The Great Art Debate

[Montreal Wanderer]

I hate to sound like I'm taking some Polytechnic 'gender studies' course, but regular viewers will notice that I have been quite heavily influenced by a certain radical Socialist commentator. Who'd have thought it...

Then stop it.

Yes, but with his comments on ArtFinder he is beginning to get groupies and that can't be bad, can it? Once he finds what a PCL is he'll be in clover....

[bobo the clown]

Where the 'art' shows no craft other than it has conned the people who seek to be seen as intectual enough to 'understand' it, craving acceptance by those who also hug themselves in their depth of analysis and feelings then yes, it is unworthy and embarrassing.

I would refer you, in my simple way, to the Emperor's New Clothes.

There is a difference between disagreeing on something's merit and simply being conned.

This is abstract, it has no obvious 'meaning' but is, to me, pleasing. I, you, experts and a million other people could search for it's meaning. Every one would interpret it differently ... whatever the artist says is fact ... but it shows skill, thought and depth. Even if it didn't please me I could accept it has worth.



This one pleases me less ... not at all, in honesty, but it remains that it shows ability & thought and will have genuine worth, just not to me.



This, meanwhile is a piss-take;



Anyone who 'understands' the depth of this is taking the piss ... probably fake ... and craving acceptance.


In my humble opinion, of course.

[TANGODANCER]

Re-sized view of your masterpiece Bobo. Hope you don't mind but it was off my screen.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Where the 'art' shows no craft other than it has conned the people who seek to be seen as intectual enough to 'understand' it, craving acceptance by those who also hug themselves in their depth of analysis and feelings then yes, it is unworthy and embarrassing.

I would refer you, in my simple way, to the Emperor's New Clothes.

There is a difference between disagreeing on something's merit and simply being conned.

I've got a book on my shelf entitled 'Naked Emperors', which is a collection of articles about contemporary art in the UK by Brian Sewell. I agree with more or less every word.

I agree that there is a difference between disagreeing on something's merit and simply being conned, but am not sure what has prompted this particular comment?

Surely not an appreciation for Manet's 'Déjeuner sur l'herbe'? An interest in that painting is as much an interest in some social history, as anything (as with so many others).

Or are you having a delayed reaction to my comments on the Seagram Murals (the only Rothkos I have seen), which didn't exhibit any pseudo intellectualism and basically amounted to "they remind me a bit of some Renaissance buildings"?

[thebish]

mods... I think Tango and Bobo are the same person and it is a duplicate account! boooooooooooo!!

[thebish]

Where the 'art' shows no craft other than it has conned the people who seek to be seen as intectual enough to 'understand' it, craving acceptance by those who also hug themselves in their depth of analysis and feelings then yes, it is unworthy and embarrassing.

yes, Bobo - you are comfortably in the comfort-zone of most "I'm an average man on the clapham omnibus" people...

but I think this is actually an interesting question..

you SEEM to be suggesting that great art is basically about technique/craft/penmanship/draughtsmanship whatever - and not about the expression of ideas.... and maybe - though you haven't said the directly - looking like something recognisable.

whilst all of us can see some truth in what you are saying - I think this essentially (and perhaps proudly and deliberately?) misses the point...

an artist fabulously skilled at drawing might spend her life drawing pictures of robins on branches. I'd probably admire her technique - but for me to consider it to be "great art" it would have to move me in some way - cause me to ask questions of the world or myself or life in general...

I'm not saying that is impossible with a picture of a robin on a branch - but - however skillfully drawn the red-breasted blighter was - it'd have a hard time if it was just an accurate representation of a robin on a branch - moving me or having me want to travel to a gallery to look at it...

if art is merely accurate representation of the real world - then drawing and painting the world would have died when photography and film arrived... but they didn't - because art is something more than that.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Where the 'art' shows no craft other than it has conned the people who seek to be seen as intectual enough to 'understand' it, craving acceptance by those who also hug themselves in their depth of analysis and feelings then yes, it is unworthy and embarrassing.

I would refer you, in my simple way, to the Emperor's New Clothes.

There is a difference between disagreeing on something's merit and simply being conned.

I've got a book on my shelf entitled 'Naked Emperors', which is a collection of articles about contemporary art in the UK by Brian Sewell. I agree with more or less every word.

I agree that there is a difference between disagreeing on something's merit and simply being conned, but am not sure what has prompted this particular comment?

Surely not an appreciation for Manet's 'Déjeuner sur l'herbe'? An interest in that painting is as much an interest in some social history, as anything (as with so many others).

Or are you having a delayed reaction to my comments on the Seagram Murals (the only Rothkos I have seen), which didn't exhibit any pseudo intellectualism and basically amounted to "they remind me a bit of some Renaissance buildings"?

So what was it?!

[bobo the clown]

Where the 'art' shows no craft other than it has conned the people who seek to be seen as intectual enough to 'understand' it, craving acceptance by those who also hug themselves in their depth of analysis and feelings then yes, it is unworthy and embarrassing.

