The Great Art Debate

[TANGODANCER]

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

why?

Do you always answer a question with another one? I ask because of what it's supposed to represent. Since I suspect not one person on the planet would know, but when told,some will no doubt say, "ah, yes, I can see where he's going with that. Here's the official view, all way beyond me:

"Artist Greg Herzog's painting of Jesus Christ and Pablo Picasso shown through the art of colour coding DNA" .

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/1/prweb9148470.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lost Leopard Spot]

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

why?

Do you always answer a question with another one? I ask because of what it's supposed to represent. Since I suspect not one person on the planet would know, but when told,some will no doubt say, "ah, yes, I can see where he's going with that. Here's the official view, all way beyond me:

"Artist Greg Herzog's painting of Jesus Christ and Pablo Picasso shown through the art of colour coding DNA" .

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/1/prweb9148470.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WTF!!!
It's as much to do with DNA as my spaghetti hoops in tomato sauce which I didn't have for breakfast has, which is none at all.
Mr Herzog is Taking the Piss.

[thebish]

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

why?

Do you always answer a question with another one? I ask because of what it's supposed to represent. Since I suspect not one person on the planet would know, but when told,some will no doubt say, "ah, yes, I can see where he's going with that. Here's the official view, all way beyond me:

"Artist Greg Herzog's painting of Jesus Christ and Pablo Picasso shown through the art of colour coding DNA" .

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/1/prweb9148470.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I asked cos I wanted to know. My suspicion is that you don't actually want to discuss the relative merits or otherwise of the piece you show. Why do I think this? Well, a couple of pages you asked Mummy a question which he took a great deal of trouble in answering - at length - and you just totally ignored his answer making no response to his points at all.

I suspect that you are merely showing a picture that you think is a pile of crap and should anyone say any different (which I doubt they will) you will simply say "no, it's a pile of crap. that's my opinion, end of story."

So - from my perspective - a waste of time engaging with you about it because I don't really think you are interested in a discussion about it.

and - as you have declared that it is all beyond you and you have also told us that you clearly know nothing about art (and are quite happy in that state) - then what is the point of you asking? moreover - what would be the point of anyone taking the time to engage you with an answer?

[TANGODANCER]

I asked cos I wanted to know. My suspicion is that you don't actually want to discuss the relative merits or otherwise of the piece you show. Why do I think this? Well, a couple of pages you asked Mummy a question which he took a great deal of trouble in answering - at length - and you just totally ignored his answer making no response to his points at all.
I suspect that you are merely showing a picture that you think is a pile of crap and should anyone say any different (which I doubt they will) you will simply say "no, it's a pile of crap. that's my opinion, end of story."
So - from my perspective - a waste of time engaging with you about it because I don't really think you are interested in a discussion about it.
and - as you have declared that it is all beyond you and you have also told us that you clearly know nothing about art (and are quite happy in that state) - then what is the point of you asking? moreover - what would be the point of anyone taking the time to engage you with an answer?

Wow, even for you that's pomposity personifed. Well then, here's my "perspective"

See Bish, the difference between us is the fact that I'm totally unafraid of saying I don't understand something, or something is beyond me. You, on the other hand, are absolutely terrified of doing that in case you don't come across as all-knowing and a veritable font of knowlege on just about everything. If I asked Mummy something and he replied, why do I need to answer further? He gave his view, fine. If he required me to comment further I'm quite sure he's capable of saying so. What exactly has that got to do with you?

Next. I posted the pic because I was looking at a site of Picasso's paintings and that was on it. I was there because I have always wondered why the man chose cubism as the way to go. Sort of educating myself on one of those "don't understand" areas. If that's okay with you again of course. When I saw what it was supposed to represent, yes, I laughed. It looked like somebody went mad with a raspberry ripple maching over auntie Ada's knitting bag. So I asked how others saw it and got..."Why"? Followed by your "you're unworthy of an answer" rant. I suspect that was because you were afraid of giving an opinion on a direct question (as always). You'd much rather pick holes in other peoples' views than express one of your own.

As for taking the time to engage me with an answer, the solution is simple; save yourself the trouble and don't bother. Easy.

" Please accept my best wishes for your health and happiness"

[thebish]

I asked cos I wanted to know. My suspicion is that you don't actually want to discuss the relative merits or otherwise of the piece you show. Why do I think this? Well, a couple of pages you asked Mummy a question which he took a great deal of trouble in answering - at length - and you just totally ignored his answer making no response to his points at all.
I suspect that you are merely showing a picture that you think is a pile of crap and should anyone say any different (which I doubt they will) you will simply say "no, it's a pile of crap. that's my opinion, end of story."
So - from my perspective - a waste of time engaging with you about it because I don't really think you are interested in a discussion about it.
and - as you have declared that it is all beyond you and you have also told us that you clearly know nothing about art (and are quite happy in that state) - then what is the point of you asking? moreover - what would be the point of anyone taking the time to engage you with an answer?

