Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

[Miss Caphat]

Hints of Marx's "use value" and "exchange value"?

I don't know what that means

but in any case, the sad thing is that there are people with enough extra money lying around to buy these things (unless they're an educational organization such as a museum) and not that they've been valued as being worth that much money.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Well hold your foot for the time being. I'm still planning to do mine. Have been out and bought some brushes this afternoon and some white spirit. I've researched Rothko's methods and I'm going to try to paint in the same way (though I doubt I'll have time to do it properly - due to the drying time between layers). So yeah, I am taking this seriously and giving it a semi-proper shot.

Are ypu going to use oils then?
I might try that too. The acrylic dries a bit too fast ...

 

[Fez909]

Are ypu going to use oils then?
I might try that too. The acrylic dries a bit too fast ...

That's the plan. I don't think acrylic can be thinned with white spirit can it?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

to all the people who hammered on about the astronomical prices of art in the beginning of the thread, think of it this way: things like autographs, scraps of paper the Beatles left on the floor, ancient broken pottery, highly compressed carbon and all kind of things sell for millions of dollars.
It's often more about the idea of something and what it represents rather than its practical value as an object. These pieces by Rothko, etc, represent cultural and artistic breakthroughs, changes in our way of seeing and thinking about the world, and for those reasons and others they have great historical value and much more on top of just being things to look at.
Maybe you don't "get it" but if you can't see that we're a society that lives to infuse objects with a whole lot of subjective worth, value, and meaning you must not be paying attention.

I get it...I just think the money "value" is obscene.

That's the plan. I don't think acrylic can be thinned with white spirit can it?

No but I wondered if you were using oils or alkyds...

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I don't particularly like it. It looks like some sort of Mondrian knock-off. As to what it's worth - whatever someone is prepared to pay for it.

This is the whole problem that I have with the buying of art.
Someone like Emin pours their inner life out and produces art that is entirely personal and it is elevated to the status of great art by particular galleries.
Of course the stories behind her art are moving....but without the story her bed is a messy bed. You spoke earlier about the nature of consumerism and art ...

Maybe that was a bad term for me to use. What I meant, is that they are not a throw-away mass produced items.

I agree with this ^^
For me a great artwork should stand the test of time. In a number of ways. It should continue to be relevant and communicate intimately with the onlooker.It also should in so far as possible be long lived. A Caravaggio for example will still resonate with the modern person. I cant help but doubt that Emin will stand the test of time in the same way. Hirst will, in my view, be a footnote. A representative of the egoist movement. An example of the move from great art to consumer art.

Rothko is different imo. His art is extremely honest and very far removed from egoism. Saying that, the sheer scale of his paintings is really significant in appreciating his work. The idea that you stand 18 inches away and become immersed in his fields of colour is brilliant. Your peripheral vision soaks up colour. So a small 60 x 50 cm version wont have the same effect. And that is what his art is about. It's the effect of the colours he chooses to combine, on the viewer. The colour speaks for itself and to me his art is one of the most honest forms because he doesnt involve his ego and it's all about the observers experience. Yeah...I have to say I like them....despite my disgust at the obscene monetary value placed on them. I think at some stage I'd like to paint an entire wall of a room in the style of Rothko...and bask in the colours.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

When I painted "what the fuck are you looking at?" on a canvas they took it off the wall and threw it in the skip. When tracy emin wrote the above on a bit of paper it's in the tate.

That's art.

And this is what is wrong with the world of 21st century and late 20th century art. There you are pouring your feelings out on canvas and your feelings are less valued than a named artist's? The inequality is ridiculous. Revolution please?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

This one's actually sort of nice. But IMO you can fuck off with your attitude about art.

You just kind of proved the point that best retort to everyone who says (while looking at a famous piece)

"I could have done that myself"

is, of course "Yeah, but you DIDN'T"

So, in this case you did....sort of, but you essentially failed. we can tell the originals are much better, and by your description you didn't feel passionate about or even understand the process of what you were doing and why, thereby proving that no, not anyone could have done that. in most cases, only the artist could have done what they did because they're the one who was moved to create something.
I am not making much sense but yeah, your experiment was a big FAIL imo.

I never actually said what you seem to think I said....and I understand perfectly what Rothko did .. how he did it and the skill involved. Anyone who paints regularly understands what he did. As for my homage pictures. .they are the first of many. I'll be exploring colour fields for a while. I think the first one in dark colours depressed me because of the particular colours used. So in a way I can resonate with the emotional quality of Rothkos work even more closely now because the effects of trying to paint in his style did effect me personally. It feels like you have judged me as a person and dismissed me without knowing or understanding me at all and that you can judge a piece of art without experiencing an intimate understanding of the artist..or their innermost thoughts and feelings.

People never really fully divulge who they are. Layers and layers need to be unfurled. Maybe that thought is one to peruse whilst you make assumptions about a person based on posts on the internet

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I like the proportions on the second better too, at least in terms of the thinner borders/boundaries. Not sure about the white stripe. Wouldn't be averse to having its like on my wall though. If I had more walls.

You up for posting any of your landscapes?

