Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

not at all ime. because the process is important in so much work - showing your working, explaining the route you covered to arrive at this place, informing about elements of the work that may have gone into its construction but which aren't obvious in the final piece. because good art work always has a story behind it. even if that story is purely technical or aesthetic - totally subjective - but original work will always have that underpinning, can always be explained by its maker, even in a single sentence.

Gah - reminds me of school maths where you had to scribble down a page of workings for something perfectly obvious.
An art teacher worth their salt should be able to tell the merits of a piece from the piece, no?
 
not at all ime. because the process is important in so much work - showing your working, explaining the route you covered to arrive at this place, informing about elements of the work that may have gone into its construction but which aren't obvious in the final piece. because good art work always has a story behind it. even if that story is purely technical or aesthetic - totally subjective - but original work will always have that underpinning, can always be explained by its maker, even in a single sentence.

It's good to hear it working for you. I kinda got the impression, though, that you had found the course hard before you specialised.

I know good art work always has a story behind it and that is a really good way of putting it, and one that I shall put to my daughter. :)

It's just that the story seems to count more than the art. And, more than that, phrasing the story in a specific way seems to count more than the art, at least when it comes to grades.

And really good representional art should not need a story, at least for the consumers. The art should be the story. That's why it exists, to tell stories that words cannot tell. If you have to add words, you've failed.
 
I think it's very useful to be able to talk about your work.

In my own practice it has helped me move forward with research and define exactly what I'm trying to do.

And that has opened me up to ideas and possibilities that I might not have considered before; in fact it's been a revelation. :)

And as chilango says, it applies to all manner of practice - representational, abstract even craft based stuff like jewellery.

I think that talking, explanation and explication are great, and help further understanding and appreciation.
What annoys me is how often, under the influence of gallery-owners, collectors and critics, explanation is not engaged in. Instead mystification comes into play, and the artist and co-conspirators attempt to create a meaning for the artwork that maximises its' mystique, and therefore the potential for publicity and sale.
To me, that's not explanation, it's copywriting.
 
An art teacher worth their salt should be able to tell the merits of a piece from the piece, no?

but part of what they're judging us on is our ability to develop original work, to present it in a professional manner, to write the blurb that's *required* if you're ever going to exhibit work. personally i'd rather it was *my* words up there than some curator's interpretation - that's my chance to explain the work a little more to the viewer, to give them pointers on what to pay attention to etc...

and they're judging us on how successfully we meet our own intentions. so they need to know what we were hoping to convey in the work and they can judge us exactly by how clearly that intention/emotion/whatever comes across.
 
not at all ime. because the process is important in so much work - showing your working, explaining the route you covered to arrive at this place, informing about elements of the work that may have gone into its construction but which aren't obvious in the final piece. because good art work always has a story behind it. even if that story is purely technical or aesthetic - totally subjective - but original work will always have that underpinning, can always be explained by its maker, even in a single sentence.

So, basically proving you're an artist, rather than an artisan? :D
 
but part of what they're judging us on is our ability to develop original work, to present it in a professional manner, to write the blurb that's *required* if you're ever going to exhibit work. personally i'd rather it was *my* words up there than some curator's interpretation - that's my chance to explain the work a little more to the viewer, to give them pointers on what to pay attention to etc...

That sounds more like salesmanship. A definite advantage if you want your art to be appreciated while you're still alive, but I'm not convinced it should have any bearing on the assessment of the art.

and they're judging us on how successfully we meet our own intentions. so they need to know what we were hoping to convey in the work and they can judge us exactly by how clearly that intention/emotion/whatever comes across.

Cool - so I could get a First in Art with one of my paintings so long as I explain that I was attempting to convey a half-arsed watercolour of an anatomically inaccurate sheep?
 
scifisam if she ever wants to talk about art school with someone who's in it i'd be happy to go over my experience. bear in mind i'm fucking loving it, so not the most impartial input ;)
 
It's good to hear it working for you. I kinda got the impression, though, that you had found the course hard before you specialised.

I know good art work always has a story behind it and that is a really good way of putting it, and one that I shall put to my daughter. :)

It's just that the story seems to count more than the art. And, more than that, phrasing the story in a specific way seems to count more than the art, at least when it comes to grades.

And really good representional art should not need a story, at least for the consumers. The art should be the story. That's why it exists, to tell stories that words cannot tell. If you have to add words, you've failed.


