How you get that from those micrographs I have no Idea... perhaps it required the caption to explain it to us.
I do not accept that a set of illustrations become art because they are recontextualised.
Then you are wrong. Re contextualising work is a very common way to approach a theme. You not accepting it, when you're neither qualified, or learned enough about it doesn't qualify your statement. It's merely your opinion, which is valid... for you... but not really something you can use to try and explain how art works to the wider audience. I stand by your right to think what you like about it, but it's credibility stops there.
Appropriated imagery, and placing imagery in other contexts is one of the foundation stones of modern art, and has been so for well over a century now, yet somehow you feel it's not valid. What do you know that we all don't?
Let me break it down simply. You want to produce work that speaks about the fragility of the human body... how do you do that in a way that engages people? Portraits of people looking fragile and vulnerable?... no.. that's 1st year undergrad thinking. Documentary images of injury cases? No... done to death, and becomes pure document that may have educational value, but isn't really innovative or challenging for the viewer. So.. why are we so fragile?... because we're soft... why are we soft, because we're mostly water... so all our critical systems are easily damaged, both physically and pathologically. Hmmm.. how can I show that in a way that intruiges and challenges. Well.. let's see... in what context are these matters normally discussed?.. yeah.. in a medical context. So the language.. the lexicon and vocabulary of this theme is medical. So.. what if we go close... what is we show the very parts, fluids, capillaries... the range of subject matter germane to the issue in a way that medical experts would be viewing them and assessing them (or the popular perceived myth of how they would view them at least)... done in a way so that everyone can "feel" the context.
See where this is going?
Can you still not get that from the microscope imagery? Even when explained? What would you have done Terry... taken a portrait of someone injured? Tell us.. how would YOU have tackled the subject? Put your money where your mouth is
Like all schools of art in their time, Conceptual art has probably reached the nadir before it it replaced by something new.
Some schools of art had very few masters that have survived the cut of history. I think conceptual art will be one of them.
Of course, but you say this as if it will fail due to inherent problems of the movement, rather than a natural evolution. You also assume there there will be no masters of this movement etc etc... yet you've still to actually explain what this art movement is. You talk of conceptual art as if it's something new
Of course, like most other opinions you're giving, it's inaccurate in the extreme.
Even the high ground of impressionism became so popular that it came to represent "chocolate box" art and was reviled for its popularity.
Who knows Banksy might well represent our time, more than any conceptual art ever could.
And what would be wrong with that?
Impressionism has been, and gone, and some would dismiss it as chocolate box, but I have problems with that: A) Much of it isn't, and B) ALL art movements evolve, change, and eventually becomes surpassed. This doesn't mean there was something inherently WRONG with it... just that things evolve. What's regarded highly NOW will no longer be in the future. You speak as if only GREAT art transcends time, but that's [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER], because there IS no art movement that has achieved that. It's all of it's time, and and a reflection of the Zeitgeist. People change, societies change, politics change, culture changes... art REACTS to these changes.
Name me ONE art movement that has remained immobile over time.. just one Terry.
I have a very low opinion of the fashionable Fine art of our time.
That's because perhaps YOU are not of our time.
What survives the sieve of posterity might show a different side to our art legacy altogether.
What is it with people who have a half grasp of art and their insistence that only that which stands the test of time is valid. It's valid HISTORICALLY, of course, but what happens NOW really matters, as that shapes the present. There's no such thing as purely objective history. History is written by the "great white male" as Grayson Perry puts it.. "Default Male". History has a political agenda to be used as spin for the present. The great thing about art NOW (any now.. even past nows, and future nows) is that it's affected from the ground up. History is affected from the top down.
What you have Terry, are opinions, but opinions are only really of any value if they are fully informed and considered, and you just place far to much personal preference into your thought processes when it comes to judging art. There's so much great art out there I do not like... really.. really do not like... however, I know enough about art to know whether it's good or not. Liking it personally is utterly and completely irrelevant. Can art be measured objectively as to whether it's good or bad? Yes. It can. Liking it or not, is neither here nor there. Understanding it is. As the saying goes... "It's the difference between knowing you're sh1t, and knowing your sh1t".
Hairy Shieldbug
Small Blue Butterfly, inside my camera bag! 25th-May-2014.
Jumping Spider, on a plastic garden toy! 6th-May-2014.
