Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

Dr_Herbz said:
Shall we start the bidding at 2 million?


15311541471_191243cf84_b.jpg
Click to expand...

sorry but thats a bit shit...i suggest the artist spend time to study the work of oneharoldbishop


V2JUoG


RFtHAt


RAcGsH
 
Orang Utan said:
You've said much worse.
Click to expand...

Yes, and...?

My comments were fair. A couple of posters were revelling in their ignorance and I said so. What's the problem with that?
Click to expand...

Your comments were fair? They're no fairer than the comments you were railing against, because both you and your interlocutors were doing exactly the same thing, merely from opposite ends of the spectrum - you from a perspective of "art appreciation", theirs from the opposite. None of you said anything worth saying, all we got was (to paraphrase) was "ner, you're ignorant if you don't share my views", answered with "ner, you're pretentious if you don't share mine". Schoolyard partisan bullshit that says nothing about art, but lots about you.

And read the fucking thread before canucking the fuck out of it, will you?
Click to expand...

I've read the thread.
For about the dozenth time, I'll explain that I have a neurological problem that results in very poor short-term memory, and that if I don't reply to posts as I read them, I've forgotten them by the time I get on to the next page, let alone the end of the thread. I'm not "Canucking", I'm doing what I have to do. If you don't like it, tough.
 
That's the first time I've heard it. Explains a lot.

Yet, I'm puzzled why you have singled me out for making fair comments about how some people love to revel in their ignorance. I'm not the only person to say such things here.
 
cesare said:
The increasing status of artists was a Renaissance thing though?
Click to expand...


Pickman's model said:
which was never true about eg michaelangelo, caravaggio, donatello, holbein, fuseli, etc etc ad nauseam.

do you know anything about art history or are you simply a poseur?
Click to expand...


Firstly the famous Renaissance artists were highly skilled, trained apprentices to other "masters". They knew their skill and craft.
Secondly the best were commissioned by wealthy patrons and told what their subject matter would be. They were famous because their patrons were famous. At the time their "status" came from their patron not their art. Believe it or not there could havr been hundreds of painters as good as Caravaggio at the time. His patronage made him.

Regarding the art itself, the lay out of a painting was a skill..a craft..there were guides and techniques which were employed by all artists.
The great masters were trained by masters and in their turn trained other masters. Everyone learned how to draw. .how to paint..every part of creating a painting or sculpture was taught and learned.

The Renaissance artists' "fame" during the Renaissance was as a direct result of the status and wealth of their patrons and not as a result of their personalities or their inner angst or feelings ... in fact they were very careful about not allowing their commissioned work to deviate from the themes requested...although some did personalise some of their work and even poked fun at their patrons once they were established and had developed a marketability.... But the artist's personality, inner life, emotions etc didnt come into it at all.

If there was anyone painting today to the standard and skill level of Caravaggio, I'd love to see them exhibiting in the Tate.. but would they be hanging with the likes of Hirst et al? Or would the art world "establishment" want that stIyle?

I feel that the established art world wants something different.
Maybe that's not a bad thing. I don't know. All I do know is that I have great respect for amazing talent. I know how challenging it is to make a good painting and it frustrates me to see something like 400 dead butterflies stuck to a board and some chancer who calls it art is deemed to be amazing and brilliant.
 
bubblesmcgrath you waffle on about patrons as though there were no art patrons today and we lived in a democracy. however, you undermine your point about people being able to do their own thing when you say you feel the established arts world plays a role in dictating taste. newsflash: patrons have not disappeared, they just operate more subtly and are generally less overt in their control of taste.

there's a reason abstract art operates as it does. in fact there're a couple. on the one hand it's very hard to push a subversive political message through abstract art as opposed to realistic art; on the other hand abstract art operates as art for the elite, as its stylised form excludes 'the masses'.
 
Pickman's model said:
bubblesmcgrath you waffle on about patrons as though there were no art patrons today and we lived in a democracy. however, you undermine your point about people being able to do their own thing when you say you feel the established arts world plays a role in dictating taste. newsflash: patrons have not disappeared, they just operate more subtly and are generally less overt in their control of taste.

there's a reason abstract art operates as it does. in fact there're a couple. on the one hand it's very hard to push a subversive political message through abstract art as opposed to realistic art; on the other hand abstract art operates as art for the elite, as its stylised form excludes 'the masses'.
Click to expand...


