The Great Art Debate

[Worthy4England]

That wabbit, with it's eyes and claws looks evil. I think it's the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog.

I can appreciate that type of art.

[TANGODANCER]

I don't mind that Trust Me work but I can't help thinking it would have been much better if it had been one of those insect-o-cutors.

For this and for Albecht Durer.....

[Prufrock]

Great art, it seems, has little to do with the ability to draw,paint of carve sculptures, but a burning desire to say something,

Works for me!

My two penneth.

I don't think I could accept any definition of 'art' which didn't involve somebody 'saying something'!

If it's a superficial liking based only on how pretty you find something, then you're talking about artisanship. There's nothing wrong with that, plenty music, books and pictures I like I like because of the way they put together, but artisanship is not itself art. They're different things, with their own value.

If art requires somebody to be saying something, then whether or not it is 'great' depends on: how important the thing they are saying is, and how well they say it. Artisanship can certainly be part of the latter, but I don't think it's essential.

I'm not sure the 'saying something' always has to be conscious. Literature is probably the best example for this; I'm certain that many of the touches and moments of beauty we find in great literature from Homer through Shakespeare to Hemmingway were reflections of the writer's subconscious (of course many were in fact conscious as well). That doesn't mean they aren't there though, or make them less relevant.

Dear old Oscar Wilde wouldn't have been a fan of Emin. The ideas of aesthetics and that works should be taken as found without any need for knowledge of the artist seem to obviously disqualify all examples of 'modern art' that I've ever seen. For once though, I think Ozzie was wrong. Van Gogh's chair on its own is a nice picture (though one of the legs is a bit dodgy and the corners are shit), and taken on its own there are plenty things it could be saying. But quite obviously it says more once you know the back story and its link to Gauguin's own painting of his armchair.

Tracey Emin's stuff goes one step further down that path. Without the back story it's meaningless. It is just a neon sign. But with the back story it's quite obviously more than that. I draw the line at that chancing prick Damien Hurst though. I can't see what it is, but I could just about see how formaldehyding a shark could mean something (the sickeningly pretentious title makes me thing that it doesn't, but I could be wrong), but you're just taking the piss by then doing it with any dead thing you can get your hands on!

I've thought for a long time that many modern artists were taking the piss, precisely what those Chapman folks are on about, but I don't think Emin is one of them.

[TANGODANCER]

My two penneth.

I don't think I could accept any definition of 'art' which didn't involve somebody 'saying something'!

The irony of my remark seems to have escaped some. Saying something is more than just letting words emerge. I accept that we all see things differently, so should everyone.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Van Gogh's chair on its own is a nice picture (though one of the legs is a bit dodgy and the corners are shit), and taken on its own there are plenty things it could be saying. But quite obviously it says more once you know the back story and its link to Gauguin's own painting of his armchair.

Quick correction.

He was first moved by seeing the print of Dickens' vacant chair by his illustrator Luke Fildes.

And he also painted the Gauguin armchair to compare and contrast their personalities.

[Prufrock]

My two penneth.

I don't think I could accept any definition of 'art' which didn't involve somebody 'saying something'!

The irony of my remark seems to have escaped some. Saying something is more than just letting words emerge. I accept that we all see things differently, so should everyone.

The 'irony' has not escaped anyone. You thought you were making a scathing remark, but inadvertently stumbled on what many people would consider vital to any definition of art.

It seems blindingly obvious to me that with Emin's background, the words 'trust me' are more than just 'saying something'; that's someone who has something to say. I didn't know that until I read Crayons' piece, and without that knowledge, it's just a neon sign, but I still think any definition of art which limits it to only pretty things, or 'stuff that I like' is sterile, wrong, and tragically closed-off.

[Prufrock]

Van Gogh's chair on its own is a nice picture (though one of the legs is a bit dodgy and the corners are shit), and taken on its own there are plenty things it could be saying. But quite obviously it says more once you know the back story and its link to Gauguin's own painting of his armchair.