Wow, even for you that's pomposity personifed. Well then, here's my "perspective"

See Bish, the difference between us is the fact that I'm totally unafraid of saying I don't understand something, or something is beyond me. You, on the other hand, are absolutely terrified of doing that in case you don't come across as all-knowing and a veritable font of knowlege on just about everything. If I asked Mummy something and he replied, why do I need to answer further? He gave his view, fine. If he required me to comment further I'm quite sure he's capable of saying so. What exactly has that got to do with you?

y'see - practically none of that is true. (apart from the fact that Mummy is capable of saying so. I know this - because he did express surprise at your lack of further comment given the time he had taken to respond to your post - and you ignored him!)

If I don't understand something - as I have said many times on here - I will ask. On this art thread you REVEL in not understanding. indeed - you wear it as a badge of pride. That's why I asked - because even if someone DID take your bait and enter into discussion about your picture - your mind is already closed and you would not respond other than to say "well it's all a matter of opinion and I think it's crap." (or summat very close to that.) To respond would be a waste of time. that's why I asked - to see if you actually did want to discuss that picture. Truth is, you don't, not really. If you are not open to learning/change/wanting to understand another perspective - then such an engagement would be a waste of time.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I was a bit surprised at Tango's lack of comment, but it wasn't the first time I have spoken at length giving my view on something, only for it to be followed by a slightly deflating "Aaaaaaanyway".

I am delighted that Bish is looking to take on some of the load with the grudges I am bearing, however!

[thebish]

I was a bit surprised at Tango's lack of comment, but it wasn't the first time I have spoken at length giving my view on something, only for it to be followed by a slightly deflating "Aaaaaaanyway".

I am delighted that Bish is looking to take on some of the load with the grudges I am bearing, however!

you ain't heavy... you're my brother!

[William the White]

Aaaannnyyywaaaayyyy...

I didn't like Herzog's painting and didn't understand his explanation.

But would like to hear/have a discussion with somebody that loved it and thinks that DNA Art is a significant breakthrough...

Provided they weren't armed and dangerous...

Though I do think Tango was setting a pretty transparent 'trap' - not the first one either...

[thebish]

Since I suspect not one person on the planet would know, but when told,some will no doubt say, "ah, yes, I can see where he's going with that.

it looks like this particular prophecy isn't coming true anytime soon....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

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

why?

Do you always answer a question with another one? I ask because of what it's supposed to represent. Since I suspect not one person on the planet would know, but when told,some will no doubt say, "ah, yes, I can see where he's going with that. Here's the official view, all way beyond me:

"Artist Greg Herzog's painting of Jesus Christ and Pablo Picasso shown through the art of colour coding DNA" .

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/1/prweb9148470.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

COLOR CODING DNA®

Brilliant.

That is amazing - not only is it all complete nonsense, but there are lots of non sequiturs within the already nonsensical material.

The painting is horrible.

I actually saw a Richter at Sotheby's I quite liked today, just because it made me feel a bit stupid.

In person, this was so luminous, I checked to see if it was some kind of translucent material lit from behind!

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/eca ... ot.23.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(The photo really doesn't do it justice)

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Whilst I don't see much artistic merit in his abstract works, I did discover today that Richter has some claim to being up there with art history's finest painters of clouds.

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/201 ... rview.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TANGODANCER]

Since I suspect not one person on the planet would know, but when told,some will no doubt say, "ah, yes, I can see where he's going with that.

it looks like this particular prophecy isn't coming true anytime soon....

You did a survey of the planet in three hours? Wow. Now I'm seriously impressed.

[William the White]

I actually saw a Richter at Sotheby's I quite liked today, just because it made me feel a bit stupid.

In person, this was so luminous, I checked to see if it was some kind of translucent material lit from behind!

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/eca ... ot.23.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(The photo really doesn't do it justice)

The adjective that comes to my mind when I think of his work...

In this case - 'behind' the verticals...

I'd like to see this full size. It's impossible to discover it on a screen.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I actually saw a Richter at Sotheby's I quite liked today, just because it made me feel a bit stupid.

In person, this was so luminous, I checked to see if it was some kind of translucent material lit from behind!

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/eca ... ot.23.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(The photo really doesn't do it justice)

The adjective that comes to my mind when I think of his work...

In this case - 'behind' the verticals...

I'd like to see this full size. It's impossible to discover it on a screen.

To be fair, Will, it's luminous because the paint he uses is!

It's a far cry from grinding up lapis lazuli to make a bit of blue, that's for sure.

I do find its part in the story of what colours artists have had to work with quite interesting. The bright yellow in it got me thinking what would people like Van Gogh might have achieved with these possibilities... instead we now read the sad story of the inexorable decay of his yellow paintings: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 49304.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, yes, that photo of the Richter is nothing like the effect in person.

One thing I did actually like was the fact that it's the smallest of these abstracts I have seen. I think they lose something and become more 'industrial' at the bigger sizes.

[thebish]

I've never seen any Richter live - he's a new on on me.



this painting puts me in mind of Barnett Newman's Stations of the Cross... He's the only artist I am aware of who used minimalist expressionism to tackle explicitly religious themes... (not that Richter is minimalist - it was simply the verticals that reminded me...)

actually - the picture it most put me in mind of was Newman's Atonement:

[Montreal Wanderer]

I've never seen any Richter live - he's a new on on me.



this painting puts me in mind of Barnett Newman's Stations of the Cross... He's the only artist I am aware of who used minimalist expressionism to tackle explicitly religious themes... (not that Richter is minimalist - it was simply the verticals that reminded me...)

actually - the picture it most put me in mind of was Newman's Atonement:

You did this to annoy Tango....

[William the White]

On a youtube search for the music of the brilliant Mexican singer Chavela Vargas and came across this tribute to the wonderful artist Frida Khalo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsD8FAShzaE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The song La llorona means 'the woman crying...'

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

On a youtube search for the music of the brilliant Mexican singer Chavela Vargas and came across this tribute to the wonderful artist Frida Khalo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsD8FAShzaE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The song La llorona means 'the woman crying...'

I'm not really a fan, Will, but then I can't see what people see in Gauguin or Rousseau's primitive stuff either.

Maybe in person it stands up as surrealist art?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

For the crayons...

See below... As posted on p79 of this thread...

It's small scale for Moore, in the centre of the room...

Are you going to catch the Manet?

There's a brilliant Henry Moore in the room before the Rothko, that, as so often with this artist's work, changes its impact as you move around the sculpture... It is another Mother and Child, a persistent motif for Moore, that from the front is shocking, as though a semi monster lurks within the figure, and from the far left side as you look at it, slightly behind, is a hooded mother with a fragile baby held tenderly...

I've tried to find the image online without success, but, just in case there are some interested, it really is worth searching out...

Is it this one?

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/moo ... orm-t02272" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't remember ever stopping to look at it. By the looks of things, it's only a preparatory model in plaster - I would quite like to see whatever the finished version was. I wouldn't seek out though - I think I'm quite impatient with artists who have 'persistent motifs' if I am not convinced they have a lot to say on the subject.

I had a first look at the Manet yesterday. I took a friend who did not have the interest and stamina for a proper visit, so it was just a leisurely stroll through. I am a friend of the RA and so can always go in for free with a plus one, so I'm sure I'll go another couple of times.

My first impressions... Manet at his best is almost up there with anyone who has ever painted. Some really excellent work. Some not so much, so he was also inconsistent.

His oeuvre has a brilliant quality of being groundbreaking, and with a very easily identifiable style, but also firmly rooted in the European tradition, with lots of references to old master paintings and borrowing of ideas and techniques from different periods and schools of European paintings. One thing I wasn't expecting was how much Dutch painting had influenced him, but in landscapes, lighting, and incorporation of still-life type settings.

It might be lacking a few of his famous paintings, and it is particularly regrettable that they didn't persuade the Courtauld, only a mile down the road, to lend them the Bar at the Folies-Bergère, but it an extensive exhibition that is well-worth seeing. If anything, I might have been more selective had I been curating, especially if it gave me the opportunity to show examples of the sorts of paintings the Paris Salon was accepting from his contemporaries, when they exhibited his.

[William the White]

On a youtube search for the music of the brilliant Mexican singer Chavela Vargas and came across this tribute to the wonderful artist Frida Khalo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsD8FAShzaE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The song La llorona means 'the woman crying...'

I'm not really a fan, Will, but then I can't see what people see in Gauguin or Rousseau's primitive stuff either.

Maybe in person it stands up as surrealist art?

Not surrealist, certainly, though perhaps taking permission from surrealism to move beyond the representational... She and Rivera (and others) created a Latin American experiment that is revolutionary in form and content... Rivera's Frescoes, Kahlo's bold sexuality... they both challenge the very fundamentals of a society historically gripped by reactionary catholicism and caudillismo - the ideology of the woman as servile or whore... and the 'leader' as object of secular worship and obedience...

They are splintering doors, smashing windows, consciously using art as a weapon... This stirs stuff within me... Almost certainly I view them within their moment more than you - this is no criticism, obviously, simply observation of the nerves that art hits - and it feels to me that at that moment they were vital...

I used to like Rivera more than Kahlo. I'm the other way round now... His frescoes are still impressive (I'm so glad they survive, and i was able to see them - thank you Channel 4)... but her work endures the longer, imho, is less exalted and more universal...