The Great Art Debate

[William the White]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

Bet you don't!

You'll be on this thread again well before the cock croweth thrice.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

Wherefore art thou art?

[Worthy4England]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

I can confirm your eyesight is functioning fine Tango.

It's a branch of the arts called con-art. It's created by con artists. The con is, that they rely on people being able to convince themselves of a sense of superiority by being able see there's more there than rectangles, and in so doing, give them the self satisfaction that they can see something the rest of the world can't - which is fundamentally rectangles.

That someone coughed $90m for one, isn't an indication of their more refined tastes in art, it's entirely to do with them having silly amounts of money.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

I'm embarrassed for you, Tango. Do you not appreciate the talent required to paint something like this?

[TANGODANCER]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

Bet you don't! You'll be on this thread again well before the cock croweth thrice.

But I have Will, totally defeated. I didn't mention at all not coming into the thread, just admitted I obviously know nothing about what's accepted as great art. I'll happily listen to an explanation of why these Rothko "masterpieces",or whatever they are? are such art. Retiring defeated means I can't see it. I just can't, so obviously I don't understand.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

Bet you don't! You'll be on this thread again well before the cock croweth thrice.

But I have Will, totally defeated. I didn't mention at all not coming into the thread, just admitted I obviously know nothing about what's accepted as great art. I'll happily listen to an explanation of why these Rothko "masterpieces",or whatever they are? are such art. Retiring defeated means I can't see it. I just can't, so obviously I don't understand.

His paintings are an attempt to recapture mankind's vanished youth - a desperate longing we all share. He does this by brilliantly creating pictures that most five-year olds could knock up on an average day. He is the master of the Kindergarten School of Post-modern Deconstructionist art.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

I can confirm your eyesight is functioning fine Tango.

It's a branch of the arts called con-art. It's created by con artists. The con is, that they rely on people being able to convince themselves of a sense of superiority by being able see there's more there than rectangles, and in so doing, give them the self satisfaction that they can see something the rest of the world can't - which is fundamentally rectangles.

That someone coughed $90m for one, isn't an indication of their more refined tastes in art, it's entirely to do with them having silly amounts of money.

Again, I commend this article about the 'crisis' in contemporary art.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/4683/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I join Brian Sewell in his despair at curators of galleries and exhibitions who boast in their catalogues at their artists' "aesthetic atheism". Aesthetic atheism seems an unfortunate concept in the 'visual arts', but these days I am am fairly relaxed and happy for people to do whatever it takes to get them through the day, so if they are genuinely uplifted or moved to deeper thought by this stuff then I will not get in their way and be the party pooper - much the same as my view towards those who exhibit a different sort of collective, mutually reinforcing faith in religion.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

Bet you don't! You'll be on this thread again well before the cock croweth thrice.

But I have Will, totally defeated. I didn't mention at all not coming into the thread, just admitted I obviously know nothing about what's accepted as great art. I'll happily listen to an explanation of why these Rothko "masterpieces",or whatever they are? are such art. Retiring defeated means I can't see it. I just can't, so obviously I don't understand.

His paintings are an attempt to recapture mankind's vanished youth - a desperate longing we all share. He does this by brilliantly creating pictures that most five-year olds could knock up on an average day. He is the master of the Kindergarten School of Post-modern Deconstructionist art.

Ha, this reminds me of one of the most tedious books I have ever seen: Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Your-Five-Year- ... 0500290474" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It takes a hundred works of modern art and explains, absolutely 100% literally for every single one, why a five year old could not have done it.

Totally and utterly bonkers.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

Bet you don't! You'll be on this thread again well before the cock croweth thrice.

But I have Will, totally defeated. I didn't mention at all not coming into the thread, just admitted I obviously know nothing about what's accepted as great art. I'll happily listen to an explanation of why these Rothko "masterpieces",or whatever they are? are such art. Retiring defeated means I can't see it. I just can't, so obviously I don't understand.

His paintings are an attempt to recapture mankind's vanished youth - a desperate longing we all share. He does this by brilliantly creating pictures that most five-year olds could knock up on an average day. He is the master of the Kindergarten School of Post-modern Deconstructionist art.

Ha, this reminds me of one of the most tedious books I have ever seen: Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Your-Five-Year- ... 0500290474" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It takes a hundred works of modern art and explains, absolutely 100% literally for every single one, why a five year old could not have done it.

Totally and utterly bonkers.

I didn't know of the book but even the Amazon review is a little tedious and pretentious.

[William the White]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

I can confirm your eyesight is functioning fine Tango.

It's a branch of the arts called con-art. It's created by con artists. The con is, that they rely on people being able to convince themselves of a sense of superiority by being able see there's more there than rectangles, and in so doing, give them the self satisfaction that they can see something the rest of the world can't - which is fundamentally rectangles.

That someone coughed $90m for one, isn't an indication of their more refined tastes in art, it's entirely to do with them having silly amounts of money.

No one has more refined tastes than you, Worthy. Or expresses them so exquisitely.

[William the White]

Ha, this reminds me of one of the most tedious books I have ever seen: Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Your-Five-Year- ... 0500290474" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It takes a hundred works of modern art and explains, absolutely 100% literally for every single one, why a five year old could not have done it.