Quick correction.

He was first moved by seeing the print of Dickens' vacant chair by his illustrator Luke Fildes.

And he also painted the Gauguin armchair to compare and contrast their personalities.

Sorry, who is the 'he' in the second sentence, Fildes or Van Gogh? So VG responded to > Fildes who responded to > Gauguin? Or VG saw and responded to both?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Great art, it seems, has little to do with the ability to draw,paint of carve sculptures, but a burning desire to say something,

Works for me!

My two penneth.

I don't think I could accept any definition of 'art' which didn't involve somebody 'saying something'!

If it's a superficial liking based only on how pretty you find something, then you're talking about artisanship. There's nothing wrong with that, plenty music, books and pictures I like I like because of the way they put together, but artisanship is not itself art. They're different things, with their own value.

If art requires somebody to be saying something, then whether or not it is 'great' depends on: how important the thing they are saying is, and how well they say it. Artisanship can certainly be part of the latter, but I don't think it's essential.

I'm not sure the 'saying something' always has to be conscious. Literature is probably the best example for this; I'm certain that many of the touches and moments of beauty we find in great literature from Homer through Shakespeare to Hemmingway were reflections of the writer's subconscious (of course many were in fact conscious as well). That doesn't mean they aren't there though, or make them less relevant.

Dear old Oscar Wilde wouldn't have been a fan of Emin. The ideas of aesthetics and that works should be taken as found without any need for knowledge of the artist seem to obviously disqualify all examples of 'modern art' that I've ever seen. For once though, I think Ozzie was wrong. Van Gogh's chair on its own is a nice picture (though one of the legs is a bit dodgy and the corners are shit), and taken on its own there are plenty things it could be saying. But quite obviously it says more once you know the back story and its link to Gauguin's own painting of his armchair.

Tracey Emin's stuff goes one step further down that path. Without the back story it's meaningless. It is just a neon sign. But with the back story it's quite obviously more than that. I draw the line at that chancing prick Damien Hurst though. I can't see what it is, but I could just about see how formaldehyding a shark could mean something (the sickeningly pretentious title makes me thing that it doesn't, but I could be wrong), but you're just taking the piss by then doing it with any dead thing you can get your hands on!

I've thought for a long time that many modern artists were taking the piss, precisely what those Chapman folks are on about, but I don't think Emin is one of them.

Thing is I don't care about her back story. I have no interest in her back story whatsoever. and if I need her back story to appreciate her art, then obviously I'm not going to (appreciate her art). Ever.
Here's another thing I don't get: is it her 'art' because she's 'designed' it to be art, or is it art because she's presented it as such, or is it art because it just exists and is asociated with her back story, thus giving it meaning? Which of those three makes it art, or does it need a combination of two, or even all three, of those things to transform an object into an artwork. Because I see very little difference between everyday objects and her art. And if back stories alone transform an object into art why don't galleries show the noose that hung Eichman for example, or the note from Jack the Ripper, or Nelson Mandela's slippers, or Walt Disney's pipe? There's more back story to anyone of those than the entire tawdrity (I've just made that word up) that composes Emin's small and utterly insignificant life...

[Bruce Rioja]

I couldn't give a stuff about the attention-seeking whore, or her life, or her pathetic bits of tat that she proffers as look-at-me art. I find her and the whole thing offensive.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Van Gogh's chair on its own is a nice picture (though one of the legs is a bit dodgy and the corners are shit), and taken on its own there are plenty things it could be saying. But quite obviously it says more once you know the back story and its link to Gauguin's own painting of his armchair.

Quick correction.

He was first moved by seeing the print of Dickens' vacant chair by his illustrator Luke Fildes.

And he also painted the Gauguin armchair to compare and contrast their personalities.

Sorry, who is the 'he' in the second sentence, Fildes or Van Gogh? So VG responded to > Fildes who responded to > Gauguin? Or VG saw and responded to both?

