The Great Art Debate

[William the White]

The only other thing I really I looked at was the room of Richter abstracts, which I am still baffled by.

I'll seek them out next time i'm in London...

Why are you baffled by them, though? What questions are you asking of them? What do you seek from them?

I ask this without any truculence, I ask in a conversational tone - I was surprised by my powerful response to his abstracts, how much I instinctively liked them, as I said many pages ago, the Richter exhibition was the first time I found a way to engage with abstraction. And that has been confirmed since - with the Rothko...

I agree, btw with your critique of the space - but Rothko insisted on a darker, sombre space for these and the gallery provides this... He was wrong... IMHO...

Tate Modern is an essential gallery, but one of the least welcoming to visit... The massive basement space should be turned over, free of charge, to young artists with no money, who need a London studio... Carve it up into 5 metre x 5 metre studio spaces and have a vibrant market space to sell their work before the exit... They get two or three years and then the next artists get their opportunity... Let visitors be able to see them working, make the space a creative space, not a cavernous vacuum... Access 24/7 for the artists - so many work in the night...

[William the White]

Just to say - that;'s a dreadful image... Though I suspect for you and bobo the more accurate the image the less you'd like the art...

But - just to ask - what do you mean that it doesn't make the slightest sense? What kind of 'sense' do you want from art?

Okay Will, first the image was just a random choice. As for making sense, isn't it the senses that art is supposed to appeal to, or at least in this case, the eyes? I can't explain it any better than I did in the post. For me, there's nothing there that in any way appeals. How are these canvasses works of art? Where is the content? I appreciate talent in anyone and the world's full of great paintings, sculptures, carvings and architecture,etc. In these...?

We are both puzzled by this artist's work, Tango. This - forgive me if I'm wrong - seems to make you want to reject it. As you want to reject Emin, also. Not only that, it seems to make you really angry. Why is that?

For me, puzzle is not a bad thing in art. It makes me question what is going on and, in the case of Picasso, for instance, embrace with enthusiasm. Every advance is a spit in the eye of what has gone before - in Art, Science and Philosophy...

This doesn't mean that I embrace anything at all that an artist wants to do... the work, the work alone, has to 'speak to me'... Eight days ago, in Tate Modern, Rothko's did, and I tried to explain it 3 pages ago... You can't hope that it will do that for you if you approach it with a grumble in your eye in the first place, because it isn't something familiar and comfortable for you... I like discomforting art... And discomforting philosophies... And discomforting sciences...

[TANGODANCER]

We are both puzzled by this artist's work, Tango. This - forgive me if I'm wrong - seems to make you want to reject it. As you want to reject Emin, also. Not only that, it seems to make you really angry. Why is that?

For me, puzzle is not a bad thing in art. It makes me question what is going on and, in the case of Picasso, for instance, embrace with enthusiasm. Every advance is a spit in the eye of what has gone before - in Art, Science and Philosophy...

This doesn't mean that I embrace anything at all that an artist wants to do... the work, the work alone, has to 'speak to me'... Eight days ago, in Tate Modern, Rothko's did, and I tried to explain it 3 pages ago... You can't hope that it will do that for you if you approach it with a grumble in your eye in the first place, because it isn't something familiar and comfortable for you... I like discomforting art... And discomforting philosophies... And discomforting sciences...

It sure doesn't make me angry Will, believe me. Amazed, yes, angry, why should it? People will do what people will do, it affects me not. (I was tempted to say "It affecteth me not" but Pru might get on my case.)

[Prufrock]

We are both puzzled by this artist's work, Tango. This - forgive me if I'm wrong - seems to make you want to reject it. As you want to reject Emin, also. Not only that, it seems to make you really angry. Why is that?

For me, puzzle is not a bad thing in art. It makes me question what is going on and, in the case of Picasso, for instance, embrace with enthusiasm. Every advance is a spit in the eye of what has gone before - in Art, Science and Philosophy...

This doesn't mean that I embrace anything at all that an artist wants to do... the work, the work alone, has to 'speak to me'... Eight days ago, in Tate Modern, Rothko's did, and I tried to explain it 3 pages ago... You can't hope that it will do that for you if you approach it with a grumble in your eye in the first place, because it isn't something familiar and comfortable for you... I like discomforting art... And discomforting philosophies... And discomforting sciences...

It sure doesn't make me angry Will, believe me. Amazed, yes, angry, why should it? People will do what people will do, it affects me not. (I was tempted to say "It affecteth me not" but Pru might get on my case.)

Or, thank you for making it

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm getting truly baffled here Mummy. Are you saying it's necessary to have paintings-that were painted randomly in a studio-exhibited in an oppressive room that makes the viewer feel like they're shut in, in order to experience something from the artist's imagination?

I can't really say whether it's 'necessary'. I am not sure exactly what the artist himself wanted - all I am saying that if I were the curator responsible for them, I have an idea of how I would want to exhibit them to make the most of them. I do think it's valid to say that the setting of the paintings contributes to the feeling they evoke.

You may have noticed in the National Gallery that the different parts of the gallery are decorated differently in an attempt to provide some kind of appropriate context for the paintings. In the Sainsbury Wing, purpose built to house the pre and early Renaissance paintings, the walls are bare and there are lots of smaller rooms to give a church-like feel that reflects the setting that almost all of the paintings were created for. There are also archways that get successively narrower to trick the eye into perceiving an exaggerated perspective - exactly the sort of idea Renaissance artists, architects and mathematicians were playing with. There are other parts of the gallery decorated to evoke the kind of neo-classical/Georgian country houses that many of the paintings were originally bought for in the 18th century.

I don't think it's a big extension of this idea for a modern artist to want to control the space that his work is exhibited in, as part of generating the kind of atmosphere he is looking to create, or for others to make this decision for him as part of the relationship between artist, curator and the viewing audience.

The paintings have no form whatsoever except colours on other colours, with titles like "Black on Maroon" etc, yet we're being told they need artificial conditions, lighting etc, to fully appreciate what the artist is saying? What he's done is paint a canvas, series of canvasses, to hang on a wall/walls, which can only be seen one at a time by the viewer, who then has to use his own imagination to make sense of what he/she is seeing. What then, is this really all about? Even a pile of bricks or Tracy Emin's bed-pit are at least what they say they are. None of it makes the slightest sense to me.

They do have some form. As I have said, knowing something of the Italian trip Rothko undertook before painting these, I now think I understand some visual reference to architectural features (whether or not he knew he was making them).

Look at this:



For me, this now reminds me of the recesses above the windows in Michelangelo's Laurentian Library, which can be seen in this drawing:



Similarly, this painting now makes me think of shutters closed during the day, with bright Italian sunlight trying to get in at the edges:



Now, there is nothing more 'artificial' than a room illuminated by electric lighting. I have actually changed my mind on the subject of whether they need more light, although it could perhaps do with being slightly 'warmer' light.

Do you ever feel that architecture is capable of creating a certain feeling or atmosphere without actually picturing anything? Sometimes a building or space can be uplifting, calming or unsettling in its effect without my being able to explain exactly why it feels that way. Sometimes certain proportions are just satisfying to look at and I think the opposite is true, along with lots of variations in between.

I will post this 20 sec Youtube clip again of Michelangelo's Medici Chapel in Florence. I think this is a strangely oppressive space. Part of this is the lighting, which is probably of the sort that would suit the Seagram Murals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJYqNOV-AhE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is now how I understand the murals - it is 'architectural' painting that acts in the same abstract way that buildings do. This is also the explanation as to why it's better to be 'surrounded' by them, rather than taking them one at a time.

Add the fact that these canvasses sell for millions and the mystery deepens.

I don't think this is worth that much thought.

For one thing, these paintings have not been sold and did not cost the UK any public (or private) money to acquire - they were a gift to the British from Rothko himself. The fact that no money has ever changed hands for them should actually free us from what is often an insurmountable distraction.

