artsy, have been thinking about having my daughters name or initials done, i know i know, its incredibly chavvy and common, but if i could do it in more tasteful way somehow?

been playing with designs, quite like this one i came up with, her initials are SC...

Why not get "ACAB" on your knuckles? Possibly in henna.

I have "WAR" tatooed on one hand, "PEACE" tatooed on the other and "THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV" tatooed down my spine.

[thebish]

tattoo in haste - repent at leisure..

I often regret that drunken night in Cardiff...

[Worthy4England]

been thinking alot lately about Tattoos, they constitute as art, no?

I see you've answered your own question.

In a very loose, Picasso like sense, if you were really pissed, possibly a bit stoned, and suffering from Parkinson's disease, you might believe they were art...

[William the White]

I have "WAR" tatooed on one hand, "PEACE" tatooed on the other and "THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV" tatooed down my spine.

Brilliant!

[Puskas]

I have "WAR" tatooed on one hand, "PEACE" tatooed on the other and "THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV" tatooed down my spine.

Brilliant!

I have to give the credit to Alexie Sayle for that one.

But it's one of my all-time favourite lines...