VG saw fildes and painted both of the chair paintings you are thinking of. As far as I know, Gauguin never painted an empty chair (or bed, the perverted bastard).

[Worthy4England]

I too have no interest in her "back story". If I have to know about that, then it's all about her and bugger all about the art (from my perspective). If she's crying out for help, I'd suggest Social Services might be a decent bet for her.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I really like where it is at work - it has an 'Arbeit macht frei' feel to it as you go into the lecture theatre!

[TANGODANCER]

Van Gogh's chair on its own is a nice picture (though one of the legs is a bit dodgy and the corners are shit), and taken on its own there are plenty things it could be saying. But quite obviously it says more once you know the back story and its link to Gauguin's own painting of his armchair.

Quick correction.

He was first moved by seeing the print of Dickens' vacant chair by his illustrator Luke Fildes.

And he also painted the Gauguin armchair to compare and contrast their personalities.

If I may: without any attached stories or explanations, what exactly do you have there? You have a painting of a chair, nothing more, nothing less. Now I can well understand why Van Gogh painted that chair; he saw it, he got an urge to paint it, he painted it; that happens. He will have enjoyed doing that and probably gained some personal satisfaction from it. At that time only he would see any significance beyond a picture of a chair.

Like many other artists,his fame came posthumously, mainly because the production line dried up and a rarity angle crept in. Many years ago, I used to stand outside Wades Furniture shop on Deansgate and gaze longingly at a signed proof by William Russell Flint. Back then it was fifty something pounds. One day the price had become over three hundred pounds. I went in from curiosity and asked why. " He died a couple of days ago" I was told. That was in 1969.

My sketch book has all sorts of bits in it that mean absolutely nothing to anyone but me. It's a pictorial diary just for my amusement and far more fun than painting actual pictures. A bunch of daffodils, trees, ships, a view through our window in the rain, a scene from a film, even a Warburton's sliced loaf, all may have little stories than will only ever mean anything to me. They're just personal.

In truth, is there any such thing as great art that applies to everybody? There are no real experts on art that can make an explanation to suit all, and if there are any real critics it's the artists themselves who know what they're saying. Everyone else needs to be told. It's all about personal opinion and nothing more.

[TANGODANCER]

The 'irony' has not escaped anyone. You thought you were making a scathing remark, but inadvertently stumbled on what many people would consider vital to any definition of art.

Oh, well thanks for explaining to me what I meant. Good of you. See that's what pisses me off about the whole topic. I don't need condescending explanations, I'm quite capable of understanding what I mean. Thanks anyway, I'm sure you meant well.

[Prufrock]

Great art, it seems, has little to do with the ability to draw,paint of carve sculptures, but a burning desire to say something,

Works for me!

My two penneth.

I don't think I could accept any definition of 'art' which didn't involve somebody 'saying something'!

If it's a superficial liking based only on how pretty you find something, then you're talking about artisanship. There's nothing wrong with that, plenty music, books and pictures I like I like because of the way they put together, but artisanship is not itself art. They're different things, with their own value.

If art requires somebody to be saying something, then whether or not it is 'great' depends on: how important the thing they are saying is, and how well they say it. Artisanship can certainly be part of the latter, but I don't think it's essential.

I'm not sure the 'saying something' always has to be conscious. Literature is probably the best example for this; I'm certain that many of the touches and moments of beauty we find in great literature from Homer through Shakespeare to Hemmingway were reflections of the writer's subconscious (of course many were in fact conscious as well). That doesn't mean they aren't there though, or make them less relevant.

Dear old Oscar Wilde wouldn't have been a fan of Emin. The ideas of aesthetics and that works should be taken as found without any need for knowledge of the artist seem to obviously disqualify all examples of 'modern art' that I've ever seen. For once though, I think Ozzie was wrong. Van Gogh's chair on its own is a nice picture (though one of the legs is a bit dodgy and the corners are shit), and taken on its own there are plenty things it could be saying. But quite obviously it says more once you know the back story and its link to Gauguin's own painting of his armchair.

