Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: STEMO on 27 October 2015, 07:51:21
-
Whether something can be described as as art, or not, is often down to interpretation. I think these 'critics' got it right. ;D
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11956330/Art-installation-in-Italy-ended-up-in-the-bin-by-cleaners-who-thought-it-was-rubbish.html
-
What a load of (Jackson) POLLOCKS!
Ron.
-
Yes some art is just.... rubbish! ::) ;D
-
My issue is that apparently in order to be 'art' it must be declared as such, and that's effectively the only criteria. 'Art is something which has no other purpose other than for itself' If you say it's art, it becomes art.
Which means that if I walk into the Louvre, and slash the Mona Lisa, whilst crying 'art' that's art.
If I walk into the Louvre and slash the Mona Lisa and cry 'Screw the Government' it's revolution
If I walk into the Louvre and slash the Mona Lisa and cry 'Jihad' it's terrorism
If I walk into the Louvre and slash the Mona Lisa and cry 'end apartheid' then I'm a freedom fighter
Personally I see it all as vandalism. :( There have to be boundaries in society, called laws. I think it's funny, personally that something intended to look like rubbish was perceived as rubbish, and cleared away like rubbish. I like to do painting that look like the thing that I'm painting. Sadly there's very little demand for that these days. Hence I have very little time for all this installation art ...rubbish. :)
-
LITTER
-
DBG, what does it count as if you fall and punch a hole in the painting?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/25/boy-trips-in-museum-and-punches-hole-through-million-dollar-painting
:o
-
DBG, what does it count as if you fall and punch a hole in the painting?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/25/boy-trips-in-museum-and-punches-hole-through-million-dollar-painting
:o
Artcidental.
-
:D :D :D
-
I don't think that can be classified as art. In the same way that 'pile of bricks' from a couple of decades ago can't be described as art.
If it can be produced and reproduced by just about everybody on the planet regardless of intellect or understanding then I find it hard to use the the word 'art'.
-
I know what you're saying :( Herein lies the issue. In the Tate Modern, there is, on a shelf, high up, a glass of water. It is titled 'A tree' The idea being, that it is no more or less a tree than is a painting of a tree, titled 'a tree'.
Not saying I approve of money being spent in such bucketloads on stuff like this, however, there's plenty of things I don't appreciate or approve of in the world, and I'd lead a pretty miserable life if I lay awake at night wishing they weren't in existence.. like Russel Brand. Russel Brand, you utter &^%&*.
Sorry. I digress. :D
Anyway, point being, yes, you or I could reproduce that, same for a Picasso sketch - but someone was the first to do it. Art these days is about the concept or the idea as opposed to the engineering of it proper. I know it's ridiculous, but consider the person who thinks 'oooh, a bridge suspended by wires, somehow. That would be cool. A "suspension bridge" we could call it.' gets installed in history as the 'genius behind the suspension bridge', whereas the 'mere' engineer who makes it gets forgotten because 'all' he did was 'simply' repeat the guy's idea. As I say, that's insane. But then the Art world's system for declaring whether a Monet is genuine is one family. Yes. They are the 'worldwide scholars/experts' and even if the next 20 experts agree is it a Monet, but he says not, then it is not officially recognised as genuine. It's insane, and ridiculous.
Fascinating story....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13785393 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13785393)
-
I know what you're saying :( Herein lies the issue. In the Tate Modern, there is, on a shelf, high up, a glass of water. It is titled 'A tree' The idea being, that it is no more or less a tree than is a painting of a tree, titled 'a tree'.
Not saying I approve of money being spent in such bucketloads on stuff like this, however, there's plenty of things I don't appreciate or approve of in the world, and I'd lead a pretty miserable life if I lay awake at night wishing they weren't in existence.. like Russel Brand. Russel Brand, you utter &^%&*.
Sorry. I digress. :D
Anyway, point being, yes, you or I could reproduce that, same for a Picasso sketch - but someone was the first to do it. Art these days is about the concept or the idea as opposed to the engineering of it proper. I know it's ridiculous, but consider the person who thinks 'oooh, a bridge suspended by wires, somehow. That would be cool. A "suspension bridge" we could call it.' gets installed in history as the 'genius behind the suspension bridge', whereas the 'mere' engineer who makes it gets forgotten because 'all' he did was 'simply' repeat the guy's idea. As I say, that's insane. But then the Art world's system for declaring whether a Monet is genuine is one family. Yes. They are the 'worldwide scholars/experts' and even if the next 20 experts agree is it a Monet, but he says not, then it is not officially recognised as genuine. It's insane, and ridiculous.
Fascinating story....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13785393 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13785393)
Yes and no.
You could certainly scatter a few fag ends and bottles of champagne about, as could I.
But neither of us could reproduce the Mona Lisa.
-
But neither of us could reproduce the Mona Lisa.
I'd put a smile on her face! :y
-
No, indeed not, wasn't suggesting you or I could, :) but nor would I consider, or put in even the same category, the Mona Lisa and that pile of bricks/glass of water/empty champagne bottles either.
Personally I hate almost all Modern Art. I like Dali, as he had a genuine adoration for the classical artworks, and triede to reproduce, in a very warped, surreal way of course. But his technical skill was stunning, and near-photographic, but of course he was painting dribbling clocks and elephants with insect legs. But that's about it, Picasso, Mondrian, Duchamp, all of them, don't see anything for me. Some Monet, and certain Van Goghs I can appreciate to a point. But if both were undiscovered artists and each wanted £50 for an original oil, I'd probably not pay it. My sort of thing would I'd choose for my wall would be Ralph McQuarrie, Turner, Gerald Coulson, Rembrandt, Constable, and original Issigonis sketch of the Mini. I'm reasonably traditionalist, in that sense, I suppose.
I'm just repeating the 'rules of art', such as they are, shaky as they are. Not saying I even agree with them. As I say, hate pretty much all Modern Art, and especially any and all Installation / Post Modern Art.
-
But neither of us could reproduce the Mona Lisa.
I'd put a smile on her face! :y
:D :D :D
I think now Sir Tig's looked at that Guardian article and is thinking of sticking something other than his fist through a painting... :o
-
But neither of us could reproduce the Mona Lisa.
I'd put a smile on her face! :y
:D :D :D
I think now Sir Tig's looked at that Guardian article and is thinking of sticking something other than his fist through a painting... :o
Filthy boy! :o ::) If I could be bothered to reproduce the Mona Lisa, I'd give her a nice smile. :P ;D
Some people always have to lower the tone........... ;) :D ;D
-
Ther are of course many forms of art,automotive design for example.If we're talking pictures or sculptures then I know jack about it,but I do know what I like and that is stuff that looks like what it's supposed to be and not something with a title so people can gaze at it saying things like "Ah,yes I can see exactly what the artist was going through"or other such drivel.Is a pile of bricks art?Not to me it isn't it's either a wall in the making or a wall that's fallen down ;D
-
I wonder if the cleaning staff would have cleaned up the Tracy Emmin installation of a few years ago, (the one with the soiled bedsheets etc, yuk). Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder isn,t it.
-
A good definition of art is put it near a rubbish bin and see if it's thrown out with the trash. :y :y :y
-
What about that Courbet picture, which is basically a shot of a woman's lady garden. Then, following on, the exquisite piece of art.... the lass with her gash out for hours on end in front of the aforementioned 'Origins Of The World'.
I reckon if more 'art galleries' had this type of thing, I'd buy a season ticket.
-
How about the woman who inserts wool into her .. lady garden and then knits using it. It goes white, red, white, red..
I'm not even joking.
-
Art was about beauty. For many hundreds of years, trying to capture beauty and seeing the good in the world around us. Even Monet and Van Gogh were attempting to capture that, and to a certain degree Picasso (admittedly his warped perception of beauty, but then again, everyone's perception of beauty differs, so you could argue there's no right or wrong, and no beautiful/ugly)
But from Picasso, Duchamp, Kandisnky, to Mondrian, Bacon and everyone onward was all about shock. Increasingly so as the years go on. Personally find it hugely distasteful.
To actively try and create beauty is like trying to write a good book, to add niceness, joy in the world. To try and create shock, and ill-feeling, is akin to graffiti (hmm.. Bansky, anyone?_, to actively insulting someone elderly. Any idiot can create shock, and split opinion.
Set fire to a poppy, kill someone of opposite religion, weigh some people, cultures or diability above others, throw acid in someones face, whatever. It's not hard to create 'shock', and sadly that's all 'art' is, by and large.
I've got this on my wall at home...
(https://www.studio18.co.uk/shop/images/Gerald_Coulson/scramble2.jpg)
Of course opinion is opinion, and many would see this as boring, simple, but for my eyes this is beauty and talent :)
-
Maybe it's my engineering mind, but I can take or leave most forms of art. Never understood why such resources are poured into preserving ALL art, good, bad, or, frankly, sh1te, yet the greatest achievements of the human hand & mind get broken up for scrap and forgotten once they are no longer useful.
Another one bites the dust...
(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w63/kjwood/Farnborough/IMGP2066.jpg)
-
The misuse of the term 'art' for one does grate on me, for sure, Kevin :)