Can They Paint Or Not?

[slim jenkins]

In the same way that I watch young(er) folk in the street and wonder if their outfits are dated and they're fashion losers...or...are they consciously cutting edge post-ironically naff? - I wondered about the 'art' I was looking at...whether it was deliberately bad (technically/conceptually) or just plain shit. I tended towards the latter, thinking that they were too young to have mastered any form before rejecting basic skills in favour of naivety.

I wasn't expecting anything as old-fashioned as figurative painting brilliantly executed (although that would have been the most 'shocking' work there). I saw no promise whatsoever. But it was inspiring in a way since I imagined attending the place (in an alternate universe) and getting a big successful career out of it by casting pigs in gold...or something.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I wasn't expecting anything as old-fashioned as figurative painting brilliantly executed (although that would have been the most 'shocking' work there).

That's just it, isn't it? When the shocking becomes conventional, the conventional becomes shocking...

 

[3 Body No Problem]

Yeah 3bodyproblem, that was a bit rubbish

I don't think you got the analogy.

The idea was that as long as you don't make an effort to take Chinese seriously, you wont understand Chinese literature, poems newspapers, it'll all be gobbledegook. Same with artworks: you need to expend some efforts with interesting art, else you wont be able to appreciate the beauty.

 

[Benny Bunter]

But doesn't the best art transcend the need to read up on and understand the concepts behind it, especially art which is meant to be beautiful? By that i mean art that taps into a universal consciousness that anyone can appreciate, no matter what 'language' its in. Thats the stuff I like anyway. I suppose i just want to get an instantaneous reaction when I see a piece of art, without having to read the blurb first.

:slanted:

I think the main problem is that many of the artists producing the sort of rubbish we've been discussing on this thread confuse novelty and originality. Like with the example of someone putting some mince in a perspex box (!) that someone mentioned earlier. Maybe no one had thought of that idea before, but that doesn't make it a good idea does it? And there's loads of this novelty about, often coupled with some concept that is actually quite banal and obvious when you get down to it.

 

[noel emits]

Art schools operate within and for the 'art system' and as such they have a tendency to encourage or reward the production of art that refers to other art rather than directly to more universal or immediate things, even just to aesthetics. Basically they are institutionally and structurally staring up each others arses.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

But doesn't the best art transcend the need to read up on and understand the concepts behind it, especially art which is meant to be beautiful?

No.

You cannot appreciate Chinese poetry without learning chinese.

By that i mean art that taps into a universal consciousness that anyone can appreciate, no matter what 'language' its in.

There doesn't seem to be such a thing. What you deem to be the "universal consciousness that anyone can appreciate" is culturally learned.

Thats the stuff I like anyway. I suppose i just want to get an instantaneous reaction when I see a piece of art, without having to read the blurb first.

Fair enough, but you might miss some amazing stuff!

And there's loads of this novelty about, often coupled with some concept that is actually quite banal and obvious when you get down to it.

Yeah, but why concentrate on the negatives? 80% of everything is dull.

 

[Benny Bunter]

No.

You cannot appreciate Chinese poetry without learning chinese.

Obviously not, but I was talking about visual art here, not poetry. Its a totally different thing. Someone can translate a chinese poem for me, then I could appreciate it. I don't have to learn chinese. I could look at a painting or sculpture from China and enjoy it without learning the language.

As for there being no universal consciousness. Well, maybe I was going a bit too far there. But we are all human aren't we? Of course reading around a subject to understand it enhances your appreciation of something. But there's got to be something to grab my interest in the first place.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think the main problem is that many of the artists producing the sort of rubbish we've been discussing on this thread confuse novelty and originality. Like with the example of someone putting some mince in a perspex box (!) that someone mentioned earlier. Maybe no one had thought of that idea before, but that doesn't make it a good idea does it?

If someone had done it before with beef mince, and you used lamb mince or quorn mince, would that make you original? You could spearhead an avant-garde Lambist new wave against the complacent, sclerotized Beefist art establishment...

 

[swears]

Anyone into Mike Nelson?

He creates these awesome, immersive installations with an uncanny, post-apocalyptic atmosphere.