One I painted a few years ago...the buyer wanted it glazed and I photographed it afterwards....hence the sun....

 

[Miss Caphat]

I never actually said what you seem to think I said....and I understand perfectly what Rothko did .. how he did it and the skill involved. Anyone who paints regularly understands what he did. As for my homage pictures. .they are the first of many. I'll be exploring colour fields for a while. I think the first one in dark colours depressed me because of the particular colours used. So in a way I can resonate with the emotional quality of Rothkos work even more closely now because the effects of trying to paint in his style did effect me personally. It feels like you have judged me as a person and dismissed me without knowing or understanding me at all and that you can judge a piece of art without experiencing an intimate understanding of the artist..or their innermost thoughts and feelings.

People never really fully divulge who they are. Layers and layers need to be unfurled. Maybe that thought is one to peruse whilst you make assumptions about a person based on posts on the internet

It's just that I've heard much of what you said, almost verbatim, by plenty of others in the past. sometimes people are more transparent than they imagine themselves to be.

 

[Miss Caphat]

complaining about the state of the "art world" and how unfair it is is not a revolutionary act, imo.
celebrating art and making it and encouraging it is. we have too much of the former and not enough of the latter.
the "art world" doesn't need more people to hate it or ignore it or think it's inaccessible.

it's not. art is all kinds of things. some of it needs a prior understanding of context to be appreciated, some can be appreciated for what it is at face value, some is participatory and meant to be enjoyed as such.
there's no need to discount one form over another. if you think there's a lack of balance irt visual art and how people are taught to enjoy it, then go out there and try to encourage people to get involved more with the type of art you do enjoy.
that's how I see it anyway. no need to tear anybody else down, really.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

complaining about the state of the "art world" and how unfair it is is not a revolutionary act, imo.
celebrating art and making it and encouraging it is. we have too much of the former and not enough of the latter.
the "art world" doesn't need more people to hate it or ignore it or think it's inaccessible.

it's not. art is all kinds of things. some of it needs a prior understanding of context to be appreciated, some can be appreciated for what it is at face value, some is participatory and meant to be enjoyed as such.
there's no need to discount one form over another. if you think there's a lack of balance irt visual art and how people are taught to enjoy it, then go out there and try to encourage people to get involved more with the type of art you do enjoy.
that's how I see it anyway. no need to tear anybody else down, really.

I'm not trying to be revolutionary
Who's "tearing anyone down"?
The majority of art bought by the majority of the art buying population is art they enjoy..art they can afford....art they're happy to hang on a wall and like for years of their lives.
The majestic kings and Queens of art in the Tate etc sell to a tiny percentage of the world's population.
I'm not tearing Hirst down. His art is exclusively for the extortionately wealthy. I couldn't tear him down with a JCB... lol...
As for discountimg forms of art...well people like what they like and I believe I'm free to be selective in my enjoyment of art just as anyone is. I can decide for myself what I like and I don't think I'd tell anyone what to like in art... I'm not anti modern art ... I'm anti con artists and there are some in the art world just like any other business.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

It's just that I've heard much of what you said, almost verbatim, by plenty of others in the past. sometimes people are more transparent than they imagine themselves to be.

I think you misheard me and heard those other voices instead. Tbh it's easy to dismiss someone by saying you've heard it all before but as I already said I believe you misinterpreted what I was saying.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I think you misheard me and heard those other voices instead. Tbh it's easy to dismiss someone by saying you've heard it all before but as I already said I believe you misinterpreted what I was saying.

I haven't read the whole thread, but it seemed like you were saying that art should be able to be appreciated at face value for it to have value, and that it shouldn't require an explanation, and so on.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I'm not trying to be revolutionary
Who's "tearing anyone down"?
The majority of art bought by the majority of the art buying population is art they enjoy..art they can afford....art they're happy to hang on a wall and like for years of their lives.
The majestic kings and Queens of art in the Tate etc sell to a tiny percentage of the world's population.
I'm not tearing Hirst down. His art is exclusively for the extortionately wealthy. I couldn't tear him down with a JCB... lol...
As for discountimg forms of art...well people like what they like and I believe I'm free to be selective in my enjoyment of art just as anyone is. I can decide for myself what I like and I don't think I'd tell anyone what to like in art... I'm not anti modern art ... I'm anti con artists and there are some in the art world just like any other business.

yes, you're free to be selective, certainly. I just get annoyed with sentiments that focus more on the negative rather than the positive about art and artists. Because I think it's too easy to criticize and be negative, and that there's really more of a problem with lack of appreciation on the whole than too much appreciation for certain types of art. this is what I am taking issue with.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

yes, you're free to be selective, certainly. I just get annoyed with sentiments that focus more on the negative rather than the positive about art and artists. Because I think it's too easy to criticize and be negative, and that there's really more of a problem with lack of appreciation on the whole than too much appreciation for certain types of art. this is what I am taking issue with.

I think overall you'll find that this thread was representative of many views on the enjoyment of art, its appreciation, and a robust critique of the higher eschelons of certain types of modern art. The art world will survive and threads like these start debate and lead to discussion which can only be a good thing

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I haven't read the whole thread, but it seemed like you were saying that art should be able to be appreciated at face value for it to have value, and that it shouldn't require an explanation, and so on.