And you've just made my point for me. Modern art is controlled.
The styles reaching the Tate walls are controlled.....
 
Pickman's Model said:
there's a reason abstract art operates as it does. in fact there're a couple. on the one hand it's very hard to push a subversive political message through abstract art as opposed to realistic art; on the other hand abstract art operates as art for the elite, as its stylised form excludes 'the masses'.
Click to expand...
Paging Dr Herbz. This is what you could have said.
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
If there was anyone painting today to the standard and skill level of Caravaggio, I'd love to see them exhibiting in the Tate.. but would they be hanging with the likes of Hirst et al? Or would the art world "establishment" want that stIyle?
Click to expand...
the reason this kind of painting has died somewhat is because its no longer seen as boundary pushing - there are lots of painters who can and do paint at this level...i saw an interesting pic at the portrait gallery a couple of years ago for example, for a modern take on this. Huge canvas this, maybe 4m tall?

BP-Portrait-Award-2011-sh-001.jpg


its like with classical music - people dont compose like beethoven so much anymore because its been done to death, not because they cant... some people still do though
 
Last edited:
bubblesmcgrath The wealthy Renaissance patrons had a civic duty to adorn buildings, their prestige was tied up in what they did for the civic good. The artists benefited not just from being paid for the commissions but also the public recognition. I don't think it's right to characterise (if that was your intention) the Renaissance artists as some kind of post-medieval crafts people purely carrying out commissions. The greats artists were famous and held individual status in their own right.

It's the patrons/buyers that have become more elitist in what they will pay for, they no longer link prestige to carrying out or commissioning works of civic good on the same scale; additionally the point about subversion that Pickman's model made, the decline of the importance of religious art and architecture in the West, the growth of individualism and mostly the growth of capitalism. All this is reflected in art and is not just down to the artists.
 
ska invita said:
the reason this kind of painting has died is because its no longer seen as boundary pushing - there are lots of painters who can and do paint at this level...i saw an interesting pic at the portrait gallery a couple of years ago for example, for a modern take on this. Huge canvas this, maybe 4m tall?

BP-Portrait-Award-2011-sh-001.jpg


its like with classical music - people dont compose like beethoven anymore because its been done to death, not because they cant
Click to expand...

That's no Carravagio.
There's no depth of colour because there is no system of painting in glazes.
People don't paint like Carravagio because they can't...the skills and techniques are not being taught or utilised. Carravagio painted in layets and layers of glazes of colour. He blocked in on black. People paint the best way they can and learn a skill set but very few really have the skills or kniwledge of someone like Carravagio.
To equate the style of painting in that picture above with anything Carravaggio did is a misnomer.
 
cesare said:
bubblesmcgrath The wealthy Renaissance patrons had a civic duty to adorn buildings, their prestige was tied up in what they did for the civic good. The artists benefited not just from being paid for the commissions but also the public recognition. I don't think it's right to characterise (if that was your intention) the Renaissance artists as some kind of post-medieval crafts people purely carrying out commissions. The greats artists were famous and held individual status in their own right.

It's the patrons/buyers that have become more elitist in what they will pay for, they no longer link prestige to carrying out or commissioning works of civic good on the same scale; additionally the point about subversion that Pickman's model made, the decline of the importance of religious art and architecture in the West, the growth of individualism and mostly the growth of capitalism. All this is reflected in art and is not just down to the artists.
Click to expand...

The Renaissance patrons were royalty and religious leaders ie popes.
They didn't give a rat's arse for civic good or civic duty. They commissioned art for their own glorification.
 
Pickman's model said:
bubblesmcgrath you waffle on about patrons as though there were no art patrons today and we lived in a democracy. however, you undermine your point about people being able to do their own thing when you say you feel the established arts world plays a role in dictating taste. newsflash: patrons have not disappeared, they just operate more subtly and are generally less overt in their control of taste.

there's a reason abstract art operates as it does. in fact there're a couple. on the one hand it's very hard to push a subversive political message through abstract art as opposed to realistic art; on the other hand abstract art operates as art for the elite, as its stylised form excludes 'the masses'.
Click to expand...


Also, as I alluded to before, why bother with painting to represent reality when we have photography?
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
That's no Carravagio.
There's no depth of colour because there is no system of painting in glazes.
People don't paint like Carravagio because they can't...the skills and techniques are not being taught or utilised. Carravagio painted in layets and layers of glazes of colour. He blocked in on black. People paint the best way they can and learn a skill set but very few really have the skills or kniwledge of someone like Carravagio.
To equate the style of painting in that picture above with anything Carravaggio did is a misnomer.
Click to expand...
okay i didnt realise you were being that specific - i dont know whats going on in the oil painting world but my point is its not from a lack of skill.
 
Pickman's model said:
eh? they choose what pictures to hang. it's not like some sort of chaotick environment.
Click to expand...

The art chosen for modern galleries. I know of numbers of galleries where they will exclude certain styles of art...deliberately. They choose abstract formats and the more obtuse the better. Installation art will get pride of place over anything representational.
No matter how exceptional a piece is if it's the "wrong style" it will not be hung.
 
cesare said:
bubblesmcgrath The wealthy Renaissance patrons had a civic duty to adorn buildings, their prestige was tied up in what they did for the civic good. The artists benefited not just from being paid for the commissions but also the public recognition. I don't think it's right to characterise (if that was your intention) the Renaissance artists as some kind of post-medieval crafts people purely carrying out commissions. The greats artists were famous and held individual status in their own right.

It's the patrons/buyers that have become more elitist in what they will pay for, they no longer link prestige to carrying out or commissioning works of civic good on the same scale; additionally the point about subversion that Pickman's model made, the decline of the importance of religious art and architecture in the West, the growth of individualism and mostly the growth of capitalism. All this is reflected in art and is not just down to the artists.
Click to expand...

I read an interesting book several years ago, arguing that "art" as we understand it today is a relatively modern invention. Art in the past existed for different reasons than it does today; for religious reasons, reasons of prestige, symbols of power and wealth etc. Creating the Culture of Art I think it was called.
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
The art chosen for modern galleries. I know of numbers of galleries where they will exclude certain styles of art...deliberately. They choose abstract formats and the more obtuse the better. Installation art will get pride of place over anything representational.
No matter how exceptional a piece is if it's the "wrong style" it will not be hung.
Click to expand...
yes, it's a controlled environment.
 
ViolentPanda said:
To be fair, I feel the same about a lot of conceptual art, but I accept that may be due to me not "getting" the premises of conceptual art, or not wanting to get the premises of conceptual art - to me, while an unmade bed may well be a layering of the personal history of the artist, it just looks like an unmade bed with spunky sheets!
Click to expand...

Oh sure, I accept it's all and all, it just does nowt for me.
 
ska invita said:
okay i didnt realise you were being that specific - i dont know whats going on in the oil painting world but my point is its not from a lack of skill.
Click to expand...

The thing is..it IS about lack of skill or rather loss of skills.. skills are and have been lost...very lovely skills..:(
This is why we have mediocre art and yet we're being told it is fantastic.
It takes years to learn how glazes work. How translucency works. How and why Turner laid down water based paints first and then painted over in oils. It seems that everything learned is gradually being lost...and the art world is doing very little to counter this.
These are skills that are disappearing and we are being left with artists who paint blobs and the world says "wow".
Caravaggio layered up to 60 glazes in a painting. ...the depth of colours in his work is astounding. The light and dark is perfection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chemn
Geometric Art/ Mandala
Replies
22
Views
336
Sweet FA
Sweet FA
A
  • Poll
Is photorealistic art really "art"?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
182
Views
5K
Dr. Furface
Dr. Furface
A
"The Hanging Committee:": thread for amusing tales about arts events.
Replies
6
Views
486
moochedit
moochedit
A
Art Fraud stories.
Replies
0
Views
239
Aladdin
A
Mumbles274
The 2023 Art Thread
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
247
Views
10K
JimW
JimW
Back
Top Bottom