....you SEEM to be suggesting that great art is basically about technique/craft/penmanship/draughtsmanship whatever - and not about the expression of ideas.... and maybe - though you haven't said the directly - looking like something recognisable.

I'm not saying that is impossible with a picture of a robin on a branch - but - however skillfully drawn the red-breasted blighter was - it'd have a hard time if it was just an accurate representation of a robin on a branch - moving me or having me want to travel to a gallery to look at it....

... & if my examples above included your metaphorical robin you'd have a point.

However, what I personally find pleasing is control mixed with skill. In my first example, if you want I can locate emotions to what I feel when I look at it. I can also look at it for a long time and see ever more features. It pleases me and I can draw interpretations from it. However, most of all, I just like it.

The second, much less 'skilled' in my mind, still offers me interpretations and feeling's I enjoy. Nowhere near the first, yet nonetheless it's there. However, there is a clear randomness ... luck indeed, and far less craft, The throws, the crossing, the 2nd & 3rd layers offer me something but ... where the drips and dribbles are, where the pooling is and what affect it has is not controlled.

Nonetheless I can find emotions in it.

In both cases however I believe what I see & feel will be independant to me. If the artists tell me what they felt ... what they meant ... it's unlikely to be what I did. However I may understand what they meant when they explain it.

In the case of the 3rd example it's very simple. It's a crock of shite.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The second, much less 'skilled' in my mind, still offers me interpretations and feeling's I enjoy. Nowhere near the first, yet nonetheless it's there. However, there is a clear randomness ... luck indeed, and far less craft, The throws, the crossing, the 2nd & 3rd layers offer me something but ... where the drips and dribbles are, where the pooling is and what affect it has is not controlled.

Nonetheless I can find emotions in it.

Have you changed your mind since you said "This one pleases me less ... not at all, in honesty" when you introduced it?

I can't be doing with the Jackson Pollock 'ejaculate all over the canvas' stuff. It's a similar mystery to the Richters.

[bobo the clown]

Where the 'art' shows no craft other than it has conned the people who seek to be seen as intectual enough to 'understand' it, craving acceptance by those who also hug themselves in their depth of analysis and feelings then yes, it is unworthy and embarrassing.

I would refer you, in my simple way, to the Emperor's New Clothes.

There is a difference between disagreeing on something's merit and simply being conned.

I've got a book on my shelf entitled 'Naked Emperors', which is a collection of articles about contemporary art in the UK by Brian Sewell. I agree with more or less every word.

I agree that there is a difference between disagreeing on something's merit and simply being conned, but am not sure what has prompted this particular comment?

Surely not an appreciation for Manet's 'Déjeuner sur l'herbe'? An interest in that painting is as much an interest in some social history, as anything (as with so many others).

Or are you having a delayed reaction to my comments on the Seagram Murals (the only Rothkos I have seen), which didn't exhibit any pseudo intellectualism and basically amounted to "they remind me a bit of some Renaissance buildings"?

So what was it?!

It has absolutely nothing to do with any appreciation of the Manet ... which I don't especially like.

Nor the comments on the Rothko's.

Just a more sweeping view of people ... any people ... seeking to appear to understand the deeper meaning of work which has none. I tend to the view that much of ultra modern art is bullshit and is, at best, conning it's advocates.

[bobo the clown]

The second, much less 'skilled' in my mind, still offers me interpretations and feeling's I enjoy. Nowhere near the first, yet nonetheless it's there. However, there is a clear randomness ... luck indeed, and far less craft, The throws, the crossing, the 2nd & 3rd layers offer me something but ... where the drips and dribbles are, where the pooling is and what affect it has is not controlled.

Nonetheless I can find emotions in it.

Have you changed your mind since you said "This one pleases me less ... not at all, in honesty" when you introduced it?

I can't be doing with the Jackson Pollock 'ejaculate all over the canvas' stuff. It's a similar mystery to the Richters.

I suppose I was trying to be fairer to it.

I CAN see something there. But don't see it as especially skilled.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

]It has absolutely nothing to do with any appreciation of the Manet ... which I don't especially like.

Nor the comments on the Rothko's.

Just a more sweeping view of people ... any people ... seeking to appear to understand the deeper meaning of work which has none. I tend to the view that much of ultra modern art is bullshit and is, at best, conning it's advocates.

You told me specifically that one day I'd be embarrassed by this 'phase', and this seemed to follow my comment that I often find myself agreeing with John Berger when I look at paintings of women.

[thebish]

Where the 'art' shows no craft other than it has conned the people who seek to be seen as intectual enough to 'understand' it, craving acceptance by those who also hug themselves in their depth of analysis and feelings then yes, it is unworthy and embarrassing.

....you SEEM to be suggesting that great art is basically about technique/craft/penmanship/draughtsmanship whatever - and not about the expression of ideas.... and maybe - though you haven't said the directly - looking like something recognisable.