There is so much in the world that is priced in a way that is difficult to understand, along with a lot that people see as being a mystery but is actually extremely straightforward and easy to explain (such as the difference between the money a nurse earns and that which David Beckham earns).

Of course, the short answer is that anything is worth just above what the second highest bidder is willing to pay for it. We'd have to talk to a buyer to understand all the different reasons he is willing to shell out many millions for a certain artist's work.

Do explain...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Perhaps more than any other paintings you can think of, these are very poorly served by a small single image on a computer. As I have said above they are designed to be viewed together, preferably in some kind of 360 degree view, in my opinion, and both the scale and the subtlety of the surface are significant in producing their effect.

Apologies to Bobo, as ever.

[Montreal Wanderer]

In attempting to gauge Bobo's reaction, my mind has boggled.

[bobo the clown]

In attempting to gauge Bobo's reaction, my mind has boggled.

I'm all for the room with shutters ..... but a locked dsoor as well.

I'm also all for doing unspeakable things to people who call rooms "spaces". That's another story, however.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The only other thing I really I looked at was the room of Richter abstracts, which I am still baffled by.

I'll seek them out next time i'm in London...

Why are you baffled by them, though? What questions are you asking of them? What do you seek from them?

I ask this without any truculence, I ask in a conversational tone - I was surprised by my powerful response to his abstracts, how much I instinctively liked them, as I said many pages ago, the Richter exhibition was the first time I found a way to engage with abstraction. And that has been confirmed since - with the Rothko...

Erm, I think I would just like to know why he makes them (or rather, why he started making them) and why he makes them in such numbers.

I have now seen so many of these enormous things in so many different colour combinations... it looks a bit like an industrial production line.

I think he hit upon a production technique with the squeegee that might have been interesting once or twice as decorative pieces, or even a reflection on organised chaos or calculated/controlled randomness (or any other trendy oxymoron). But beyond that, they're a bit boring and I almost feel sorry for him being trapped by their success and having to keep going through the motions and churning them out. As ever, I'm open to suggestions as to why it is something that is worth re-visiting (and then again, and again, and again...).

I agree, btw with your critique of the space - but Rothko insisted on a darker, sombre space for these and the gallery provides this... He was wrong... IMHO...

I have actually changed my mind on this, as above. I do think the room (space) is wrong but for other reasons.

Tate Modern is an essential gallery, but one of the least welcoming to visit... The massive basement space should be turned over, free of charge, to young artists with no money, who need a London studio... Carve it up into 5 metre x 5 metre studio spaces and have a vibrant market space to sell their work before the exit... They get two or three years and then the next artists get their opportunity... Let visitors be able to see them working, make the space a creative space, not a cavernous vacuum... Access 24/7 for the artists - so many work in the night...

An interesting thought. Your natural affinity for and inclination towards the artists' cooperative/commune is touching.

I do wonder how many of history's great artists would have been happy working with the constant possibility of Joe Bloggs popping his head round the door, however.

Of course the big empty shell is a ridiculous an unattractive use of a large amount of London real estate, but I was thinking more about the exhibition space, which is so unnecessarily sterile and uninspiring.

[bobo the clown]

Space. Gosh you've turned very 'London'.

I may need to hunt you down.

[William the White]

I do wonder how many of history's great artists would have been happy working with the constant possibility of Joe Bloggs popping his head round the door, however.

Of course the big empty shell is a ridiculous an unattractive use of a large amount of London real estate, but I was thinking more about the exhibition space, which is so unnecessarily sterile and uninspiring.

Great artists can usually afford to buy their privacy if they wish - or spend their money in other useful ways. Of which my favourite is Picasso's famous million franc donation to the strike fund of French coal miners.

In Bolton the splendid neoartists have taken over a couple of unused spaces and turned them into studios... One a former cotton mill... no shortage of those in Bolton.

http://www.neoartists.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They also have a town centre gallery in the Market Place, and are an all round dynamic bunch, of, mostly, graduates of the University of Bolton's art degrees...

There's a similar one in Lancaster also...