Totally and utterly bonkers.

Does anyone know the age of LLS's imaginary cat?

[William the White]

Retiring defeated means I can't see it. I just can't, so obviously I don't understand.

Sorry - I thought it might mean 'retiring...'

[TANGODANCER]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

I'm embarrassed for you, Tango. Do you not appreciate the talent required to paint something like this?

I think I've seen something similar on a piece of Anaglypta paper in Homebase. It was a woman in the colour-matching part of the Dulux "try before you buy" section. I think it was for re-painting her bathroom.

[TANGODANCER]

We've talked about paintings you could admire in a gallery but wouldn't want hanging in you home. What about some you would? Talking about high class prints of course, not priceless works. There are very many in my case, but here are two. The first one, a Dutch master work by Gerrit Van Hont, for its magnificant detail and great light and shade work. The second is almost impressionistic in its simple detail and even wrong light and shade. Both would inspire pleasure on my walls.

[Worthy4England]

Okay, I've just Google Imaged a whole rake of this Rothko's "art". If this is great art worth millions, then I'm finally admitting I know absolutely nothing,nothing,nothing about great art. All I see are endless colour daubs. I retire defeated.

I can confirm your eyesight is functioning fine Tango.

It's a branch of the arts called con-art. It's created by con artists. The con is, that they rely on people being able to convince themselves of a sense of superiority by being able see there's more there than rectangles, and in so doing, give them the self satisfaction that they can see something the rest of the world can't - which is fundamentally rectangles.

That someone coughed $90m for one, isn't an indication of their more refined tastes in art, it's entirely to do with them having silly amounts of money.

No one has more refined tastes than you, Worthy. Or expresses them so exquisitely.

Not an assertion generally levelled at me, where art is concerned, Will.

Plenty of people, I'm sure, have a much far wider perception of art than I - and if they were talking about Canaletto or Botticelli for example, I'm sure I'd be more than happy to listen.

I do know rectangles of random paint when I see them. Just like I can spot a tent a way off and understand that a pile of bricks is just, a pile of bricks. I have living and regular proof of "unmade bed" - quite frankly it just needs someone to get off their ass and make it. Half an animal in formaldyhide used to be Biology when I was at school, but that was a while ago, so I guess they might have moved it to Art whilst I've been away. I could imagine that they were something else, but the art doesn't help me to do that, I might as well start with a blank canvas and make my own up.

There is s difference between someone paying x for a painting as an investment, believing that the next mug will be lined up to pay X + Y when they come to sell it, and it being any good.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Ha, this reminds me of one of the most tedious books I have ever seen: Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Your-Five-Year- ... 0500290474" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It takes a hundred works of modern art and explains, absolutely 100% literally for every single one, why a five year old could not have done it.

Totally and utterly bonkers.

Does anyone know the age of LLS's imaginary cat?

I first thought of her back in 2008. She'll be five next birthday.

[William the White]

Not every new year's eve, but often, my wife and I decide on a cultural focus for the coming year. So we have had, for instance, the year of reading, the year of shakespeare, the year of live music. We've decide that this year the focus will be on Hispanic culture in its broadest sense - Iberia and Latin America, and every facet of culture.

We've signed up to improve our Spanish with courses at the Instituto Cervantes, Manchester, six hours a week in two 3 hour blocks. This gives us access to their library with Spanish fiction and poetry, films and TV drama. And also the cultural events they promote. And we'll be using LF with even more focus on Spanish language films, and we'll be catching Almodovar's latest, due a Spring release in the UK. We've decided to visit Toledo (where we've never been) because of its connection with El Greco:

http://www.spain.info/en/conoce/museo/t ... greco.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This will inevitably enable a return to Madrid and the Prado and Reina Sofia. And a first visit, for me, to the Thyssen (she has been before and really rates it).

We'll be more assiduous than usual, i expect, in catching movies at the Cornerhouse Viva! festival in March. And i'm pretty confident we'll squeeze in tapas and Spanish reds and whites...

Looking forward to this... Have to find some way to fill the empty hours of retirement...

[bobo the clown]

What about "the year of moving, finally, to the right" ? You know you want to.

[William the White]

What about "the year of moving, finally, to the right" ? You know you want to.

Can't persuade my wife that capitalism is a fair and just system, so, i'm afraid, it's out of the question... This makes me very sad, of course... But I can cope with the current plans, don't worry, I'll be ok...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Sounds good, Will.

Italy is, for me, the equivalent of your Spain, and I am going to look to resuscitate my Italian lessons this year, as well as fitting in visits to at least a couple of places on the Italian Grand Tour I am yet to visit - places like Parma, Bologna, Urbino, Vicenza, Orvieto, Mantua, Padua and, perhaps, my first trip to Venice.

How is your thinking coming along with regards to some more formal study of art this year?

I am very tempted to apply for scholarship to enrol on this course, which, with the right electives, includes a grounding in the history of European art, as well a study of the law and business of the art world: http://www.christieseducation.com/londo ... s_msc.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;