AoWW Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 I went to the Damien Hirst one the other week some of it is outstanding, all the works with the butterflies are stunning, especially in and out of love, the shark,judgement day etc are amazing works. for the love of god is something else. some of it i'm not sure I get the meaning of but it makes you stop and think at both what it represents and what it's suggesting and I guess thats the whole point of it. For me though much of the art in the tate modern is crap, they actually have a mirror attached to canvas and a massive orange canvas with a stripe down the side of it. As a massive fan of street art some of it is far better than many of the items in the tate modern imo. Artists like C215, El Mac, Roa, Vhils, connor harrington to name a few are producing some stunning pieces In fairness, I probably should put my negative views re Hirst to one side and give it another shot. I think my judgement's clouded somewhat by the fact that I think he's an arrogant, pretentious ****. I agree re a fair percentage of the work in the Tate Modern being overrated - and find the Saatchi Gallery even more so, with one or two exceptions. Street art is becoming increasingly sophisticated and is now a real artistic force to be reckoned with... I could have done with your list of names earlier today when I was put on the spot by a pupil who expected me to name some off the top of my head... after Banksy (obvious!), Ces53, ROA and Fairey, my mind went blank! The task on The Apprentice tonight is all about selling urban art - could be funny!
21st Century Fox Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 Just because celebrity drives other things does justify it's influence on value of art, why exclude Damien Hirst in your reasoning surely all art is subjective, I accept that I just think some of it is appreciated because someone of influence says it's good and people want to fit in, they might also benefit personally by talking up certain artist. I'd say it's directly applicable, look at film, you can have directors and actors who aren't necessarily skilled but are marketable because of their celebrity and have money thrown at them. The only difference in art is that the product that changes hands is a one-off and can demand a high fee. I'd exclude Damien Hirst because his art is arguably his celebrity.
davieG Posted 9 May 2012 Author Posted 9 May 2012 I'd say it's directly applicable, look at film, you can have directors and actors who aren't necessarily skilled but are marketable because of their celebrity and have money thrown at them. The only difference in art is that the product that changes hands is a one-off and can demand a high fee. I'd exclude Damien Hirst because his art is arguably his celebrity. It's applicable but doesn't justify it, surely from your previous statements there's plenty of art out there that is there because of the celebrity attached to it not just Damien Hurst. Anyway as interesting as this is I've got other things to do so I'm off.
Jay Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 In fairness, I probably should put my negative views re Hirst to one side and give it another shot. I think my judgement's clouded somewhat by the fact that I think he's an arrogant, pretentious ****. I agree re a fair percentage of the work in the Tate Modern being overrated - and find the Saatchi Gallery even more so, with one or two exceptions. Street art is becoming increasingly sophisticated and is now a real artistic force to be reckoned with... I could have done with your list of names earlier today when I was put on the spot by a pupil who expected me to name some off the top of my head... after Banksy (obvious!), Ces53, ROA and Fairey, my mind went blank! The task on The Apprentice tonight is all about selling urban art - could be funny! yeah it's pure evil and copyright I believe you should check out conor Harrington some of his stuff is amazing it's traditional stuff with a modern twist This is a piece he put up in Belfast at the weekend, stunning piece of work imo I could give you the names of hundreds of artists!! bit of a geek about it!! just love the temporary and constantly evolving nature of Street Art. Went to the ROA show at stolen space some awesome stuff
21st Century Fox Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 It's applicable but doesn't justify it, surely from your previous statements there's plenty of art out there that is there because of the celebrity attached to it not just Damien Hurst. Anyway as interesting as this is I've got other things to do so I'm off. No it doesn't but you can say that about pretty much everything. Yeah there is a lot some because they are genuinely skilled artists and some because like you said get talked up in the right circles but Damien Hirst is a prime example, he produces his work like a factory with students almost like it's a brand name, like his celebrity status is his art.
dave the caveman Posted 9 May 2012 Posted 9 May 2012 What a load of mouldy old cock. I don't get a lot of these drawings/paintings etc at all. They can never elicit the same emotional response as other art forms such as the written word, film or music. I can understand the appeal of a brilliant photograph that perfectly captures a situation and so I can understand a painting which achieves the same. But so many of these pieces of art depict nothing except what you subjectively attach to it. I can attach all sorts of confusing emotions to a banana and a tub of vaseline. Equally if I really tried I could probably see the essence of love in a curtain rail. But what's the ****ing point? It means nothing. There is nothing actually there. It's just absolute crap, and proof that as a species we have reached the stage where we have all turned into complete and utter twats.
ozleicester Posted 11 May 2012 Posted 11 May 2012 Modern art is (like all art) a matter of taste, I find looking at boring landscapes and religious paintings from the 1700's to be a waste of my time (mostly). However, a piece of modern art that makes me think or challenges my conditioning is a wonderful thing. But, as it should be...art is an individuals choice.
