The Turner prize, a major Art award in Britain was one yesterday by a bloke whose piece of work was an entirely empty room in the gallery, in which the lights went on and off every so often. He won 20,000 pounds and his work sells at 10,000 a time.
I live in a house where the lights go on and off at the flick of a switch...do I win a prize? Am I an artisic genius? (Nah.)
His Art is apparantly 'minimalist'. His previous work includes a scrunched up piece of paper and a piece of blu-tack stuck to a wall.
I failed my GCSE Art exam enitrely, but if I had stuck some blu-tack on the wall I doubt I would have fared any better.
My arguement is that such stuff is bollocks. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
A con. Who would pays thousands for a piece of blu tack on a wall??? What kind of person?!
Compare the talent, the imagination and the vision of the impressionists, with such crap current work. No contest. Its an insult to call it Art.
Throw it in the bin! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Dec 10th, 2001, 09:16 PM
LOL. I agree. But I'm a peasant where Art is concerned. It does nothing for me - in whatever form.
Dec 10th, 2001, 09:28 PM
Well, Chris Ba, that work of art you described certainly sounds like it's a load of crap...even if it wasn't made with crap...which some "art" is actually made of.
It reminds me of some art I've seen made with piss. One was a piece I saw at the Andy Warhol museum in Pittsburgh. I visited the museum a few years ago. Some of the stuff was good. Some of it was...well...interesting.
There was an exhibit or video of this Japanese artist named Moriko Mori and all it was was a video of herself dressed up in foil-y colored clothing playing with some ball and singing some really annoying screechy song with chimes and electrical synthesized sounds.
Let's put it this way: One guy actually went bonkers, put his hands to his head, screamed "I can't take it anymore!" and ran out of the museum.
Oh yeah, let me state that I also did very poorly in art exams.
Dec 10th, 2001, 11:20 PM
The Turner prize is such a joke <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Did you see any of the other nominees ?
The most interesting thing about the evening from what I gather was Madonna's speech.
Dec 10th, 2001, 11:39 PM
I know what you mean, but many of the Impressionists were riduculed when their work came out. It's often hard to see at the time work that will be remembered well and paid millions for years down the line that are considered laughable at the time they are made. Part of being a "great" artist I guess is doing something new or revolutionary at the time, but you don't really know what will fall into this category until a long time after it's finished. I've had some empty rooms before, but I never thought of painting them white with lights that go on and off! That seems like a strange exhibition, but I guess we're supposed to see that art isn't limited to a canvas or something and that a simple room with lights that go on and off is something deep. Deep what I'm not really sure! I do like to stare at Mondrian paintings and somehow I do end up liking them, but, really, all it was was a bunch of asymetrical boxes with some primary colors. On the other hand, many High Renaissance paintings are simply persepective paintings that anyone with any engineering knowledge could have done to make the 3-D picture boxes that were so popular. Given that, I wouldn't pay for anything like an empty room with lights that go on and off. Art is a tough thing to judge, though I know little about it. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Dec 11th, 2001, 12:08 AM
I agree, Chris. Modern Art is one of the biggest con jobs in history.
When I went to the Hirschorn Museum in Washington, DC, I nearly split a gut laughing.
"What care I<br />What Art it be<br />If it be<br />Not Art to me?"
Dec 11th, 2001, 02:18 AM
modern art <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Dec 11th, 2001, 04:14 AM
Yes, it's a load of crap IMO, most of it at least.
I am not an art lover at all, but I can appreciate real art work, like real painters and stuff, although I don't line watching to a point, I can see the ability of painters like Rembrandt, Van Gogh or Da Vinci, I think it's amazing how they can create with a brush and paint.
But modern art??? pffff. I went the the Art Gallery of Ontario, most of the stuff were ok (boring but ok), normal paints where you see normal things, like landscapes or portraits.
But there was an are, pleeeezzzz, one work was named "A circle on a wall", that was it, a bloody circle on a blody wall, is that art? LMAO
I read in a newspaper about an artists, whose work was to ejaculate in different bottles, and then freeze them, that would be his art.
