The Great Art Debate

[William the White]

I like Henry Moore's work, and, especially, the monumental pieces on display in the brilliant Yorkshire Sculpture Park, from which Bobo's post originates.

Postcard size depictions come nowhere near the actual work, which is on a massive scale, located in an area that allows the viewer to move around and obtain different perspectives on a piece that is full of grace, with flowing lines. I have seen a picture of this in snow - and it looks beautiful.

It looks to me like another Moore take on the mother-and-child motif, one that has existed from pretty much the beginning of art, often in the form of madonna and child, and one that Moore returned to on several occasions. I would travel to see this...

Just to say to Tango - there's a difference between confusion and puzzle. I enjoy puzzle in art. I like the way it requires me to think about the experience, then I'm not a simple recipient of work but a creator of it as well.

[Worthy4England]

the single difference being, Bish, that my side are right.

Well, clearly.

[TANGODANCER]

Just to say to Tango - there's a difference between confusion and puzzle. I enjoy puzzle in art. I like the way it requires me to think about the experience, then I'm not a simple recipient of work but a creator of it as well.

A genuine question : So are you saying, in affect, you enjoy more a shapeless mass that asks "Guess what I'm supposed to be" than something that's instantly recognisable Will?

The fault in that, for me, comes in the fact that the "artist" can actually be considered great because he/she define their mind fantasies as being truly representitive of what they claim to see, even though their admirers might not have a clue what it is without explanation. That sort of "art" is truly well beyond my understanding and rationale.

[William the White]

Just to say to Tango - there's a difference between confusion and puzzle. I enjoy puzzle in art. I like the way it requires me to think about the experience, then I'm not a simple recipient of work but a creator of it as well.

A genuine question : So are you saying, in affect, you enjoy more a shapeless mass that asks "Guess what I'm supposed to be" than something that's instantly recognisable Will?

The fault in that, for me, comes in the fact that the "artist" can actually be considered great because he/she define their mind fantasies as being truly representitive of what they claim to see, even though their admirers might not have a clue what it is without explanation. That sort of "art" is truly well beyond my understanding and rationale.

I think you know from previous discussions on this thread that we share a great many things in common with our taste in art, and that my favourite painter is Velasquez, whose most common artform is the portrait, executed in fine detail.

I have no idea what you define as a 'shapeless mass' - I can't think of any shapeless masses that I've ever hinted at liking or admiring.

I didn't understand your second paragraph.

[TANGODANCER]

I guess "shapeless" was a wrong term to use, everything has shape of some kind. Maybe I should have said "unrecognisable object", which is what that Yorkshire park thing is,to me. I really wouldn't have a clue as to what it's supposed to represent. Would it have any more/less artistic value if done by an unknown sculptor rather than Henry Moore? I guess what I mean is, is the answer to the puzzle left to the viewer, in which case there can be a hundred answers, none of which might match that of the artist? Where's the point?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It may be primitive-looking, but I don't think it takes too much mental application to work out what that Moore statue depicts.

[Worthy4England]

It may be primitive-looking, but I don't think it takes too much mental application to work out what that Moore statue depicts.

This is true, it depicts another waste of someone's hard earned on some more meaningless tat. How am I doing on the mental application front?

[TANGODANCER]

It may be primitive-looking, but I don't think it takes too much mental application to work out what that Moore statue depicts.

Then tell me Mummy, for interest's sake, what do you see there?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It may be primitive-looking, but I don't think it takes too much mental application to work out what that Moore statue depicts.

Then tell me Mummy, for interest's sake, what do you see there?

It's difficult to be completely objective, because I come at this knowing a little bit about Moore's work and what his repeated 'motifs' were, but I think this is recognisable as two human figures - one larger one (with tits!) and one smaller one, which makes you think 'mother and child', especially in view of how close they are together... it's hardly magic eye stuff, whatever your view of the value of it!

[TANGODANCER]

Guess this is where I fail my great art degree. Sculpture of two human figures that actually don't need any imagination. If Henry Moore is a great atist, where does that place Rodin and Bellini? No new argument, just a repeat one.

[Worthy4England]

It may be primitive-looking, but I don't think it takes too much mental application to work out what that Moore statue depicts.

Then tell me Mummy, for interest's sake, what do you see there?

It's difficult to be completely objective, because I come at this knowing a little bit about Moore's work and what his repeated 'motifs' were, but I think this is recognisable as two human figures - one larger one (with tits!) and one smaller one, which makes you think 'mother and child', especially in view of how close they are together... it's hardly magic eye stuff, whatever your view of the value of it!

It's called "Large Reclining Figure", but I guess what it shows above all else, is that what some people would consider a blot on the landscape (in my case this) and what others see (in Will's case the Bomber Command Memorial), never the twain shall meet.

[TANGODANCER]

This is by a Norweigian sculptor named Gustav Vigiland. Its title: "Going round the mulberry bush". I think it describes what we're all doing here.

[thebish]

This is by a Norweigian sculptor named Gustav Vigiland. Its title: "Going round the mulberry bush". I think it describes what we're all doing here.

you can get off and do summat else whenever you are bored...

[thebish]

Guess this is where I fail my great art degree. Sculpture of two human figures that actually don't need any imagination. If Henry Moore is a great atist, where does that place Rodin and Bellini? No new argument, just a repeat one.

why can you not simply have two great artists who do different things?

as I have said before - (quite recently) - I am no great fan of Henry Moore - I like his work but I am not generally greatly moved by it.

just because it doesn't move ME though - doesn't mean I would dismiss it as rubbish or worthless - with ART - which I know very little about academically - then I am more likely to conclude that Moore doesn't move me because I haven't taken the time or made the effort to understand what he is doing.

