Can They Paint Or Not?

[fokse vektaire xeven]

Why is it that you expect instant gratification with no effort on your part from art,

I don't expect instant gratification and never said i did. of course learning can enrich our experience of anything. my objection here is to the art establishment and to art as currently taught. to teachers concerned with turning out instant "revolutionaries" rather than giving people the basic grounding to become revolutionaries themselves. to critics who dismiss the opinions of others by telling them they don't speak the right language. to artists who spend more time on their catalogue "statements" than their work. to art which lacks generosity.

but not from other human endeavours like studying quantum mechanics or chinese?

once again, your analogy is empty. art is not the specific property of any culture and its place and purpose in society bears no comparison with quantum physics. this kind of elitism serves only the arts establishment. to ask you a question in return, why do think art should be undemocratic?

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.

the interesting thing about your story is you make no explicatory reference to the work itself or its content. all you expect us to be interested in is your reaction. but then you dismiss and pigeonhole the reactions of others as if the appreciation of art were your sole personal property.

 

[noel emits]

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

"It's literally not pretentious because they are not pretending to run. They really are running."

That is quite funny though. I'm reminded of Nigel Tufnel's deft deflection of suggestions that the proposed sleeve art for 'Smell The Glove' was sexist.

"What's wrong with being sexy?"

 

[IdleRich]

"That is quite funny though."

Yeah, but it doesn't really engage with what some people might consider as a criticism that needs some response. I guess he's just bored of the debate and of repeatedly answering the same questions - he's a minimalist artist who does what he does and makes a living from it, I can well imagine that hearing "but it's just a light being turned on and off, my ten year old son could do that" for the millionth time must be not just boring but also irrelevant.

 

[noel emits]

He does sound like a fecking moron in the rest of his comments though. I'm not sure he was kidding, Martin Creed actually is Nigel Tufnel.

 

[CHAOTROPIC]

He does sound like a fecking moron in the rest of his comments though. I'm not sure he was kidding, Martin Creed actually is Nigel Tufnel.

Even Nigel Tufnel isn't Nigel Tufnel!

 

[3 Body No Problem]

to ask you a question in return, why do think art should be undemocratic?

What does it mean for art to be (un)democratic? Is it like democratic sausages?

but then you dismiss and pigeonhole the reactions of others as if the appreciation of art were your sole personal property.

The unknown is more interesting than the known.

Anyway, I was arguing about the sweeping Victor Meldrew'eske "It's all bollox, innit" undercurrent that has been prevalent in this discussion.

 

[Mr. Tea]

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

His previous installations include a piece of Blu-tack stuck to a wall.

Some lesser-known Martin Creed installations:

• Work No. 67: Three-Quarters Used Up Biro
• Work No. 105: That End Of A Loaf Of Bread I've Been Meaning To Throw Out
• Work No. 176: A Radio Times From Two Weeks Ago
• Work No. 210: Four Unpaired Socks

 

[swears]

Thought this was quite funny though

 

[Pestario]

Some lesser-known Martin Creed installations:

• Work No. 67: Three-Quarters Used Up Biro
• Work No. 105: That End Of A Loaf Of Bread I've Been Meaning To Throw Out
• Work No. 176: A Radio Times From Two Weeks Ago
• Work No. 210: Four Unpaired Socks

The sad thing is that I can't tell if you're joking or not

 

[Mr. Tea]

The sad thing is that I can't tell if you're joking or not

Well I think that's just typical of the dumbed-down, lowest-common-denominator, anti-conceptual art prejudice of the general public, why don't you go look at some nice Jack Vettriano paintings etc. etc. etc....



[Disclaimer: I do actually quite like Vettriano, PLEASE DON'T SHOOT ME!]

 

[fokse vektaire xeven]

What does it mean for art to be (un)democratic? Is it like democratic sausages?

i think you know exactly what it means. it means gatekeepers like you telling people they have no right to their opinion because they aren't educated the way you say they should be. it means art that aims to be exclusive. in any case- i took the trouble to answer your question without getting into semantics.

The unknown is more interesting than the known.

utterly meaningless- the kind of faux-profound gnomic statement i might expect from Mr. Spock.

Anyway, I was arguing about the sweeping Victor Meldrew'eske "It's all bollox, innit" undercurrent that has been prevalent in this discussion.

your counter argument effectively being that people don't "get it", which is no less doctrinaire.

people feel excluded here and just telling them that they are and that's how it should be is hubristic and unhelpful. art about art has an intrinsically limited audience and has achieved public representation out of all deserved scale. the martin creed piece says it better than i ever could. it's a no win situation though because we'll be told this is supposed to be provocative and a reaction of confusion, anger or indifference is just as valuable as one of appreciation. if that isn't "bollox" then i don't know what is.