I think some of those are really pathetic, and more pathetic are those who pay a fortune for that, just somebody told them "look budy, this is art, you must like it", and they had to...
<img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Dec 11th, 2001, 07:46 AM
I don't get it either! But you can't ask the artist, cause the artist will say it's not up to him to explain.<br />I understand people feel the need to express themselves, and if it is by making such crap, so be it. But I'm not going to pay loads of money to see it, or to have it.<br />A couple of months ago there was this whole issue over here about a mussles pot. Basically it was a pot with dried mussles. It was going to be sold to some museum abroad and they just couldn't let that happen. They paid millions to keep 'that piece of art' in this country! Pfff! <br />A friend of ours once gave us a rosary of dried mussles when she visited (others would gave flowers or chocolates), my mother put it on top of our mussles pot and it's now standing on our cupboard. And every time someone asks, we say it's worth millions! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Also, a couple of months ago an artist had made a 'kak-machine'. You put food in it and out of the other end comes....you get my meaning. And this is art, people! Absolutely disgusting, but they call it art. Imagine having that thing in your living room?
Dec 11th, 2001, 08:17 AM
I don't understand a thing about modern art...don't even know if you can call it art...they throw a can of paint against a wall and it's art.
Tine, I think it was really terrible that they paid that much for a stupid pot of mussles!! Other people are suffering, starving, and then they pay so much for something stupid like that..<br />Action 'Save the musslepot' jeez...now you can admire the think in SMAK...how great <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Dec 11th, 2001, 09:42 AM
You know Chris, I used to think the same thing... you know the "any kid could paint this" or "my dog leaves dirty spots that resemble that" <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> - then I went to a Modern art Museum (in Brussels) and I have to say there *is* something about modern/contemporary art. I felt something visiting that museum, I think the art before, such as the impressionists, had a bigger impact on your eye-sight, it was visually pleasing, and we are very dominated by that sense... I think the "newer" forms of art try to impact other senses, so is maybe not visually beautiful, but there is an underlying something. I quite enjoy modern art now too <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
Now, if you ask me, would I rather have a Monet hanging from the wall or one of those on and off lights, you know which I'd rather have. I can do the on and off myself or ask my cousin to decorate the walls for free and keep the Monet <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
It is a bunch of crap if you only "look" at it I guess <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <font size=1>
[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: Gallofa ]</p>
Dec 11th, 2001, 09:46 AM
Isn't the phrase 'contemporary' art a bit of a generalisation? There's good music and bad music, whether we're talking classical, pop or rock. There's good and bad literature from all eras. And there's good and bad art, regardless of whether it's 'contemporary' or not. I think Martin Creed's work was particularly poor - in fact I don't think the Turner Prize shortlist as a whole this year was up to scratch - but there are great examples of 'contemporary' art which it could be argued that 'anyone' could do. Tracey Emin's 'My Bed': anyone can shove their dirty bed into an art gallery, but Emin's work - which wasn't just the bed - was extremely moving. You could argue that Mark Rothko's work is just sqaures of colour - but they're absolutely gorgeous, hypnotic even. The controversial Myra Hindley portrait out of children's hands - that was stunning. Art's not about the technicalities, i.e. how well you can paint. Sure, you can be a brilliant painter - but if what you're painting is uninspired countryside scenery, it's still bad art. Compare it to music: Celine Dion is, technically, a far superior singer to Carole King. Yet who's the greater artist? In art, you or I may well be a superior painter than Sam Taylor-Wood (though I doubt it) - but she's the greater artist. Art should be thought-provoking, passionate and compelling: I'd say there's a huge amount of contemporary art which fits those descriptions. And Richard Creed's lightbulbs - yes, they're art. But they're not very good at all.
Dec 11th, 2001, 09:50 AM
The thing about modern art as opposed to "classical" art is that the classical art that has stood the test of time is the good stuff. There as an awful lot of crap painted in preceding centuries that we don't get to see because people worked out that it was crap and therefore didn't preserve it. With modern art that hasn't happened yet.