It isn't established artists that need these spaces, it's emerging ones - those leaving universities and needing to build on what they have learned...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I do wonder how many of history's great artists would have been happy working with the constant possibility of Joe Bloggs popping his head round the door, however.

Of course the big empty shell is a ridiculous an unattractive use of a large amount of London real estate, but I was thinking more about the exhibition space, which is so unnecessarily sterile and uninspiring.

Great artists can usually afford to buy their privacy if they wish - or spend their money in other useful ways. Of which my favourite is Picasso's famous million franc donation to the strike fund of French coal miners.

In Bolton the splendid neoartists have taken over a couple of unused spaces and turned them into studios... One a former cotton mill... no shortage of those in Bolton.

http://www.neoartists.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They also have a town centre gallery in the Market Place, and are an all round dynamic bunch, of, mostly, graduates of the University of Bolton's art degrees...

There's a similar one in Lancaster also...

It isn't established artists that need these spaces, it's emerging ones - those leaving universities and needing to build on what they have learned...

Lots of great artists were in pretty straightened circumstances as they established a reputation - and some even died before it happened - but you know that.

How many of those spaces the 'neoartists' use are open to the public? I'm not saying there isn't a need for the spaces, just that most wouldn't want to have the public looking on while they are working.

Do you like any of the work of the neoartists? I just looked at quite a large random sample and couldn't find much that interested me.

[TANGODANCER]

Anyway...

Been perusing the works of John Atkinson Grimshaw. His ability to capture various times of day, particularly night time, is quite stunning.

http://tinyurl.com/b79jlbt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Anyway...

Is that it?! I try and answer all your points, risking opprobrium from Bobo on the way, and that's it?!

Been perusing the works of John Atkinson Grimshaw. His ability to capture various times of day, particularly night time, is quite stunning.

http://tinyurl.com/b79jlbt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd like to see some of those, Tango. I don't know of many night time painters, now I think about it.

What brought him to mind?

[thebish]

Anyway...

Is that it?! I try and answer all your points, risking opprobrium from Bobo on the way, and that's it?!

you were warned!!!

[thebish]

Anyway...

Been perusing the works of John Atkinson Grimshaw. His ability to capture various times of day, particularly night time, is quite stunning.

http://tinyurl.com/b79jlbt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is this the guy that, basically, shone OHP projections of photos onto canvases and traced them?

[bobo the clown]

Anyway...

Is that it?! I try and answer all your points, risking opprobrium from Bobo on the way, and that's it?!

Risking ? RISKING ??

[TANGODANCER]

Anyway...

Is that it?! I try and answer all your points, risking opprobrium from Bobo on the way, and that's it?!

Been perusing the works of John Atkinson Grimshaw. His ability to capture various times of day, particularly night time, is quite stunning.

http://tinyurl.com/b79jlbt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd like to see some of those, Tango. I don't know of many night time painters, now I think about it.

What brought him to mind?

I think I mentioned him once before in association with Pre-Raphaelites. Never seen any of his live stuff, only in books and the internet. Look on Google Images under Monnlight painters. Then there was Whistler, of course.

[TANGODANCER]

Anyway...

Been perusing the works of John Atkinson Grimshaw. His ability to capture various times of day, particularly night time, is quite stunning.

http://tinyurl.com/b79jlbt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is this the guy that, basically, shone OHP projections of photos onto canvases and traced them?

If so, I've never heard that. He's just a great Victorian painter as far as I know.

[Little Green Man]

Anyway...

Been perusing the works of John Atkinson Grimshaw. His ability to capture various times of day, particularly night time, is quite stunning.

http://tinyurl.com/b79jlbt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is this the guy that, basically, shone OHP projections of photos onto canvases and traced them?

If so, I've never heard that. He's just a great Victorian painter as far as I know.

Don't worry, TD. The overhead projector was not widely available in Victorian times so I guess his use of it wasn't well known. Come to think of it, photographs weren't too common either.

[TANGODANCER]

There were actually some very good ones in later Victorian times L.G.M, as these by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe prove.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us