Not really... you see that's making an objective of art appreciation. I was more inclned to mean the subjective emotional response of an art experience...from the personal viewpoint. And that the personal response is as valid a response as the objective "appreciation" of a piece.
To explain...I've an MA in music. Before I learned how to compose I could listen to music and enjoy it for its musical quality and how it made me feel. After I learned how to write music and studied music theory my brain was more inclined to analyse the music. .chordal progressions..transpositions etc.
I have to stop myself doing it and there are times when I just want to enjoy again. It's a right brain left brain thing

 

[Miss Caphat]

I think overall you'll find that this thread was representative of many views on the enjoyment of art, its appreciation, and a robust critique of the higher eschelons of certain types of modern art. The art world will survive and threads like these start debate and lead to discussion which can only be a good thing

the problem, as I see it, is balance, though. I appreciated many of the comments on the thread, it's just a shame that it was started with such a negative premise.

 

[Miss Caphat]

Not really... you see that's making an objective of art appreciation. I was more inclned to mean the subjective emotional response of an art experience...from the personal viewpoint. And that the personal response is as valid a response as the objective "appreciation" of a piece.
To explain...I've an MA in music. Before I learned how to compose I could listen to music and enjoy it for its musical quality and how it made me feel. After I learned how to write music and studied music theory my brain was more inclined to analyse the music. .chordal progressions..transpositions etc.
I have to stop myself doing it and there are times when I just want to enjoy again. It's a right brain left brain thing

so, what you're saying is, there are different ways of appreciating the arts, and that they vary according to one's experience and understanding of a particular medium, and that the various ways are not mutually exclusive?

yeah, I'm glad you realized that!

I have to go now, but good for you

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

the problem, as I see it, is balance, though. I appreciated many of the comments on the thread, it's just a shame that it was started with such a negative premise.

The title?
It was a similar thread title to a number of threads along the same lines on music, literature etc.
That's all really

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

so, what you're saying is, there are different ways of appreciating the arts, and that they vary according to one's experience and understanding of a particular medium, and that the various ways are not mutually exclusive?

yeah, I'm glad you realized that!

I have to go now, but good for you

I realised it a very long time ago
See you .. and enjoy your evening

 

[Miss Caphat]

The title?
It was a similar thread title to a number of threads along the same lines on music, literature etc.
That's all really

unfortunately, art is a different thing. far more people read and listen to music regularly than seek out visual art experiences.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I realised it a very long time ago
See you .. and enjoy your evening

you too

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

unfortunately, art is a different thing. far more people read and listen to music regularly than seek out visual art experiences.

Not sure I'd isolate visual art from other arts. ..
Visual art is everywhere..from the graphic art on a tin of soup to the design of a patterned rug etc. ....but then again maybe I'm looking for it.

 

[coley]

Thon Rothko, helluva an artist




Con artist that is

 

[moon]

I went to Deptford X and the Creekside open studios today and was seriously underwhelmed, I think consuming art online is much better, even though you only really experience a minute amount of what the art actually offers in terms of pigments and light etc etc.
Plus it's so much more inclusive...

 

[moon]

Nothing..

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I think consuming art online is much better, even though you only really experience a minute amount of what the art actually offers in terms of pigments and light etc etc.
Plus it's so much more inclusive...

Yup..
I love the way the internet has allowed access famous paintings in galleries all over the world. It's great that art is more accessible now than it has ever been.

I also really like that anyone can show their art online

 

[coley]

Yup..
I love the way the internet has allowed access famous paintings in galleries all over the world. It's great that art is more accessible now than it has ever been.

I also really like that anyone can show their art online

What's your favourite painting?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

What's your favourite painting?

Not an easy choice....I have some personal paintings that have huge sentimental value to me. Painted by a member of my family... I would put them top on my list of favourites.
But if you mean art painted by well know artists my two absolute favourite artists (can't choose only one)are...Monet and Van Gogh. And I would find it difficult to choose only one painting
I love Van Gogh's Bedroom at Arles paintings and also Monet's Water Lillies paintings. I know they're classics and known worldwide and are printed on everuthing from lamp shades to mugs ... but.......


What's yours ?

 

[coley]

Not an easy choice....I have some personal paintings that have huge sentimental value to me. Painted by a member of my family... I would put them top on my list of favourites.
But if you mean art painted by well know artists my two absolute favourite artists (can't choose only one)are...Monet and Van Gogh. And I would find it difficult to choose only one painting
I love Van Gogh's Bedroom at Arles paintings and also Monet's Water Lillies paintings. I know they're classics and known worldwide and are printed on everuthing from lamp shades to mugs ... but.......


What's yours ?

Aye VGs bedroom trumps Emins, (in my philistine view) my favourite has got to be the fighting temaraire by Turner, the light, brushwork, and general ambience speaks to me on a number of levels, I know this sounds bliddy pretentious from some bugger that knows nowt about art, but, as somebody earlier said, its about feelings and communication and turner usually hits the spot