 

[woops]

No mention of Bande a Parte

lmao

 

[IdleRich]

"i think you know exactly what it means. it means gatekeepers like you telling people they have no right to their opinion because they aren't educated the way you say they should be. it means art that aims to be exclusive."

But surely, when someone sees something such as a lightswitch being presented as an artwork they must recognise that it is not the same type of thing as a figurative painting and that being outraged for the reason that it fails in an attempt to be this cannot be a reasonable response. I think that anyone who sees such a piece has a choice of whether or not to investigate further and see if there is something about it that will interest them or convince them that it is worthwhile but if they choose not to look into it then it seems unfair to dismiss it out of hand.
I'm not quite sure exactly how this debate has moved from frustration with the quality of certain graduate shows to a more general argument about conceptual art - with most people seemingly of the opinion that all conceptual or even non-figurative/non-decorative art is somehow automatically pretentious wank.

 

[noel emits]

you need to expend some efforts with interesting art, else you wont be able to appreciate the beauty.

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.

Yes the key idea to emphasise here, as you have actually made clear so I'm just rephrasing, is that it is partly about a relationship between the observer and the artwork and not necessarily limited to what the artist has consciously placed in and around the work. One of my favourite of those Oblique Strategy cards is the one about making a piece that can become more in the mind of the beholder. Totally representational and explicit art is more often than not very boring and limited.

(Even) Martin Creed for instance might be a dumb-head or not but that doesn't mean that a viewer of one of his pieces can't get something out of it by engaging with their own reactions and questions about it, or it's value. That's part of the dialogue and process involved. The running piece could perhaps be seen as something like modern dance where the meaning is often utterly obscure to most viewers, if it is present at all, but there can still be an undeniable effect from the proximity of moving physical presences. It doesn't really matter if he's not absolutely sure what it means, these things are exploratory.

Yes, some of the catalogue speak that artists fall into or perhaps feel they are obliged to use might be unfortunate but just because it sounds like nonsense and spurious justification it doesn't necessarily mean the work is of no use.

 

[IdleRich]

"Yes, some of the catalogue speak that artists fall into or perhaps feel they are obliged to use might be unfortunate but just because it sounds like nonsense and spurious justification it doesn't necessarily mean the work is of no use."

Perhaps not but I'm sure that there are a number of artists who use spurious nonsense precisely because their work is no use and I wish there was a way to discourage this as it does no-one any favours and others get tarred with the same brush.

 

[Pestario]

Well I think that's just typical of the dumbed-down, lowest-common-denominator, anti-conceptual art prejudice of the general public, why don't you go look at some nice Jack Vettriano paintings etc. etc. etc....



[Disclaimer: I do actually quite like Vettriano, PLEASE DON'T SHOOT ME!]

Nah I was joking as well. I'm a big art nerd and love conceptual stuff.


Edit: unless you were still joking...?

 

[Mr. Tea]

edit: Unless you were still joking...?

:d

Edit: what the hell's happened to my smileys?
Edit the second: yes, I was joking.

 

[fokse vektaire xeven]

I'm not quite sure exactly how this debate has moved from frustration with the quality of certain graduate shows to a more general argument about conceptual art -

well- that's what the art mainstream constitutes just now for the most part. the british artists in the public eye are mostly art graduates. the two aren't completely divisible.

with most people seemingly of the opinion that all conceptual or even non-figurative/non-decorative art is somehow automatically pretentious wank.

i'm not of that opinion. it's just taken on a closed-shop, prejudicial feel in the last 20 years in this country, and it seems it would suit some to keep it that way. a fair amount of what gets noticed veers very close to valuing marketing etc over expression and that does make me sad. i've no wish (or ability of course!) to set the rules of terms of reference myself. but that doesn't mean i should accept other people should be doing so.

 

[noel emits]

a fair amount of what gets noticed veers very close to valuing marketing etc over expression and that does make me sad.

Could be that's just the stage in the overall discourse that 'we' are at right now? Happens more or less cyclically doesn't it, with former radicals becoming an entrenched establishment with interests n maintaining their place. The question I suppose is does anyone care enough to think it's worth standing directly against it, or is it a better use of energy to operate on other fronts, mark out new territory, and other military metaphors.

 

[IdleRich]

"well- that's what the art mainstream constitutes just now for the most part. the british artists in the public eye are mostly art graduates. the two aren't completely divisible."

Well, I take your point but to me there is surely some distinction that ought to be made between art the abstract thing and the particular artists who are practising that art at a given time.

"i'm not of that opinion. it's just taken on a closed-shop, prejudicial feel in the last 20 years in this country, and it seems it would suit some to keep it that way."

Yes, I'm pretty sure that that is true.