Tracey Emin's stuff goes one step further down that path. Without the back story it's meaningless. It is just a neon sign. But with the back story it's quite obviously more than that. I draw the line at that chancing prick Damien Hurst though. I can't see what it is, but I could just about see how formaldehyding a shark could mean something (the sickeningly pretentious title makes me thing that it doesn't, but I could be wrong), but you're just taking the piss by then doing it with any dead thing you can get your hands on!

I've thought for a long time that many modern artists were taking the piss, precisely what those Chapman folks are on about, but I don't think Emin is one of them.

Thing is I don't care about her back story. I have no interest in her back story whatsoever. and if I need her back story to appreciate her art, then obviously I'm not going to (appreciate her art). Ever.
Here's another thing I don't get: is it her 'art' because she's 'designed' it to be art, or is it art because she's presented it as such, or is it art because it just exists and is asociated with her back story, thus giving it meaning? Which of those three makes it art, or does it need a combination of two, or even all three, of those things to transform an object into an artwork. Because I see very little difference between everyday objects and her art. And if back stories alone transform an object into art why don't galleries show the noose that hung Eichman for example, or the note from Jack the Ripper, or Nelson Mandela's slippers, or Walt Disney's pipe? There's more back story to anyone of those than the entire tawdrity (I've just made that word up) that composes Emin's small and utterly insignificant life...

For me it's that she designed it. She's saying something with it. You need to have some background knowledge to get it so it's probably a bit self-indulgent, but once you have that knowledge it's undoubtedly more than just a neon sign. There's nothing visibly different between a print out of some computer code, and Hamlet. Context is key.That's not a perfect analogy because Hamlet only necessarily requires you to be able to read, whereas Emin's stuff needs you do be able to recognise what it is AND have the backstory. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that Shakespeare is better for a knowledge of the background and context. Not my taste, but TD raves about Jane Austen because of the way it speaks of the culture at the time. If art is better enjoyed in the context of its background, then why shouldn't something which only makes sense in that context be art too. Put it this way, if you knew Emin personally, and you saw that sign, suddenly it's not just a neon sign.

I'm not saying, btw, that everyone should accept that what Emin does is 'art'. It is for me, but I can get a view point which requires something to say what it's saying without needing this background knowledge. I can also get a view that says something needs to be beautiful. I just can't get that it *only* needs to be beautiful

[Prufrock]

The 'irony' has not escaped anyone. You thought you were making a scathing remark, but inadvertently stumbled on what many people would consider vital to any definition of art.

Oh, well thanks for explaining to me what I meant. Good of you. See that's what pisses me off about the whole topic. I don't need condescending explanations, I'm quite capable of understanding what I mean. Thanks anyway, I'm sure you meant well.

The irony of my remark seems to have escaped some.

[William the White]

I couldn't give a stuff about the attention-seeking whore, or her life, or her pathetic bits of tat that she proffers as look-at-me art. I find her and the whole thing offensive.

Offensive??? Look at your own post! And she clearly does bother you, you clearly do give a stuff about her, her life and her art.

You keep on posting about it!

[jaffka]

This art thread is a bit fiery

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Great art, it seems, has little to do with the ability to draw,paint of carve sculptures, but a burning desire to say something,

Works for me!

My two penneth.

I don't think I could accept any definition of 'art' which didn't involve somebody 'saying something'!

If it's a superficial liking based only on how pretty you find something, then you're talking about artisanship. There's nothing wrong with that, plenty music, books and pictures I like I like because of the way they put together, but artisanship is not itself art. They're different things, with their own value.

If art requires somebody to be saying something, then whether or not it is 'great' depends on: how important the thing they are saying is, and how well they say it. Artisanship can certainly be part of the latter, but I don't think it's essential.

I'm not sure the 'saying something' always has to be conscious. Literature is probably the best example for this; I'm certain that many of the touches and moments of beauty we find in great literature from Homer through Shakespeare to Hemmingway were reflections of the writer's subconscious (of course many were in fact conscious as well). That doesn't mean they aren't there though, or make them less relevant.