I'm not saying that is impossible with a picture of a robin on a branch - but - however skillfully drawn the red-breasted blighter was - it'd have a hard time if it was just an accurate representation of a robin on a branch - moving me or having me want to travel to a gallery to look at it....

... & if my examples above included your metaphorical robin you'd have a point.

However, what I personally find pleasing is control mixed with skill.

what do you mean by "control"?

[bobo the clown]

]It has absolutely nothing to do with any appreciation of the Manet ... which I don't especially like.

Nor the comments on the Rothko's.

Just a more sweeping view of people ... any people ... seeking to appear to understand the deeper meaning of work which has none. I tend to the view that much of ultra modern art is bullshit and is, at best, conning it's advocates.

You told me specifically that one day I'd be embarrassed by this 'phase', and this seemed to follow my comment that I often find myself agreeing with John Berger when I look at paintings of women.

Ah, the memory of the young.

Yes .... & you will.

[bobo the clown]

Where the 'art' shows no craft other than it has conned the people who seek to be seen as intectual enough to 'understand' it, craving acceptance by those who also hug themselves in their depth of analysis and feelings then yes, it is unworthy and embarrassing.

....you SEEM to be suggesting that great art is basically about technique/craft/penmanship/draughtsmanship whatever - and not about the expression of ideas.... and maybe - though you haven't said the directly - looking like something recognisable.

I'm not saying that is impossible with a picture of a robin on a branch - but - however skillfully drawn the red-breasted blighter was - it'd have a hard time if it was just an accurate representation of a robin on a branch - moving me or having me want to travel to a gallery to look at it....

... & if my examples above included your metaphorical robin you'd have a point.

However, what I personally find pleasing is control mixed with skill.

what do you mean by "control"?

As I said "However, what I personally find pleasing is control mixed with skill ...".

A mixture of abilty but with direction and structure. That's my taste. Contrast my example 1 and example 2.

[thebish]

Where the 'art' shows no craft other than it has conned the people who seek to be seen as intectual enough to 'understand' it, craving acceptance by those who also hug themselves in their depth of analysis and feelings then yes, it is unworthy and embarrassing.

....you SEEM to be suggesting that great art is basically about technique/craft/penmanship/draughtsmanship whatever - and not about the expression of ideas.... and maybe - though you haven't said the directly - looking like something recognisable.

I'm not saying that is impossible with a picture of a robin on a branch - but - however skillfully drawn the red-breasted blighter was - it'd have a hard time if it was just an accurate representation of a robin on a branch - moving me or having me want to travel to a gallery to look at it....

... & if my examples above included your metaphorical robin you'd have a point.

However, what I personally find pleasing is control mixed with skill.

what do you mean by "control"?

As I said "However, what I personally find pleasing is control mixed with skill ...".

A mixture of abilty but with direction and structure. That's my taste. Contrast my example 1 and example 2.

I am still struggling to understand what the difference is in what you are describing between skill and control - not at all sure what is being "controlled" in your description - drips? or the emotions of the viewer? if it's drips - isn't that just skill??

[bobo the clown]

....you SEEM to be suggesting that great art is basically about technique/craft/penmanship/draughtsmanship whatever - and not about the expression of ideas.... and maybe - though you haven't said the directly - looking like something recognisable.

I'm not saying that is impossible with a picture of a robin on a branch - but - however skillfully drawn the red-breasted blighter was - it'd have a hard time if it was just an accurate representation of a robin on a branch - moving me or having me want to travel to a gallery to look at it....

... & if my examples above included your metaphorical robin you'd have a point.

However, what I personally find pleasing is control mixed with skill.

what do you mean by "control"?

As I said "However, what I personally find pleasing is control mixed with skill ...".

A mixture of abilty but with direction and structure. That's my taste. Contrast my example 1 and example 2.

I am still struggling to understand what the difference is in what you are describing between skill and control - not at all sure what is being "controlled" in your description - drips? or the emotions of the viewer? if it's drips - isn't that just skill??

I said that, in the second there was too much which was random, to much uncontrolled for my taste. Drips, splashes, pooling & flicked lines are NOT controlled. Though I could look & see some emotions it is NOT controlled enough for my PERSONAL taste.

The first example achieves those conditions & suits my personal preferences.

At which ... enough.

[TANGODANCER]

I'd be interested to hear what you all make of this:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

]It has absolutely nothing to do with any appreciation of the Manet ... which I don't especially like.

Nor the comments on the Rothko's.

Just a more sweeping view of people ... any people ... seeking to appear to understand the deeper meaning of work which has none. I tend to the view that much of ultra modern art is bullshit and is, at best, conning it's advocates.

You told me specifically that one day I'd be embarrassed by this 'phase', and this seemed to follow my comment that I often find myself agreeing with John Berger when I look at paintings of women.

Ah, the memory of the young.

Yes .... & you will.

[thebish]

I'd be interested to hear what you all make of this:

why?