 

[fokse vektaire xeven]

Yes, it could be an explanation. An alternative explanation would be that your expectations are unrealistically high.

to paraphrase dr johnson by way of mr james etc: "The public are the ultimate judges: if they are pleased, it is well; if not, it is no use to tell them why they ought to have been pleased."

the arts/ media establishment seems to have moved away from this and now speaks internally. the fact is-

Most great revolutionaries in art were criticised as talentless buffoons by the mainstream of their time. And relative those mainstream standards they might even have been. But those standards were obsolete.

craft, figuration etc. these things are intrinsically human and continue to engender a human response. in historical terms the kind of art that is often taught in colleges now is very much the aberration and that has only changed realtively recently.

No.

You cannot appreciate Chinese poetry without learning chinese.

Come on 3bnp. this won't do at all! and this thread bears that out a little. i can look at a chinese ink drawing and appreciate it- perhaps not precisely as intended, but that's part of the beauty of it. but not so with a chinese text. why do so many avant gardists value "primitive" or "outsider" art? because it is communicative.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

to paraphrase dr johnson by way of mr james etc: "The public are the ultimate judges:

This is a misunderstand -- very common to be sure -- in at least two ways. First it stipulates "the public" as an entity that arrives at a single judgement. Secondly, it presupposes that work of art are things to be summarised in a single neat judgement.

That attitude misunderstands the singlular character of art. The idea of summarising judgement is antithetical to the character of art.

Artworks could be understood as communications between an observer and the artwork (note that I don't say between observer and artist). An artwork may infuriate, enlighten, entrance, teach, annoy, ... the observer in multiple ways. Every observer has her own trajectory of communication with an artwork. There is no collective judgement, because every communication is likely very different, and the more so, the more effort the observer puts into the communication. This process of communication need not end.

Come on 3bnp. this won't do at all! and this thread bears that out a little. i can look at a chinese ink drawing and appreciate it- perhaps not precisely as intended, but that's part of the beauty of it. but not so with a chinese text.

The reason why you can appreciate chinese calligraphy is because it is seen as mysterious 'that stuff is like way deep maaan' ... It is part of a century-old tradition of Orientalism that sees the East as somehow more spiritual than the western world. The fact that most westerners cannot understand the meaning of the characters is of course partly responsible for this myth. Just consider the use and misuse of Chinese, Thai, Kanji ... characters in tattoos.

Anyway. All that aside, the brute fact of the matter that you cannot understand chinese poetry without putting effort in and learning chinese remains. And the analogy stands.

 

[fokse vektaire xeven]

This is a misunderstand -- very common to be sure -- in at least two ways.

this typifies the kind of arrogance that turns many off contemporary visual art, and the problem with your contributions to this thread. we aren't in one of your classes now so you don't have to be didactic. i misunderstand nothing. it's a quote. perhaps you misunderstand me.

works of art which make the viewer feel it is THEIR failure of appreciation fail as works of art.

i can't state it any more simply than that. the idea that art should obfuscate its content as i have already said is the aberration historically speaking.

The reason why you can appreciate chinese calligraphy is because it is seen as mysterious 'that stuff is like way deep maaan' ... It is part of a century-old tradition of Orientalism .

it's great you can tell me about myself like that, and congratulations for shoehorning in the colonialist angle, i feel firmly put in place. but if you actually read what i wrote, instead of what you would have liked me to have written, you'll find the word "drawing" not calligraphy. i very clearly made that specific distinction:

i can look at a chinese ink drawing and appreciate it- perhaps not precisely as intended, but that's part of the beauty of it. but not so with a chinese text.

my point being that visual art is a universal human language whereas language itself is culturally specific.

therefore your analogy doesn't work at all.

the tone you've taken is really patronising for no good reason and once again bears out to opinions most have voiced in this thread.

 

[mistersloane]

Anyone into Mike Nelson?

He creates these awesome, immersive installations with an uncanny, post-apocalyptic atmosphere.