I think there are enough who are moved by his work and recognise the influence he had on the world of sculpture for me not simply to dismiss him.

It is far more likely that I have summat to learn than it is that Moore's work is crap.

maybe that's true for you too?

[TANGODANCER]

This is by a Norweigian sculptor named Gustav Vigiland. Its title: "Going round the mulberry bush". I think it describes what we're all doing here.

you can get off and do summat else whenever you are bored...

Oh, I know. Nice of you to point it out though.

[Worthy4England]

recognise the influence he had on the world of sculpture

Aye they all think they can turn out meaningless crap now.

I think the "WTF is that" response is in there for a reason. A bit like a flight or fight response.

I could of course condition that response and dress it up in fancy words and concepts, to try and pretend (because that's what it is) that this something looks like a different something. No amount of pretentious clap-trap changes what is there, just that some folk condition themselves to see something that isn't. I can pretend I change it, create it or whatever - but no, it's still the same set of meaningless blobs that were there when you started.

[TANGODANCER]

Guess this is where I fail my great art degree. Sculpture of two human figures that actually don't need any imagination. If Henry Moore is a great atist, where does that place Rodin and Bellini? No new argument, just a repeat one.

why can you not simply have two great artists who do different things?

as I have said before - (quite recently) - I am no great fan of Henry Moore - I like his work but I am not generally greatly moved by it.

just because it doesn't move ME though - doesn't mean I would dismiss it as rubbish or worthless - with ART - which I know very little about academically - then I am more likely to conclude that Moore doesn't move me because I haven't taken the time or made the effort to understand what he is doing.

I think there are enough who are moved by his work and recognise the influence he had on the world of sculpture for me not simply to dismiss him.

It is far more likely that I have summat to learn than it is that Moore's work is crap.

maybe that's true for you too?

No, really, it isn't. And nowhere did I use the words rubbish, worthless or crap. It is just of no interest to me whatsoever. I think I'm a little jealous of a man who can twist and shape a large pile of stone, steel, concrete or whatever and convince people it's a reclining figure despite the fact that it looks nothing like one, and have them actually believe it just because he says so. That takes a real artist.

[thebish]

recognise the influence he had on the world of sculpture

Aye they all think they can turn out meaningless crap now.

I think the "WTF is that" response is in there for a reason. A bit like a flight or fight response.

I could of course condition that response and dress it up in fancy words and concepts, to try and pretend (because that's what it is) that this something looks like a different something. No amount of pretentious clap-trap changes what is there, just that some folk condition themselves to see something that isn't. I can pretend I change it, create it or whatever - but no, it's still the same set of meaningless blobs that were there when you started.

hmmm... you see - you sound just like people who don't understand football... then pretentious knobbers like you and me come along and dress it all up in fancy words and concepts and try to make out it's more complicated and summat to be appreciated - all that pretentious claptrap about formations and different kinds of player - defenders, defensive midfielders - men in the hole - attacking midfielders - different kinds of striker and how they work or don't work together... yet - to them - it is still the same meaningless load of gormless gits chasing a ball around a field...

[thebish]

Guess this is where I fail my great art degree. Sculpture of two human figures that actually don't need any imagination. If Henry Moore is a great atist, where does that place Rodin and Bellini? No new argument, just a repeat one.

why can you not simply have two great artists who do different things?

as I have said before - (quite recently) - I am no great fan of Henry Moore - I like his work but I am not generally greatly moved by it.

just because it doesn't move ME though - doesn't mean I would dismiss it as rubbish or worthless - with ART - which I know very little about academically - then I am more likely to conclude that Moore doesn't move me because I haven't taken the time or made the effort to understand what he is doing.

I think there are enough who are moved by his work and recognise the influence he had on the world of sculpture for me not simply to dismiss him.

It is far more likely that I have summat to learn than it is that Moore's work is crap.

maybe that's true for you too?

No, really, it isn't. And nowhere did I use the words rubbish, worthless or crap. It is just of no interest to me whatsoever. I think I'm a little jealous of a man who can twist and shape a large pile of stone, steel, concrete or whatever and convince people it's a reclining figure despite the fact that it looks nothing like one, and have them actually believe it just because he says so. That takes a real artist.

it isn't true that you have summat to learn??? you must then be the know-it-all you seemed to be accusing me of being then...

for me - I'll much sooner believe that there is summat lacking in my understanding of an artist than I'll believe it is simply a load of old bollox because I don't get it - PARTICULARLY in the case of an artist with such international renown...

[Worthy4England]

recognise the influence he had on the world of sculpture

Aye they all think they can turn out meaningless crap now.

I think the "WTF is that" response is in there for a reason. A bit like a flight or fight response.

I could of course condition that response and dress it up in fancy words and concepts, to try and pretend (because that's what it is) that this something looks like a different something. No amount of pretentious clap-trap changes what is there, just that some folk condition themselves to see something that isn't. I can pretend I change it, create it or whatever - but no, it's still the same set of meaningless blobs that were there when you started.

hmmm... you see - you sound just like people who don't understand football... then pretentious knobbers like you and me come along and dress it all up in fancy words and concepts and try to make out it's more complicated and summat to be appreciated - all that pretentious claptrap about formations and different kinds of player - defenders, defensive midfielders - men in the hole - attacking midfielders - different kinds of striker and how they work or don't work together... yet - to them - it is still the same meaningless load of gormless gits chasing a ball around a field...

Yes but most people would recognise it as football even if they didn't understand it. And we have shades of grey, such as women's football, 5-a-side, beach football etc. etc. What we're discussing here is beach vollyball and then trying to convince everyone it's football.

As you've probably spotted once it get too much more complex than how many points have we got, I generally resort to "Coyle Out"