Daggers Posted 11 May 2012 Posted 11 May 2012 Our best family trips have been to art galleries. Nothing compares to seeing works for real - my kids really open up with their opinions. For me that is the point of it regardless of opinions as to whether it is 'good' or not.
Zingari Posted 11 May 2012 Posted 11 May 2012 Our best family trips have been to art galleries. Nothing compares to seeing works for real - my kids really open up with their opinions. For me that is the point of it regardless of opinions as to whether it is 'good' or not. Are these opinions along the lines of, “ we'd sooner you take us somewhere fookin interesting and exciting you tight git ?”
Daggers Posted 11 May 2012 Posted 11 May 2012 Are these opinions along the lines of, “ we'd sooner you take us somewhere fookin interesting and exciting you tight git ?”
Webbo Posted 11 May 2012 Posted 11 May 2012 Are these opinions along the lines of, “ we'd sooner you take us somewhere fookin interesting and exciting you tight git ?” You must have been standing behind us when I took my kids to National Portrait Gallery last year.
Zingari Posted 11 May 2012 Posted 11 May 2012 You must have been standing behind us when I took my kids to National Portrait Gallery last year. kids don't change much
Stuliasz Posted 11 May 2012 Posted 11 May 2012 Once went into an art museum in Perth to find amongst other things a piece titled "Four Black Canvases" - yes really it was just four black canvases hanging next to each other on a wall. There was also a room painted white containing everyday objects like a pair of trainers, a bike and other assorted junk, all painted white. This is when I realised that there is clearly a set of conartists that have probably got lucky with one piece, and then make a living out of producing any old crap that they just have to put their name to to get exhibited. Not to say there isn't some brilliant stuff out there just that there are a lot of posers which have success by conning people into interpreting what is basically a half-arsed effort at art as something more.
Daggers Posted 11 May 2012 Posted 11 May 2012 Depends on how long you keep them locked in the cellar.
Smudge Posted 11 May 2012 Posted 11 May 2012 Depends on how long you keep them locked in the cellar. Not long if that's where the wine is stored
Zingari Posted 12 May 2012 Posted 12 May 2012 I pretty much view art in the same way as I view all other talents whether that is in sport , singing , music etc etc That is , if it takes a lot of skill coupled with a lot of practice and polish , then I’m prepared to say “wow that was good” I also like to think that me and most of the rest of the audience would not and could not be able to do it If I’m watching BGT , then I’m going to say that a bloke with a saucepan on his head and singing like a dalek is no fookin good and I’m not going to struggle to put ridiculous interpretations on it .
Fox in the North Posted 16 December 2012 Posted 16 December 2012 As art, I like that as it makes you think. What I don't like in art is when I had to slog away during my course, people could just sell some coloured squares or an unmade bed for millions
acooling08 Posted 16 December 2012 Posted 16 December 2012 Art doesn't interest me at all really. I find architecture for example to be much more interesting.
AdamN Posted 16 December 2012 Posted 16 December 2012 Art doesn't interest me at all really. I find architecture for example to be much more interesting. I suppose you could say that architecture is an art in itself.
Rincewind Posted 16 December 2012 Posted 16 December 2012 Isn't architecture art in some way? I agree somewhat with what Zingari said (in May) If somebody can do something I cannot until I can do it as good if not better I cannot criticize. When I worked in the hosiery there were always one or twoi people who would laugh at my poetry and say it was crap but they never said why or how it could be improved or showed any evidence that they could do better. The worst thing was that I believed them and it wasn't until later on that I was more confident about it. I still do not rate it as noteworthy as to give me fame but I feel it is better than some who slate it. Yesterday I showed my nativity to somebody they were like 'Did you really write that?' as if I couldn't. I would find it difficult going round a gallery though of an exhibition of paintings that are just splashes of paint or squares in the same way as paintings that look like chocolate boxes. My favourite piece has always been The Scream. I don't know why. First time I saw it something about it impressed me. I have a copy of the Hayling above my fireplace a clown picture with a sad face whistling and smoking a cigar. In sculpture I like the unusual pieces. Greek and Roman and Aztec. but if an effort is made I can say I do not like it but I appreciate it.
davieG Posted 9 November 2013 Author Posted 9 November 2013 Tracey Emin - what a ****! Are you ****ing kidding me? Just in case you can't tell from the picture, this is a photo of Tracey rubbing money against her vagina. Which people are going to pay money to look at. Full article -http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/im-sick-of-pretending-i-dont-get-art
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.