Yeah, he had a really good piece at Frieze last year I think, you were walking around all of this bumpf and then turned off into one of his pieces, all unfinished drawings and scraps of stuff in a bunker, as a site specific work it was very good. That and the Chapmans doing caricatures were both excellent comments, though I couldn't help feeling that both pieces were just reactionary.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

the idea that art should obfuscate its content

Of course nobody said that "art should obfuscate". Art should be interesting, enlightening, engaging, amazing. Like most worthwhile things in life, art requires active participation from the observer. Just like love, sex, science, friendship, work, humor, windsurfing ... the more you put in, the more you get out. Why is it that you expect instant gratification with no effort on your part from art, but not from other human endeavours like studying quantum mechanics or chinese?

Anyway, may be our interaction has run its course and we should agree to disagree. Let me finish with a recollection from a recent experience of mine! I went to a graduation show at the Truman Brewery a couple of days ago and browsed the offerings. I came across one piece. At first I looked at it and though "pretentious wank". Then I went away and looked at some other works, but I felt I needed to look more at that one. I was drawn to go back. I came back, I went away, and I came back again. Then it hit it me. I stared at an artwork for over an hour! I just could not leave! It was just amazing, it's still on my mind. I'm so glad I saw this work. I may never forget it.

Maybe you deprive yourself of amazing experiences by dismissing art that does not give instant gratification.

 

[IdleRich]

Just wanted to say that I have absolutely no problem with conceptual art as such - it's just that I hate what I consider to be bad or even pseudo-conceptual art, ie art that has the appearance of conceptual art but which does not yield anything approaching a concept when you begin to examine it properly. It's this kind of "it means what you want it to mean" business that gets my goat.
Conceptual art is easy to dismiss and just take the piss out of but I think that's missing the point and that's not at all what I meant to do when I said that I've seen some very bad graduate shows.

"But doesn't the best art transcend the need to read up on and understand the concepts behind it, especially art which is meant to be beautiful? By that i mean art that taps into a universal consciousness that anyone can appreciate, no matter what 'language' its in."

I don't think that that is really the case. I do think that art develops and that something can be valid by building on previous art or other things and that means that to understand it you do need to have some kind of knowledge or background that is relevant to understanding the context. I guess that could be described as elitist or privileging some people but I think it's the case - not that all art is or ought to be like that but some is and that is not necessarily a problem.

 

[noel emits]

There's been quite a few absolutes thrown about on this thread, we should all know that that is something that art by it's nature resists, erm sometimes I know I've been a bit vitriolic about the art school system but it's discussions like these that show it's still something people need to think and talk about, even if it's just to argue over exactly why it's all bollocks.

I saw a piece of public art recently, it's actually just some text on a wall. It annoyed me for quite a few reasons, both in terms of it's content and in it's execution. But the fact is I had to accept that it was provocative and that by engaging with my own annoyance at the thing I could actually get something out of it. I doubt very much that the artist intended to procure those specific reactions but the whole transaction was still worthwhile in some way.

One of my favourite of those Oblique Strategies is the one about making something that can become more in the recipient's mind than was consciously intended. It's a collaborative process.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I saw a piece of public art recently, it's actually just some text on a wall. It annoyed me for quite a few reasons, both in terms of it's content and in it's execution.

That, and the fact that you know full well know Shaznay's love for Darren will probably not last a month, let alone 4 eva.

 

[swears]

Jus' wonderin...

Who are the artists that art studes look up to now? Is it still the big hitters of the 80s/90s like Koons and Hirst, or are there other younger (Gavin) turks that I might have missed? Or is it just all over the place in terms of influence?

I met one art student a few weeks back who claimed no other artists as an influence, "Just music and TV and stuff". I can't decide whether that's the best or worst attitude ever in regard to making art.

 

[noel emits]

That, and the fact that you know full well know Shaznay's love for Darren will probably not last a month, let alone 4 eva.

LOL

And thereby illustrated the dialectic between romanticism and realism.

 

[IdleRich]

The quick and the dead

Martin Creed's latest work is in the news today - it involves athletes running through Tate Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/222...-Britain-artwork-shows-sprinting-runners.html

I think here he's deliberately missing the point in a quite annoying way that just sidesteps the debate:

He denied the work is pretentious: "It's literally not pretentious because they are not pretending to run. They really are running."

No mention of Bande a Parte - apparently it was inspired by

"a trip to the catacombs of the Cappuccini monks in Palermo, Italy. Arriving just before closing time, Creed and his friends had only five minutes in which to cram in as much as possible."