I went to the Tate Modern in London a few months ago, and it's true that about 80% of what was there was rubbish, but there was a certain amount of really good stuff.
What I would say about modern art, and especially the weird exhibits like Damien Hurst's dead cows is that you should see it before saying that it's rubbish. My boyfriend at the time had a real thing about Rothko who paints these huge canvases filled with just random blocks of colour. I thought it sounded like bollocks, saw various prints of his and thought they were bollocks but when I saw some of his stuff at the Tate Modern thought they were absolutely amazing.
What I'm trying to say is that of course some modern art (probably most modern art) is bollocks, just as most art produced in the 19th century was bollocks, you just have to keep an open mind and look for the good stuff.
Dec 11th, 2001, 09:55 AM
What a con job ..
His previous efforts include a piece of scrunched up paper and that won <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> LOL
Dec 11th, 2001, 01:09 PM
I'm no expert - more of a casual admirer - but contemporary art is all about it's context.<br />
If you say 'here is my piece of art which a room where the lights flick off every 5 seconds', you are asking the observer to examine that piece of work within it's own context as a piece of work, thtat of the artist, and that of you as the observer of the piece. What compelled or drove the artist to that work. What is the artist trying to say. What does the work tell me?
I've not seen the winning submission, but it sounds great (as I love installations). The scrunched up ball of paper was beautiful imo incidentally.
<br />I think a lot of contemporary art is... questionable, but there are some fantastic works and concepts out there.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Dec 11th, 2001, 01:29 PM
A good benchmark for me, for whether something is art or not, is whether I could do it myself. I have less talent in that direction than you can even imagine, but I could do the blu-tack thing and many of his others. I could also come up with all kinds of my own surreal ideas for 'installations' Pretty much anyone could.
The key is that when we examine what the artist is trying to say, (as though the blue tack on the wall has some deep profound meaning that only the wise can detect) in the case of of Turner award winner I don't think he has anything to say, other than to marvel at how many people he fools with his stuff, and how much money he can get for his junk.
The Daily Mail (a paper I generally loathe) got it right today when they printed a series of pictures, some of genuine Turner Prize contenders, other they had just made up. Most of the time you can't tell the difference!
Im not saying every piece of art these days is crap, just that a heck of a lot of it is. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Ba ]</p>
Dec 11th, 2001, 01:56 PM
Chris you (and I for that matter), may not be able to tell the difference between something mocked-up by a Middle England Daily Mail reader and a comissioned artist, but that does not a 'con' artist make imo!
Unless there is something that is (either overtly or covertly) compelling you to create that piece of work, it isn't art. It's eye candy. That's a loaded proposition so I'll retract it (mildly) now.
The 'blu-tack on the wall' may jolly well have profound meaning! Why shouldn't it?
But of course then again it may not!
Dec 11th, 2001, 02:10 PM
I think the Blu-Tack on the wall is just Blu-Tack on the wall. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I have some Blu-Tack in a drawer and will listen to offers of £5000 upwards. I promise it has great significance. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <br />But telling you what its significance is, would tarnish my artistic vision. (cough) <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I also have sellotape, and a ruler, pen and pencil. Will listen to offers.
The Emperor has no clothes! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Dec 11th, 2001, 02:41 PM
hmm .. I think this piece of art has reached his main goal already - to make people, who don't normally, think about art and what it should or should not be - don't you think this is exactly the same reaction as Marcel Duchamps got on his ready mades? (and it's the reaction they both wanted)<br />that's one of the main goals of conceptual art<br />yeah, some modern art is crap and pointless .. but the same can be said about a lot of old art
Dec 11th, 2001, 02:57 PM
There was an article about this in The Guardian today. Very much expressing my opinion, so here it is:
Easy does it
When is a joke not a joke? When it wins the Turner<br /> Prize. Adrian Searle on the beauty of simplicity<br /> More arts news and features
Tuesday December 11, 2001<br /> The Guardian
Even people who don't much like Martin<br /> Creed's contribution to this year's Turner<br /> Prize will remember the frustrating<br /> enigma of standing in an otherwise<br /> empty space with the lights going on<br /> and off. They will recall being there.<br /> This, surely, is one of art's jobs: to<br /> make us aware of where we are, where<br /> we have been. But in the context of the<br /> Turner Prize, it only works theatrically;<br /> its resonances are reduced in Tate<br /> Britain. The enigma, if you like,<br /> becomes a gag.
"I could have done that," may be a typical response to Creed's<br /> work, just as it was for Carl Andre's Bricks, Bob Law's empty<br /> canvases with a little Biro line running around their perimeters,<br /> and all the other artworks that have not so much captured the<br /> public's imagination as poked fun at prejudice. The only<br /> response to "I could have done that" is "But you didn't". Did you<br /> have the gall, the nous, the ambition, the cheek? Maybe Creed<br /> wanted to give us a prolonged moment of expectation. Perhaps<br /> he gave no thought to the audience at all, and only made the<br /> work for the pleasure of standing in a room with the lights going<br /> on and off.
Some people, undoubtedly, are afraid - both of the feelings art<br /> provokes and of having their preconceptions of what art ought to<br /> be upset. They want meaning on a plate, served up the way it<br /> has always been. They often seem to want demonstrations of<br /> familiar skills. Provocation isn't the first aim of Creed's art - nor,<br /> I'd suggest, of much worthwhile art today. Doing the minimum<br /> possible to achieve the desired result is frequently regarded as a<br /> sign of clarity of thought - economy equals elegance, and<br /> simplicity virtue. We also crave complexity. Richness, of<br /> course, is not necessarily at odds with simplicity.
Last year I spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about a<br /> work by US artist Tom Friedman, which consists of a ring of<br /> plastic drinking cups, using the smallest number of cups<br /> possible to close the ring to form a perfect circle. The more I<br /> thought about this, the more the associations piled up: from the<br /> manufacture of the cups themselves to the water-cooler culture<br /> of the office; the fact that the ring of cups on the floor was more<br /> beautiful and shimmering than I would have thought possible;<br /> that it looked like a sci-fi halo.
The associations kept on coming, both to other art and to all<br /> sorts of everyday experiences. Either I was deluded, or the<br /> apparent simplicity of the work really was deceptive. I prefer to<br /> believe the latter. Many of Friedman's works take an inordinate<br /> amount of painstaking work, often using ludicrous materials:<br /> tooth-picks, drinking-straw wrappers, pillow-stuffing, pubic hair,<br /> soap. Art can be made out of anything, even out of almost<br /> nothing. How long it took the artist to make the work hardly<br /> seems the point. A rainy afternoon would be enough to think of<br /> the plastic cup piece and to execute it; the point in Friedman's<br /> case is to be able to make another work, and then another, then<br /> another, without losing continuity, coherence and quality, and to<br /> be able to keep upping the ante and moving things forward.
This is a matter of seeing as much as doing: did Picasso spend<br /> much time thinking up his Bull's Head, the shaped leather bike<br /> seat as the head, the handlebars for horns? What counted was<br /> the quickness of Picasso's eye, recognising the analogous<br /> relationship in the first place while he was sorting through a pile<br /> of junk in his studio in 1943.
Duchamp's Fountain, his upturned urinal signed R Mutt on the<br /> porcelain, may not seem to demand much in the way of an act<br /> of looking, but the initial shock of its appearance in an art gallery<br /> has profoundly affected the art of the past 80-odd years.<br /> Actually, it does bear scrutiny as an object in all sorts of ways,<br /> not least because its silhouette has a certain resemblance to<br /> both painted and sculpted portraits of the Virgin, an association<br /> Duchamp himself was keenly aware of.