Dear old Oscar Wilde wouldn't have been a fan of Emin. The ideas of aesthetics and that works should be taken as found without any need for knowledge of the artist seem to obviously disqualify all examples of 'modern art' that I've ever seen. For once though, I think Ozzie was wrong. Van Gogh's chair on its own is a nice picture (though one of the legs is a bit dodgy and the corners are shit), and taken on its own there are plenty things it could be saying. But quite obviously it says more once you know the back story and its link to Gauguin's own painting of his armchair.

Tracey Emin's stuff goes one step further down that path. Without the back story it's meaningless. It is just a neon sign. But with the back story it's quite obviously more than that. I draw the line at that chancing prick Damien Hurst though. I can't see what it is, but I could just about see how formaldehyding a shark could mean something (the sickeningly pretentious title makes me thing that it doesn't, but I could be wrong), but you're just taking the piss by then doing it with any dead thing you can get your hands on!

I've thought for a long time that many modern artists were taking the piss, precisely what those Chapman folks are on about, but I don't think Emin is one of them.

Thing is I don't care about her back story. I have no interest in her back story whatsoever. and if I need her back story to appreciate her art, then obviously I'm not going to (appreciate her art). Ever.
Here's another thing I don't get: is it her 'art' because she's 'designed' it to be art, or is it art because she's presented it as such, or is it art because it just exists and is asociated with her back story, thus giving it meaning? Which of those three makes it art, or does it need a combination of two, or even all three, of those things to transform an object into an artwork. Because I see very little difference between everyday objects and her art. And if back stories alone transform an object into art why don't galleries show the noose that hung Eichman for example, or the note from Jack the Ripper, or Nelson Mandela's slippers, or Walt Disney's pipe? There's more back story to anyone of those than the entire tawdrity (I've just made that word up) that composes Emin's small and utterly insignificant life...

For me it's that she designed it. She's saying something with it. You need to have some background knowledge to get it so it's probably a bit self-indulgent, but once you have that knowledge it's undoubtedly more than just a neon sign. There's nothing visibly different between a print out of some computer code, and Hamlet. Context is key.That's not a perfect analogy because Hamlet only necessarily requires you to be able to read, whereas Emin's stuff needs you do be able to recognise what it is AND have the backstory. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that Shakespeare is better for a knowledge of the background and context. Not my taste, but TD raves about Jane Austen because of the way it speaks of the culture at the time. If art is better enjoyed in the context of its background, then why shouldn't something which only makes sense in that context be art too. Put it this way, if you knew Emin personally, and you saw that sign, suddenly it's not just a neon sign.

I'm not saying, btw, that everyone should accept that what Emin does is 'art'. It is for me, but I can get a view point which requires something to say what it's saying without needing this background knowledge. I can also get a view that says something needs to be beautiful. I just can't get that it *only* needs to be beautiful

It depends on what level the beaty lies, surely. If it is inherently, profoundly beautiful, that qualifies for me every time. I'm not saying other qualities don't enter into the equation, they do: I mean, Bosch's stuff is hardly 'beautiful'.

[/

This, on the other hand has but one quality, and that is 'beauty'. It also demonstrates another aspect of what, to me, art is. The beauty is not within the photograph, or the image, it is present in the 'piece' - you cannot begin to comprehend the beauty of Ryoanji without being there - no photograph does it justice.

[TANGODANCER]

Not my taste, but TD raves about Jane Austen because of the way it speaks of the culture at the time.

Again, not true: I enjoy Jane Austen's works but only Pride and Prejudice really grabs me and "Raves about it" is a bit over the top. It's a social commentary and a historical diary of the times indeed, also a decent story with humour being a prime consideration rather than the plot which is pretty weak and as a love story it's a non-starter. I'm no Janeite (hey, I even got banned from a J.A site for claiming she promoted the feminine angle a little too much), I just enjoy it for what it is.