Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

[Miss Caphat]

one more thought while we're on the subject...if there was an equivalent of a piece of artwork to a Justin Bieber song, it would probably be something like this...

 

[Orang Utan]

In my going to bed manoeuvres, I have managed to knock over a clothes detergent bottle that had no lid on it (I didn't leave it there). It was a few minutes before I noticed, and although I cleaned up most of the gunk, I do not have enough time to clear it up properly. That part of the carpet is going to be so much cleaner than the rest when I do clean it properly tomorrow

I may take a photo of it if it is interesting or beautiful enough. And then it shall be art and and a big fuck you to Dr Herbz and Bubbles McGrath. I hope it looks like a middle finger, just so even they can understand what it's really about.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Why would I put it anywhere?

Because "brilliant" art deserves to be displayed.

In my going to bed manoeuvres, I have managed to knock over a clothes detergent bottle that had no lid on it (I didn't leave it there). It was a few minutes before I noticed, and although I cleaned up most of the gunk, I do not have enough time to clear it up properly. That part of the carpet is going to be so much cleaner than the rest when I do clean it properly tomorrow

I may take a photo of it if it is interesting or beautiful enough. And then it shall be art and and a big fuck you to Dr Herbz and Bubbles McGrath. I hope it looks like a middle finger, just so even they can understand what it's really about.

Yup...and if it isn't beaitiful enough you can create a narrative and context of your own that reflects modern society's need to "come clean" about the "ingrained dirt and corruption that reaches through its every fibre of being".and if you were someone within the art world in the correct sphere, you'd probably get away with it as a significant work.

Pity you and caphat are still not getting it.....

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Doesn't matter though, does it?

As the viewer I'm free to like it on my own terms, aren't i?

Just as I'm free to dislike it.....

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

in your dinner

Pathetic

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Of course not. So is your assessment of good art something you'd want to hang on a wall in your house?

Is this all you're getting from the point?
I'd happily have a Van Gogh, Rothko, Warren, Kavanagh, and a multitude of other art on my wall....art that I both like and is "valued" by the "artistic community".

I really like that piece Orang Utan

I wonder if we'll proceed to the discovery that artwork made of piss is vastly superior to artwork made of shit?

That's a pissibility..

What I find a bit strange is that you assume that because I dislike tins of shit that I'm an amateur who couldn't possibly know much about art or the art world.... that's rather snobbish.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

I like this....

 

[Miss Caphat]

What I find a bit strange is that you assume that because I dislike tins of shit that I'm an amateur who couldn't possibly know much about art or the art world.... that's rather snobbish.

Um, as I said I've been involved in visual art since I was very young and it's been a huge part of my life and I consider myself an amateur too. Not sure what's snobbish about that

 

[Voley]

one more thought while we're on the subject...if there was an equivalent of a piece of artwork to a Justin Bieber song, it would probably be something like this...

Nice.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Milo Moire...
Art Cologne 2014 "Plop egg painting performance"
Art Basel 2013 "The Script System" #2
Any thoughts Caphat? Or anyone?
Anyone familiar with Joseph Beuys or Marina Abramovic might appreciate her work as she's claimed their influence.
Performance art / porn...

Whaddya think??
I've read her "philosophy of art"... her site asks the viewer for €4.99 to view her "uncensored" videos of eggs filled with paint plopping out of her vagina onto a canvas below...Her creativity apparently reliant on having people view this momentous performance as the eggs hit a canvas and splatter paint on them. The resulting art work gets very little attention (wonder why?)
She offers a philosophical argument about birth and creativity.
...



You'll probably guess that my view is it's truly ......
...

Groundbreaking art.

 

[chilango]

Just as I'm free to dislike it.....

Dislike, yes. Dismiss, no.

 

[Pickman's model]

Pathetic

dulce et decorum est cloaca in loco

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I like this....

Nice Dr Herbz
Like that..

 

[chilango]

Milo Moire...
Art Cologne 2014 "Plop egg painting performance"
Art Basel 2013 "The Script System" #2
Any thoughts Caphat? Or anyone?
Anyone familiar with Joseph Beuys or Marina Abramovic might appreciate her work as she's claimed their influence.
Performance art / porn...

Whaddya think??
I've read her "philosophy of art"... her site asks the viewer for €4.99 to view her "uncensored" videos of eggs filled with paint plopping out of her vagina onto a canvas below...Her creativity apparently reliant on having people view this momentous performance as the eggs hit a canvas and splatter paint on them. The resulting art work gets very little attention (wonder why?)
She offers a philosophical argument about birth and creativity.
...



You'll probably guess that my view is it's truly ......
...

Groundbreaking art.

S'alright. Doesn't do much for me, but it's valid.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

dulce et decorum est cloaca in loco

Pickman tu asinus es

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

S'alright. Doesn't do much for me, but it's valid.

As??
Great art?
Mediocre art?
Bad art?

 

[chilango]

I'm interested but I want to know more.

What's with the frame? That's one thing I don't get about art in galleries.

Ditto.

I think I'd need to see this one in the flesh to decide whether I like it. The frame is distracting me from what's inside.

To get beyond that, I'd like to know more about how and why it was made.

The erased drawing is more interesting (to me) because I "know" there was a drawing there, that isn't there now. It wouldn't be as intriguing if there had never been a drawing there.

 

[chilango]

As??
Great art?
Mediocre art?
Bad art?

As art.

I wouldn't want to judge beyond that without knowing a lot more about it.

...and I couldn't say whether I like it without seeing it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Pickman tu asinus es

i should have said dulce et decorum est cloaca in cena

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

As art.

I wouldn't want to judge beyond that without knowing a lot more about it.

...and I couldn't say whether I like it without seeing it.

Yet you just said this....

Dislike, yes. Dismiss, no.

Qui aliquando non populus, nec sentis a perito traditum?


Why wait to be told by the "expert" what is to be liked / respected/ valued in art ...?

Have a listen to Laurie Anderson.. think about it...


I'm off to work.

 

[chilango]

bubblesmcgrath who's waiting to be "told by an expert"? Not me. I merely want more information.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Nice Dr Herbz
Like that..

This is another by the same guy.

 

[Fez909]

Hmm. I personally don't care if you like Rothko, Manzoni, Beuys etc. I only get annoyed when you dismiss it as shit without making the effort to look beyond the aesthetics of having a nice painting on your wall. I would probably get even more annoyed if you said that Coil's Time Machines was shit cos it didn't have the melodies and harmonies of Beach Boys' Pet Sounds.

This is the first thing in this thread that has made re-think Rothko and maybe understand how people can have such a reaction to them in the flesh when they do nowt for me otherwise. It feels like The Emperor's New Clothes when I hear people banging on about the brush strokes, though!! and whatever else, and it seemed like they were grasping for a reason to like him because he's trendy, rather than anything else.

A drone track could be seen as pure texture, though, and that can stir up emotion in me. And even those who don't appreciate that sort of music can feel unsettled by pure noise or tone, like the feeling of dread you get from a David Lynch film's soundtrack. And if you heard that same soundtrack through a phone on the back of a bus it would sound shit, but in a gig or even a cinema, with the volume cranked up and the bass nice and deep, you would have a vastly different experience.

Is this what people get from Rothko? The size, presence, whatever, is what makes the difference? I've really tried to understand it, and aside from this explanation here, I can't see anything beyond that. And if it is that, then would any painting of that size be enough to evoke the same emotions? Large canvas with moody, unsettling colours = now you're Rothko? I'm semi-joking with that last sentence, but his technique, for all the praise, doesn't seem difficult to reproduce. It's just seems laborious.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Christopher Rothko says his father believed that “viewing a work of art was an experience, something to interact with. If you are communicating with the painting, you are potentially having a life-changing, mind-changing, spirit-changing kind of experience. It’s not just something beautiful to look at, but something that touches a place deep inside you.”

Rothko’s work “hits you on a pre-conscious, pre-verbal kind of level. That was quite intentional: He was looking for a pictorial language that was as universal as possible, that he could communicate to almost every viewer. He did not want to be tied to stories or any kind of narrative that would pigeonhole him in a time or a place. He was looking for something that could reach everywhere.”

http://www.stltoday.com/entertainme...cle_97988db5-5148-5894-8e0e-29d4b20c8e25.html

/serious procrastination going on in Brinkley.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I like this...in fact after having a look I much prefer his work up unitl the mid 40s.

The change in style:
'Rothko explained the transition from totemic and biomorphic figures to planes of color in part by saying that "...the familiar identity of things has to be pulverized..." He also described his forms as "organisms with volition and a passion for self-assertion." This description of the forms in his paintings as living forces or beings is consistent with his description of the work of art as having a life of its own.'

http://www.radford.edu/rbarris/art428/mark rothko.html

 

[Miss Caphat]

This is the first thing in this thread that has made re-think Rothko and maybe understand how people can have such a reaction to them in the flesh when they do nowt for me otherwise. It feels like The Emperor's New Clothes when I hear people banging on about the brush strokes, though!! and whatever else, and it seemed like they were grasping for a reason to like him because he's trendy, rather than anything else.

A drone track could be seen as pure texture, though, and that can stir up emotion in me. And even those who don't appreciate that sort of music can feel unsettled by pure noise or tone, like the feeling of dread you get from a David Lynch film's soundtrack. And if you heard that same soundtrack through a phone on the back of a bus it would sound shit, but in a gig or even a cinema, with the volume cranked up and the bass nice and deep, you would have a vastly different experience.

Is this what people get from Rothko? The size, presence, whatever, is what makes the difference? I've really tried to understand it, and aside from this explanation here, I can't see anything beyond that. And if it is that, then would any painting of that size be enough to evoke the same emotions? Large canvas with moody, unsettling colours = now you're Rothko? I'm semi-joking with that last sentence, but his technique, for all the praise, doesn't seem difficult to reproduce. It's just seems laborious.

In terms of what you're saying about music, I see what you're saying but I think it's also plain to see that the more experience you have with a medium, the more you can appreciate it...same with food, writing, etc.


All I know is, for me personally, the things that enhance my appreciation for artwork are:
-my own experience and struggles with trying to create art and produce the image I have in mind

-knowledge of the place in history of the piece, things like understanding the movements in art make them more exciting for me in general, I imagine the competition, each artist straining, competing to convey something pure and mind-blowing, working off each other, as well as wanting to express what's in their souls and minds...by the way I find it really hard to believe that anyone would devote themselves to such a risky career as an artist without being totally passionate about it and believing in themselves completely, therefore I find the idea of con-artists or phonies pretty ridiculous.

-other artwork I've been exposed to. I've seen a good number of shows, and plenty more documentaries and books, etc. All of these experiences build on each other and make me seek out new types of art, and judge them against each other.

This being said, with or without context, it's perfectly ok to not like Rothko or Pollock or anyone, whether you're 5 years old, an alien from outer space, or an 85 yr old art critic. But being able to understand why you don't like something and express it effectively, to be able to understand your own reaction to a piece of art, and to be open to the interpretation of others is worth striving for imo. And this, I think, can only be gained by more exposure to art and art theory and art history. Which never hurt anyone as far as I know.





-

 

[Fez909]

In terms of what you're saying about music, I see what you're saying but I think it's also plain to see that the more experience you have with a medium, the more you can appreciate it...same with food, writing, etc.


All I know is, for me personally, the things that enhance my appreciation for artwork are:
-my own experience and struggles with trying to create art and produce the image I have in mind

-knowledge of the place in history of the piece, things like understanding the movements in art make them more exciting for me in general, I imagine the competition, each artist straining, competing to convey something pure and mind-blowing, working off each other, as well as wanting to express what's in their souls and minds...by the way I find it really hard to believe that anyone would devote themselves to such a risky career as an artist without being totally passionate about it and believing in themselves completely, therefore I find the idea of con-artists or phonies pretty ridiculous.

-other artwork I've been exposed to. I've seen a good number of shows, and plenty more documentaries and books, etc. All of these experiences build on each other and make me seek out new types of art, and judge them against each other.

This being said, with or without context, it's perfectly ok to not like Rothko or Pollock or anyone, whether you're 5 years old, an alien from outer space, or an 85 yr old art critic. But being able to understand why you don't like something and express it effectively, to be able to understand your own reaction to a piece of art, and to be open to the interpretation of others is worth striving for imo. And this, I think, can only be gained by more exposure to art and art theory.





-

I'll give a proper reply to this in a bit but you touched on another thing I didn't mention in my thing above, but meant to.

If I was around in 1950 and I saw a Rothko, I might be impressed with it because of how revolutionary it must have seemed back then. Most of that is lost/diminished on those who didn't live through those years and have grew up with art based on, and taken further than, the stuff the abstract expressionists came up with. Talking about music again, jazz came about at a similar time and must have seemed much more exciting then than it does now for the same reasons. Now it's seen as elevator music, and stuff like Rothko* is churned out for hotel lobbies and corporate boardrooms.

*The style, not the 'quality', before anyone starts.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I'll give a proper reply to this in a bit but you touched on another thing I didn't mention in my thing above, but meant to.

If I was around in 1950 and I saw a Rothko, I might be impressed with it because of how revolutionary it must have seemed back then. Most of that is lost/diminished on those who didn't live through those years and have grew up with art based on, and taken further than, the stuff the abstract expressionists came up with. Talking about music again, jazz came about at a similar time and must have seemed much more exciting then than it does now for the same reasons. Now it's seen as elevator music, and stuff like Rothko* is churned out for hotel lobbies and corporate boardrooms.

*The style, not the 'quality', before anyone starts.

well, I think the impact of a revolutionary piece of art can and does easily get lost with time, but it's just as easily appreciated and seen with new eyes when you do start to understand the context and the time period/ history etc...same with jazz, old films, etc., right?

 

[Fez909]

well, I think the impact of a revolutionary piece of art can and does easily get lost with time, but it's just as easily appreciated and seen with new eyes when you do start to understand the context and the time period/ history etc...same with jazz, old films, etc., right?

Not to the same extent. You had to be there, maaaaan

 

[Miss Caphat]

Not to the same extent. You had to be there, maaaaan

well, the experience of being there can obviously never be surpassed, However, the pleasure derived from diving into nostalgia for a certain time period even if you were never there can be pretty gratifying too. It's a different way of experiencing something, and the advantage is of being able to see it more clearly than those who were actually there.