The concept of Fountain may be more important than the object,<br /> which Duchamp chose in part for its lack of aesthetic in terest,<br /> but it might also, as another title of his has it, be an object To<br /> Be Looked at With One Eye, Close to, for Almost an Hour. We<br /> might think the joke is on us, but what Duchamp was talking<br /> about was the nature and pleasure of looking. Being there, in<br /> other words.
It might have been good fun to have lined up to attend Yves<br /> Klein's Theatre of the Void, a play performed "on a non-stage<br /> setting with no actors, no scenery, no narrative, and no<br /> spectators", as Sidra Stich described it, but the pure idea, and a<br /> spoof newspaper for the day of the non-performance (Sunday<br /> November 27 1960), are the only record of the non-event, which<br /> probably took an enormous amount of planning to happen. Or<br /> rather, not to happen.
And while Frank Auerbach's paintings take years of sittings and<br /> reworkings, the final result can mean a total revision of the entire<br /> picture surface in less than an hour. Similarly, Luc Tuymans's<br /> paintings may be made and remade for weeks, but the final<br /> painting is always entirely worked in the course of a single day.<br /> None of this matters, except in terms of the artist's own<br /> practice.
Roman Signer is a well-respected Swiss artist who represented<br /> his country at the 1999 Venice Biennale, and who now has an<br /> exhibition at the Camden Arts Centre in London. It doesn't take<br /> long to get round - about as long, in fact, as it takes to walk the<br /> galleries and clock the gags he has set up. Persistent looking<br /> does not always reap greater rewards. Signer's works at<br /> Camden are minor entries to a long list of quickfire artistic<br /> gestures. Camden does not have him at his best - there are<br /> none of the real fireworks Signer is capable of generating. He<br /> doesn't hurl hotel furniture out of the window or entertain us with<br /> the explosions that have enlivened many of his "actions".
What takes time in Signer's show is all the contextualising and<br /> mental spade work that might make the art more interesting and<br /> rewarding than first acquaintance tells us it deserves. A<br /> squadron of model helicopters lined up in front of a Christmas<br /> tree-wrapping machine, from which they emerge, propellers<br /> folded like resting insects, cocooned in plastic netting; a trough<br /> of fine sand running the length of the gallery, along which the<br /> artist has skied, leaving the track of the skis, the pock-marks of<br /> the ski-poles. Sighing, I try to think appropriate thoughts: skiing<br /> as drawing, the tracks in the sand as a record of time, motion,<br /> action, the work as a record of its making. All of which is dreary,<br /> art school seminar stuff.
Personally, I pity the staff at Camden who have to endure a<br /> recording of the London Underground mantra "Mind the gap",<br /> amplified from under a standard pair of single beds, butted up<br /> like a fake double in a cheap hotel. This is extremely tedious, a<br /> nullity. The phrase "Mind the gap" has been picked up as a little<br /> London jewel by numerous foreign artists, curators and souvenir<br /> T-shirt buyers. Overwrought is the key word here, and it leaves<br /> you wishing for some of Martin Creed's brevity.
Creed's Lights Going On and Off will be remembered as much<br /> for winning as for its particular qualities, its time and place. A<br /> greater richness has to do with works slipping out of their time<br /> and circumstances, and having a longer, more complicated life.<br /> That is really how much time a work takes, otherwise it is<br /> nothing more than a footnote to the radical gesture.
· The Turner Prize is at Tate Britain, London SW1 (020-7887<br /> 8734), until January 20. Roman Signer is at Camden Arts<br /> Centre, London NW3 (020-7435 2643), until February 3.
Dec 11th, 2001, 02:58 PM
thefreedesigner - that definition pretty much proves the point that it IS a matter of "The Emperor's New Clothes"
If you say it's "art" because the artist is clever. I say it's hooey and the artist (or at least the person who buys the hooey) is a git. Who's right? People see what they want to see - sometimes because they're being TOLD that's what they're supposed to see.
Dec 11th, 2001, 02:59 PM
That said, have a look at <a href="http://www.informationwantstobefree.com/creedalizer/" target="_blank">http://www.informationwantstobefree.com/creedalizer/</a>
which takes the piss out of contemporary art, by letting you create your own work. Very funny.
Dec 11th, 2001, 03:19 PM
Griffin: where did I say that art has to be 'clever'? Or imply such a thing?
I'm not sure where I stand on that particular statement. I don't think art does have to be clever, I think that contemporary art (particularly) is about viewing something in context - a contemporary context.
Comparing Gillian Wearing or Cornelia Parker with Matisse is nonsensical. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
What I do say is that art isn't just about painting pictures. Even art that is 'just' pretty pictures, is done so within the context of what the artist was trying to say. So then even art that is 'just' pretty pictures has a meaning - a subtext - that shines out of it that does go beyond a colour on canvas.
But then... I don't know anything, it's just what I feel.
Dec 11th, 2001, 04:54 PM
I actually quite liked the piece of blue tack on the wall.
Very deep .... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Dec 11th, 2001, 05:07 PM
You didn't - I was just trying to simplify my argument.
Of course art is more than paintings and sculpture, isn't always pretty, and context is important...but where do you draw the line between compelling commentary and gimmickry? And again – how much of what people “see” in a work comes from what they’ve been told they’re supposed to see?
Dec 11th, 2001, 05:29 PM
Hey sk! thanks for the link! <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> lol
Dec 11th, 2001, 05:47 PM
I would argue that anything can be viewed as art, it is just that something that many people enjoy viewing as art becomes what is known as "a work of art". I don't think that the intentions of the artist, or the mere fact that it is in an art gallery have anything to do with it.
Dec 11th, 2001, 05:48 PM
This was actually a task in 'the Mole'. Two candidates got to walk around a museum packed with this kind of art. Then they had to come up with something themselves, they had to make a piece of art and put it in the museum. Next, an expert came over to look at all the pieces of art. If he couldn't tell which piece was made by the candidates, they'd win.
The expert saw right away what was real art and what wasn't. Next, all the other candidates were asked the same question as this expert. But they coulnd't tell the difference between the real and the fake art.
Dec 11th, 2001, 06:30 PM
I went to Tate Gallery last Sunday and went to the Turner Prize Collection.... overall, i wasn't really impressed and even more shocking that Martin Creed's work won (he is the "lights on, lights off guy, isn't he?").
ALthough i was quite impressed with Isaac Julien's videos, I can't remember what it was called, but i particularly liked the one about homoeroticism, the sense of unfulfilled desire and frustration, or at least that's what i got from it. i'm really not an art critic in the least....;.
Dec 11th, 2001, 09:43 PM
I found a pic of the blu-tack work...<br />http://website.lineone.net/~jeff_lee/Show_Pictures/Creed.jpg<br />Inspiring stuff, which I think has a lot to say about mankind's place in the universe, and our notions of what is or is not reality. Or maybe not.
[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Ba ]</p>
Dec 11th, 2001, 09:57 PM
This is an earlier version of Mr Creed lights go on and off thing...from 1995 I think.
Any resemblance to an empty room is purely coincidental.
Dec 11th, 2001, 10:04 PM
The following is a random picture of a warehouse I found in about 5 seconds on the internet...but I don't think its any worse than the empty room...Is it?
Dec 11th, 2001, 10:54 PM
Chris, I love your interpretation of the blue dot! LOL! My "stand by" is usually that whatever is shown demonstrates man's inhumanity to man. I once heard this art critic talk about how Botticelli's Birth of Venus was "man's inhumanity to man." I about laughed myself silly on that one. The phrase has many uses, but I like yours also! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Dec 11th, 2001, 11:07 PM
I think the warehouse is a clear demonstration of man's inhumanity to man. Notice, the man is dwarfed by the shelves, the high ceiling, and the inventory, along with the long, long corridor. All of this was designed by men to make the men who work there feel insignificant so they won't demand a higher wage. Hence, man's inhumanity to man. On a larger scale, before the industrial revolution (when man created), there were no warehouses, but men simply stacked things in manageable piles. The picture here demonstrates that the industrial revolution, and the large-scale warehouses that it brought, have done nothing but minimalize man's contributions to industry and daily life. But, men created the industrial revolution, for, what else, to benefit man! Thus, on a deeper level, the warehouse is another tribute to man's inhumanity to man! The warehouse demonstrates the de-humanization of the global worker and all of us should think very hard the next time we buy something that was ever stored in a warehouse, because, if we do, we are simply demonstrating inhumanity to fellow people, and ultimately, we will be those persons who are dehumanized.
Wow, Chris, you must have secretly taken this pic from a new exhibition! <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Dec 11th, 2001, 11:10 PM
I almost forget, the bright lights with the reflection. It means that not only are we supposed to let this image reflect in our souls for a better world, but it also shows that warehouse owners (man) are trying to burn the souls and spirit from those who work in it. It's all quite symbolical! Ok, I think I've done the warehouse to death! No more I promise. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
Dec 12th, 2001, 09:20 AM
Exatly my point Celeste! Its possible to wax lyrical about the warehouse which is just a warehouse, and make it sound profound.
As we say in England, I think he is 'taking the piss!'
Dec 12th, 2001, 09:33 AM
..but you can (and people will) wax lyrical about anything and everything. This is where discernment comes in. If people need to be spoon-fed art or creativity that is easily digestible and compartmentalised then.... it's a sad thing. Let's leave it to the individual's imagination.
If a 'work' doesn't do it for you, then it doesn't. That doesn't make it 'not art'. Conversely, because something is harder to fathom, doesn't automatically deem it art.
But this is also about the seeming and the meaning! In anything subjective you are always going to be able to allow for interpretation that the artist didn't see. For feelings that the observer wants to receive from a piece of work.
However 'mocking' Celeste may be in what s/he wrote about the warehouse, just because it isn't an 'official' piece of art, doesn't mean that it isn't artistic. It's a cool photograph? Why would there be a problem with it being artistic?
I'm sure Pollock went through the same thing.<br /> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
BTW, this isn't me blindly advocating all contemporary art, just trying to illustrate that as in life, there is no black and white answer.
Dec 12th, 2001, 09:45 AM
But do yu like the Blu-Tack thing? Or "Work 233"
If so honestly tell me why...what do they say to you? Other than "F*ck off" <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Again my suggestion is that the bloke is laughing at us, that there is no intent or meaning behind most of his stuff that Ive seen.
[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Ba ]</p>
Dec 12th, 2001, 10:11 AM
The blu-tack: no
The 'fuck off' thing: not really, in fact no.
The room wot won the Turner Prize: yes
The scrunched up sheet of A4: yes
why: because they make me think and wonder. Think about myself, about my reaction to the work and how I feel in relation to that. Space and time (light having to do with both) are well-worn artistic themes, and I think both (again I stress to me) communicate that. As well as being aesthetically appealing to my brain's craving for order and symmetry within chaos and displacement.
Pretentious? Moi? Not likely mate! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Dec 12th, 2001, 11:14 AM
Ive not seen the scrunch up paper work, but Im sure its very moving... <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Anyway the following is REAL art...
Please note the clarity of form, the structure of simple perfection, many components fused into one wonderful whole. Beauty, movement, class, all rolled into one glorious, entirely beautiful, really cuddly 'oneness'. A living artform! A reason for being! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
You can keep your Blu-tack! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Dec 12th, 2001, 12:05 PM
*adopting best Terry Thomas voice*
Steady on old chap!
Dec 12th, 2001, 02:03 PM
Its true Its true! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Julie Halard Decugis - a heck of a lot better than modern art baby! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Apr 28th, 2002, 11:40 AM
It's total crap!! When my class went on a field trip we friggin laughes our asses off at soem fo the pieces tryin to pass itself off as art. :rolleyes: One was an empty yellow egg carton that was open and filled with blue water. We were like what the fuck?? :rolleyes: