the Purpose of Art...

[big soft moose]

I simply hate statements about what art is all about and how it should be perceived or interpreted. I particularly dislike the way for example, Tracy Emins bed is agonised over by supposed art experts until a credible reason why it was done on purpose for a deep and meaningfull reason is blundered upon. I have never heard of Brian Eno, but those words on that poster and the look on the face, exactly demonstrate what I mean, all very trendy and full of deep a significance that lesser beings can now grapple with...

"Stop thinking about artworks as objects and start thinking of them as triggers for new experiences" Jesus what a load of Boillox, silly b****r.

I did not refer to any poster on this thread by the way, sorry if you thought so.

Sorry if I offended anyone but I feel pasionately about what art is.


Steve.

i pretty much agree - your only mistake as using the word nonce ie paedophile - i recall the description of some new building (possibly the gerkhin) getting ripped apart on HIGNFY , where it was described as ' being contained within its own dimensions' - so its a building then.

(by the way BrianENO used to be in Roxy Music , he's now a solo experiemental /ambient musician)

 

[Stuart M]

What does everyone think of Brian Sewell's ability as an art critic then? I've always considered that he's too far up his own arse for his own good and he seems to revel in talking utter tripe.

What does the panel think?

 

[Phil V]

...by the way BrianENO used to be in Roxy Music , he's now a solo experiemental /ambient musician)

As a producer he's responsible for David Bowies best work, quite a bit if U2's and he also produces some 'modern art' , which like his solo music is of a very 'ambient' nature.

 

[big soft moose]

What does everyone think of Brian Sewell's ability as an art critic then? I've always considered that he's too far up his own arse for his own good and he seems to revel in talking utter tripe.

What does the panel think?

thats what critics do best

 

[simon ess]

I've never rated Sewell. I agree, he's up himself.

The two best art critics around right now IMO are Andrew Graham-Dixon and Grayson Perry. But for rather different reasons.

 

[BillN_33]

What does everyone think of Brian Sewell's ability as an art critic then? I've always considered that he's too far up his own arse for his own good and he seems to revel in talking utter tripe.

What does the panel think?

Like many in the present "art" world he is pompous, arrogant and self opinionated - par for the course - he and "artists" go well together ….. he has to ability to bring it down to a certain level……….. but I do find his reviews interesting, useful and amusing

http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/...er-picture-royal-academy--review-7439570.html

this is one of his reviews if that's the type you are referring to ……… and I share most of his feelings in this review after seeing the work, (but my wife and our friend who was with us disagreed, certainly at the time)

The more money these living "artists" get for their work the more they churn it out and in the end produce "sh1t" …… just my opinion of course which some of you are aware of ….. maybe it's just that I've have seen it and "don't get it" …. as the popular phrase goes

I was thinking about reconstructing a rubbish dump piece by piece of carefully cleaned items, in the shape of 4 crushed cars, as a tribute to some, but I only talk about people and not art? …….. miniatures set in plastic as key fobs cubes would also be a great seller …….. my only concern was I could not decide which to use rectangular or square cubes …… maybe a rectangular cube is not called a cube anyway?

 

[Steve T]

Care to share that with us?

Sure I'll share.

Art as a word, is a marvelous title for something created to illustrate a particular theme, emotion, vision, atmosphere etc, in fact, anything you like, in whatever medium you like. We are all free to do this and every effort is equal to the vision of the individual. Sometimes others genuinely like and applaud the effort and we gain approval for the creation.
Sometimes others applaud the effort for reasons other than genuine admiration, ie stroking an ego, trying to appear on track and 'with it', or simply wise and clever, then again maybe they just think it must have merit because everyone else says its good.

Artistry is knowing what you are trying to convey and doing so to a high degree of competence.

Art is not chucking a tin of paint at something, standing back to observe the result and then inventing a mysterious cleverness at achieving the result on pupose. Nor is it adding a title to, and claiming ownership of an accidental effect that was not invisaged and then executed on purpose.

I have been using the term'nonce' for over thirty years to describe an up their own arse twerp, idiot, prat, or fawning creep. Am I now to understand it means paediophile as well?? Didn't know that.

This, in my opinion is art.

This was not an accident misdescribed. This was created on purpose by a passionate photographer with considerable skill and care. It is what he intended and he executed the vision in his minds eye brilliantly

THIS is what I think of as deserving the description of art.

Hope that helps.

Steve.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3881/15051472518_cca016900b_o.jpg


*staff edit to linkify photo*
n

 

[Pookeyhead]

Sure I'll share.

Art as a word, is a marvelous title for something created to illustrate a particular theme, emotion, vision, atmosphere etc, in fact, anything you like, in whatever medium you like.

Except the art you don't like it would seem. LOL

We are all free to do this and every effort is equal to the vision of the individual.

Unless it's art you don't like... then that makes the artists "nonces".

Artistry is knowing what you are trying to convey and doing so to a high degree of competence.

Unless you don't like it, or understand it, or be able to understand where the competence is.... then it's crap by "nonces".

Nor is it adding a title to, and claiming ownership of an accidental effect that was not invisaged and then executed on purpose.

Planned every shot you've taken have you Steve? All of them? Really? Sure you're not telling a wee little porky here Steve?

I have been using the term'nonce' for over thirty years to describe an up their own arse twerp, idiot, prat, or fawning creep. Am I now to understand it means paediophile as well?? Didn't know that.

There's a great many things you probably don't understand. The wise know that knowledge is a dangerous thing. When we KNOW something, we stop learning about it. The wise know how to treat knowledge. It seems you KNOW everything you want to know already Steve... no need for you to learn anything any more.

I have been using the term'nonce' for over thirty years to describe an up their own arse twerp, idiot, prat, or fawning creep. Am I now to understand it means paediophile as well?? Didn't know that.

As above... you know what you know... and that's all you want to know. The word "gay" meant something different not so long ago too. Language evolves... like many things... such as art. You however, have not. You know what you like, and that's pretty much it. A decent art critic will see value in things they dno't necessarily like. Art isn't just to be "liked" Steve. Art can, and should evoke a whole range of emotions, not just the ones you WANT to feel.

This, in my opinion is art.

Will go lovely with my green lady painting that.


NB. If that's not your work, you shouldn't be embedding it... link to it instead.

 

[Pookeyhead]

What does everyone think of Brian Sewell's ability as an art critic then? I've always considered that he's too far up his own arse for his own good and he seems to revel in talking utter tripe.

What does the panel think?

I think he's an elitist snob, who wouldn't recognise art if it smacked him in the face t be honest. Steve and Brian would get on well I think. He's a rampant classicist (who ironically always talks of his poor upbringing.. in his RP accent) who occasionally throws a crumb of recognition to someone he feels is undeserving just to maintain some credibility. Comments such as "Banksy should have been put down at birth"... Hmmm.... yeah, he's an art critic alright.. in the same way Steve is being an art critic. He's just a troll. If you can't criticise the art without making cheap, sniping comments at those who create it, just do the world a favour, and keep your mouth shut.

 

[Steve Smith]

I've never rated Sewell. I agree, he's up himself.

So now you're an art critic critic!!


Steve.

 

[BillN_33]

I'm not really into that stuff either Steve T, the image that you posted, I mean ……. it reminds me of something that my mother had framed on her bedroom wall, (with all respect to the photographer)

David you call him a troll - what's a troll, he has only posted two or three times, (unlike me), I thought what Steve T said, (whether it is "Liked" or not), is the kind of debate that you wanted as he is stating his opinions on what he feels art is……. his opinions are worthwhile because they are direct and it is clear what he feels about certain areas of "art"

Is a troll someone who disagrees with you or someone that you disagree with?

"elitist mob" - ironically there is total irony in that term coming from you and therein lies the problem ……………. presumably now coming from another "troll"

as I indicated in an earlier posting, this thread is quite addictive as the problem of vanity and pomposity are the real problems in people who think that they are in any way "artistic" …… especially some of the so called ex art school mob, (my words) …… this is why they are so amusing

 

[Ed Sutton]

Sorry if I offended anyone but I feel pasionately about what art is.

Care to share that with us?

Unlikely I'd guess:

I simply hate statements about what art is all about

:shrug:

 

[Llamaman]

Is a troll someone who disagrees with you or someone that you disagree with?

He said anyone who didn't share his narrow view of art was a paedophile. That's clearly trolling.
You seem to think that that kind of behaviour should be encouraged - and defended - so I'd have to question your motives too.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm not really into that stuff either Steve T, the image that you posted, I mean ……. it reminds me of something that my mother had framed on her bedroom wall, (with all respect to the photographer)

David you call him a troll - what's a troll, he has only posted two or three times, (unlike me),

How many times you post has nothing to do with whether you're trolling or not.

I thought what Steve T said, (whether it is "Liked" or not), is the kind of debate that you wanted as he is stating his opinions on what he feels art is

No.. he.. like you did in the other thread, is making disparaging comments about the people who create art he doesn't like.

Or triggers for mutual masturbation with other nonces desperate for approval who lack a skillset that will earn them any!

That ring a bell?

……. his opinions are worthwhile because they are direct and it is clear what he feels about certain areas of "art"

No.. it was a comment about the people. If he doesn't like or understand the art, then it's made by "nonces" who crave attention and lack skill. How is that a reasoned debate about art?

"elitist mob" - ironically there is total irony in that term coming from you and therein lies the problem ……………. presumably now coming from another "troll"

How so? I'm the one saying art is such a broad, varying thing.. I'm the one saying that art doesn't even need to be liked. In what way have I been elitist? AT least I'm discussing the art... not the artists.

as I indicated in an earlier posting, this thread is quite addictive as the problem of vanity and pomposity are the real problems in people who think that they are in any way "artistic" …… especially some of the so called ex art school mob, (my words) …… this is why they are so amusing

...and there it is.... reducing it to attacks on the PEOPLE who make art you don't like... not the art itself. If you have a problem with the art, then discuss the art, not the person creating it.

The fact that you're here to make comments about artists for amusement (your words) makes you a troll.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[BillN_33]

He said anyone who didn't share his narrow view of art was a paedophile. That's clearly trolling.
You seem to think that that kind of behaviour should be encouraged - and defended - so I'd have to question your motives too.

Not sure what paedophilia, (if that's how you spell it), has got to do with art …… but Goldsmiths did produce many different kind of artists…… as well as the literal translation of the noun

I did not defend or encourage whatever "this kind of behaviour" is ……. "you guys" seem to "rail" against anything that you disagree with … which can be a pity as it only exacerbates what I feel to be the vanity and arrogance of the situation

 

[Llamaman]

Art as a word, is a marvelous title for something created to illustrate a particular theme, emotion, vision, atmosphere etc, in fact, anything you like, in whatever medium you like.

And surely the point of that illustration is to illicit some kind of response from the viewer?

I have been using the term'nonce' for over thirty years to describe an up their own arse twerp, idiot, prat, or fawning creep. Am I now to understand it means paediophile as well?? Didn't know that.

It's had a second meaning of paedophile since the 1970s (and I can find no usage of the word with your description in any online reference) so you've been using it wrong. That's a lot of apologies you owe!

 

[Llamaman]

Not sure what paedophilia, (if that's how you spell it), has got to do with art

Steve T believes anyone who produces or appreciates art he doesn't personally like is a paedophile.

I did not defend or encourage whatever "this kind of behaviour" is

Yes you did (post 131), which is why I called you out on it.

 

[Ed Sutton]

this thread is quite addictive as the problem of vanity and pomposity are the real problems in people who think that they are in any way "artistic" …… especially some of the so called ex art school mob, (my words) …… this is why they are so amusing

You accuse others of vanity and arrogance while blindly believing that your view is the correct one.

But then you are a self-confessed Yorkshireman and we all know that "you can always tell a Yorkshireman, but you can't tell him much".

 

[BillN_33]

David,

I do not regard the opinionated "art school mob" as artists - read what I said - I find the "art school mob" amusing not artists

 

[Pookeyhead]

David,

I do not regard the opinionated "art school mob" as artists - read what I said - I find the "art school mob" amusing not artists

I think you'll find most artists have studied art Bill.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I think you'll find most artists have studied art Bill.

And a lot of photographers.

 

[The23rdman]

I'm out. There are, quite frankly, some people posting in this thread who appear to have had a partial lobotomy.

 

[BillN_33]

I think you'll find most artists have studied art Bill.

just trading words here David and not meaning to be "smart" ….. but there is a meaning

Most Accountants have studied Accountancy, but a). there are some crap Accountants who know very little about the subject, and b). There are some "dishonest" Accountants and c). Many Accountants have used Accountancy as a means to another end.

I tend to look at people because they determine what they do and why they do it, whether it be an artist, politician or whatever…….. they are the problem not their "art" or what they say

I am quite cynical about people and life, maybe it is because I left Yorkshire 47 years ago and have met my fair share of them

I always thought that a "troll" was one of those speechless small children's dolls with hair sticking up in the air, in a "Ken Dodd" like fashion

 

[BillN_33]

I'm out. There are, quite frankly, some people posting in this thread who appear to have had a partial lobotomy.

depends on which side of the brain you are referring to


I'll stop soon as I take my pills with my second cup of morning tea and I'm probably still recovering from the Strictly "dance off" last night

 

[BillN_33]

And a lot of photographers.

That's quite revealing Dave, I do not call myself a "photographer", maybe because I have not studied photography and I regard my images as "record shots"………… but, IMHO, the vast majority of people who enjoy the medium and indeed would say "i'm a photographer" have not studied photography ………. and maybe they are better for it ……… and that is what one of my points would be, knowledge has nothing to do with vanity and arrogance, quite the reverse

Sorry that I cannot "string a few posts" together …….. and answer them in one …….. but maybe that's appropriate

 

[Ed Sutton]

IMHO, the vast majority of people who enjoy the medium and indeed would say "i'm a photographer" have not studied photography ………. and maybe they are better for it ……… and that is what one of my points would be, knowledge has nothing to do with vanity and arrogance, quite the reverse

I think saying 'I'm a photographer' without studying it (even in an informal way rather than an academic or technical way) is vain and arrogant. Owning and using a camera doesn't make you a photographer any more than owning a paint brush makes you a painter, or a set of golf clubs a golfer.

I am not a photographer - I don't make my living from photography nor have I devoted my life to it in the pursuit of pleasure or art. But I have looked into the history and cultural significances of the medium, how it communicates and so forth because that interests me as much as making pictures does.

You say that you regard your images (I hate that word) as record shots. Every photograph is a record shot. That's what cameras do - they record. But if you try to put more into photographs than that - or to look for more in them than that - then, surely, you will get more out of photography than using it simply to remind you of things you have seen? Or is that pompous, pretentious, twaddle?

Got real work to do now.

 

[droj]

THIS is what I think of as deserving the description of art.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3881/15051472518_cca016900b_o.jpg

No it is NOT art! It exhibits craft, and that's all. It's commercial, it's vain, it's shallow. It's creepy! Complain all you will. You may 'think' that it's art but can you fully intuit that it's art? How do you achieve understanding of anything with a life dimension? That image illustrates my distinction elsewhere on here between artists and artistes.

 

[ancient_mariner]

No it is NOT art! It exhibits craft, and that's all. It's commercial, it's vain, it's shallow. It's creepy! Complain all you will. You may 'think' that it's art but can you fully intuit that it's art? How do you achieve understanding of anything with a life dimension? That image illustrates my distinction elsewhere on here between artists and artistes.

Would it be fair to assume you don't like it then?

 

[Llamaman]

No it is NOT art! It exhibits craft, and that's all. It's commercial, it's vain, it's shallow. It's creepy! Complain all you will. You may 'think' that it's art but can you fully intuit that it's art? How do you achieve understanding of anything with a life dimension? That image illustrates my distinction elsewhere on here between artists and artistes.

Art can be commercial, vain, shallow, creepy, and - yes, rubbish - too!

My view is that this is art, albeit art that is entirely not to my taste (it made me cringe if I'm honest).

 

[ancient_mariner]

Art can be commercial, vain, shallow, creepy, and - yes, rubbish - too!

My view is that this is art, albeit art that is entirely not to my taste (it made me cringe if I'm honest).

This is interesting, isn't it?

To me, the creator of that image has had a clear message in mind, has performed his craft to a high standard in order to embed that message and at the same time has produced a beautiful photograph - it's so soft in places that it looks like a painting.

If I were the kind who made up stuff about pictures I saw then I might say that it illustrated the transforming effect of motherhood, that it talked about mother-love, about protection and helplessness, of gentleness and strength, of the mystery of the mother-child bond. Connected with this, a week ago, a friend in Australia almost drowned in saving her son when he was caught by a sudden wave and was being swept out to sea: she was willing to give her life in order for him to live. But I'm not the kind to read stuff into images, so I won't make up any more nonsense.

It may be that because the message is an ordinary one, and of commonplace beauty that it is far less appealing than more obscure, gritty and fashionable topics. Commercial? Sure, but no artist you ever heard of in their life-time ever made all their stuff solely for their own enjoyment.

 

[BillN_33]

No it is NOT art! It exhibits craft, and that's all. It's commercial, it's vain, it's shallow. It's creepy! Complain all you will. You may 'think' that it's art but can you fully intuit that it's art? How do you achieve understanding of anything with a life dimension? That image illustrates my distinction elsewhere on here between artists and artistes.

Rog, although I would not use such strong critical language, (not my style!@£$!!), surely it MUST be art as it is "not to my taste", see, #131 …… and that's why I don't understand it, as shots like that win prizes, to me it's a photograph

Looks like the "great and the good" disagree ….. so it's photographic "art" then???

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...-month-september-winners.563352/#post-6542038

I do, however, think that for some, me included, it is good to discuss images in this way as I can then associate with what is said ……. rather than with, sometimes, abstract words

I tried posting some of mine, 4 images I think, but I was accused of them not being mine, carpet-bombing and was Reported ………..

my latest effort complements it

https://www.flickr.com/photos/billn_france/15639266631/in/photostream/

but I'm sure it won't win any prizes, thank God

 

[Steve T]

No it is NOT art! It exhibits craft, and that's all. It's commercial, it's vain, it's shallow. It's creepy! Complain all you will. You may 'think' that it's art but can you fully intuit that it's art? How do you achieve understanding of anything with a life dimension? That image illustrates my distinction elsewhere on here between artists and artistes.

I did not give an opinion of the actual picture (although I quite like it) I meant this...

This, in my opinion is art.

This was not an accident misdescribed. This was created on purpose by a passionate photographer with considerable skill and care. It is what he intended and he executed the vision in his minds eye brilliantly

Its not a good or wonderfull random image he snapped on the hoof, he actually imagined it and had the skill to create it in his chosen medium = artistry.

You could take a dozen gurus and get all sorts of ridiculous interpretations of it and what it means = a caption contest among people who probably couldn't take a decent picture if they tried.

 

[Ed Sutton]

This, in my opinion is art.

This was not an accident misdescribed. This was created on purpose by a passionate photographer with considerable skill and care. It is what he intended and he executed the vision in his minds eye brilliantly

Its not a good or wonderfull random image he snapped on the hoof, he actually imagined it and had the skill to create it in his chosen medium = artistry.

You seem to be one of those people who mistake craftsmanship and technical mastery for art. That's not what it's about. That picture posted could just as easily have been rendered as a painting as a photograph.

There's a huge difference between 'snapping a random image on the hoof' and taking a photograph of events unfolding before your eyes and making a picture. Just because it might not have been planned and thought through doesn't make a great photograph taken that way any less a great picture. Sure anyone can get lucky once, but there are photographers who have managed to get lucky far more often than chance would suggest. They must have a skill of some sort.

 

[ancient_mariner]

You seem to be one of those people who mistake craftsmanship and technical mastery for art. That's not what it's about. That picture posted could just as easily have been rendered as a painting as a photograph.

There's a huge difference between 'snapping a random image on the hoof' and taking a photograph of events unfolding before your eyes and making a picture. Just because it might not have been planned and thought through doesn't make a great photograph taken that way any less a great picture. Sure anyone can get lucky once, but there are photographers who have managed to get lucky far more often than chance would suggest. They must have a skill of some sort.

I'm a little interested in how the objet trouve fits into photographic art - that is, essentially, what landscape photography is.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I tend to look at people because they determine what they do and why they do it, whether it be an artist, politician or whatever…….. they are the problem not their "art" or what they say

Let me get my head around that... so... You're saying that it's not their art, or what they say about it, but literally who that are? So you're just prejudiced against a "type" of person, and that prejudice has nothing to do with their art, or what they say. What then? Their hairstyle? They're clothes? What?

I am quite cynical about people and life, maybe it is because I left Yorkshire 47 years ago and have met my fair share of them

You say that as if Yorkshire is somehow different from anywhere else.

This was not an accident misdescribed. This was created on purpose by a passionate photographer with considerable skill and care. It is what he intended and he executed the vision in his minds eye brilliantly

Its not a good or wonderful random image he snapped on the hoof, he actually imagined it and had the skill to create it in his chosen medium = artistry.

Can you give an example of these accidents that have been misdecribed (sic) Steve? Just link to one of them so we know what you're talking about.

Gursky's Rhein II for example (a photo much ridiculed in here as "arty b******s) was not a "random image snapped on the hoof" either. It was created on purpose, by a passionate photographer with considerable skill and care. What do you think of Rhein II? Artists don't create random, accidental things. Artists respond to the world around them.

You're also thinking craft skills = art . If something is skilfully done, then it's art. It's not. That image you linked to is undoubtedly expertly done, but it's trite, derivative, dripping with over sentimentality, and quite frankly, trivial... all surface.. no substance. You LIKING it is irrelevant.

You could take a dozen gurus and get all sorts of ridiculous interpretations of it and what it means = a caption contest among people who probably couldn't take a decent picture if they tried.

Most artists tell you exactly what the work is about... most artists will write a statement explaining why they did what they did. No one sits around interpreting art. You can debate whether you agree with the artist or not, but you talk as if academic all sit around in a group strokey beard moment and pontificate meanings in art. That's balls.

as shots like that win prizes, to me it's a photograph

Looks like the "great and the good" disagree ….. so it's photographic "art" then???

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...-month-september-winners.563352/#post-6542038

So.. winning talk photography pick of the month makes it art?

my latest effort complements it

https://www.flickr.com/photos/billn_france/15639266631/in/photostream/

but I'm sure it won't win any prizes, thank God

error 404 object not found.


To quote you Bill....

I felt initially that there was some art in photography and maybe some hope, but to use your word I think that it is now all "[PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]" and you know what, it is quite a relief, one less thing to be concerned about

So why are you still here? You seem terribly concerned for one who's not concerned. Which is why I think you're trolling.

 

[BillN_33]

David

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...-month-september-winners.563352/#post-6542038

I said the opposite
===========================================

Steve T didn't post the following I did

https://www.flickr.com/photos/billn_france/15639266631/in/photostream/

error 404 object not found.

???
==========================================

"Which is why I think you're trolling"

I need to search what "trolling" means

I just try to keep involved in the debate as I have plenty of spare time and do find it interesting

 

[ancient_mariner]

If something is skilfully done, then it's art. It's not. That image you linked to is undoubtedly expertly done, but it's trite, derivative, dripping with over sentimentality, and quite frankly, trivial... all surface.. no substance. You LIKING it is irrelevant.

I'm interested David - are you saying that image is not art?

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm a little interested in how the objet trouve fits into photographic art - that is, essentially, what landscape photography is.

It's essentially what a lot of photography is - including photographic art. It's what I find so fascinating about the medium, that it can transform the everyday, the banal, the obvious into something else (art?).

 

[Steve T]

[zuik

You seem to be one of those people who mistake craftsmanship and technical mastery for art. That's not what it's about. That picture posted could just as easily have been rendered as a painting as a photograph.

There's a huge difference between 'snapping a random image on the hoof' and taking a photograph of events unfolding before your eyes and making a picture. Just because it might not have been planned and thought through doesn't make a great photograph taken that way any less a great picture. Sure anyone can get lucky once, but there are photographers who have managed to get lucky far more often than chance would suggest. They must have a skill of some sort.

So you agree then

 

[Ed Sutton]

[zuik


So you agree then

What with?