Presumably when you're studying art, you have to be able to show that you understand art - its history, context, meaning, influence on your own practice etc.
 
i reckon i could fully justify to my tutors to decide to leave everything untitled and refuse to provide bio/statements, if i felt the need, if my intention was purely the object.

Wouldn't you have to put something in writing - well-phrased writing, at that - to justifify that? Or even speak to them about it in words; I mean to say, there is no way you could just submit something and say "here it is."

And at A level you'd just fail.
 
Also scifisam she might want to consider something more applied; my sister loved doing graphic design (at Brighton), illustration also well worth a thought.

If you study graphic design (I got a BA in multimedia design), you still have to show your process and study cultural context and meaning.
 
I'm not convinced it should have any bearing on the assessment of the art.

our tutors job isn't just to judge us on the (subjective) quality of the work. it's about training us to work as jobbing artists - to find the opportunities, to apply for them, to write the blurb they usually ask for. perhaps my course is different from fine art, it's newly developed and training us to be *makers* above all else, but it's very strongly vocational and part of that is being able to talk the talk. it just is. all it takes is having genuine creative ideas rather than just blagging it.
 
our tutors job isn't just to judge us on the (subjective) quality of the work. it's about training us to work as jobbing artists - to find the opportunities, to apply for them, to write the blurb they usually ask for. perhaps my course is different from fine art, it's newly developed and training us to be *makers* above all else, but it's very strongly vocational and part of that is being able to talk the talk. it just is. all it takes is having genuine creative ideas rather than just blagging it.

I'm not too familiar with it all but what do you mean by 'maker'?
Is that similar to the people Damian Hirst calls his 'fabricators'?
 
If you study graphic design (I got a BA in multimedia design), you still have to show your process and study cultural context and meaning.

Certainly, but it can be easier to structure than with fine art.
 
Do you get a choice of media to do that in?

It was basically web design, but I did some photography and video too. Pretty useless degree tbh. The tutors were wanking over Flash (this was '99 - '02), which I hated (still do).
 
It was basically web design, but I did some photography and video too. Pretty useless degree tbh. The tutors were wanking over Flash (this was '99 - '02), which I hated (still do).

I actually meant did you get a choice of media for your justification for your work. Has something superseded Flash in terms of that kind of tool - I always found it a bugger to use.
 
I'm not too familiar with it all but what do you mean by 'maker'?
Is that similar to the people Damian Hirst calls his 'fabricators'?

full degree title is artist/designer: maker. it's about realising our ideas in the flesh, whether that's through traditional workshop skills - enamelling, bronze casting, woodwork, welding, dye, stitch - or through digital methods - 3d modelling and print, rendering, laser cutting/etching - and skilling us up enough that we can keep up a personal practice after we graduate - so outsourcing production and/or being self-sufficient with our own equipment. working on my summer project atm i'm drawing up plans for a solar powered laser cutter :thumbs : crossed with a spirograph :hmm:
 
I actually meant did you get a choice of media for your justification for your work. Has something superseded Flash in terms of that kind of tool - I always found it a bugger to use.

iirc, we had to submit work ups of several ideas and show the progression from lots of initial ideas to one finished product.
 
I actually meant did you get a choice of media for your justification for your work. Has something superseded Flash in terms of that kind of tool - I always found it a bugger to use.

Fuck knows about Flash btw, I've ended up working as a mental health nurse
 
I read somewhere that many of today's successful artists are those who did not go to art school..

I think that sort of thing happens in a lot of fields these days. People fall into something from somewhere else and bring something new with them.
 
iirc, we had to submit work ups of several ideas and show the progression from lots of initial ideas to one finished product.

That sounds like the sort of thing you could do as an animation. Like in DVD extras where you get progressions of concept artwork etc.
 
full degree title is artist/designer: maker. it's about realising our ideas in the flesh, whether that's through traditional workshop skills - enamelling, bronze casting, woodwork, welding, dye, stitch - or through digital methods - 3d modelling and print, rendering, laser cutting/etching - and skilling us up enough that we can keep up a personal practice after we graduate - so outsourcing production and/or being self-sufficient with our own equipment. working on my summer project atm i'm drawing up plans for a solar powered laser cutter :thumbs : crossed with a spirograph :hmm:

That sounds cool. So everything from making film sets to product design is open from there.

Everything else you've said makes more sense to me in that context since you have considerations of cost, choice of materials etc. etc., arriving at a final decision after various mock-ups etc.

As opposed to being a hermit sat up a tree with bones in his beard painting furiously and producing something people in Islington dinner parties will rave about in 200 years.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom