HOT Fine Arts Review and Opinion Panel

[beagle]

No, must admit, whatever you may have heard, that lies entirely outside my purview.

[Pachyderm]

Don't get me wrong, as a racehorse, a racehorse is a thing of beauty. But, same as for the fish, no talent required from the "artist".

[Swatopluk]

The Kishon books have lots of pictures to give context to his statements on the art.
For those that know a (larger) bit of German may try this short excerpt
http://www.ephraimkishon.de/Picassokishausschnitt.htm

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I've always felt art is not about thinking, specifically (that falls more into the category of literature though if the art does that, too, great), but about feeling. Like the heart-attack recovery painting. I want to see the artist in the art or have it create a its own feeling.
I think I've run across one 'painting', the Erasure de Kooning by Robert Rauschenberg, which I will never consider art. I saw it several years ago at the San Fransisco Museum of Modern Art, and there was nothing. No feeling, no fascination, no insight into the artist (either of them). His "White Paintings" are just as blank and silly. Seems like something similar to Emin to me. All attention whore, no actual art.

I've found that I tend to like pop art and some other sorts, (I really liked that exhibit, as well as one I'm still hunting for). There's something there, for me at least. But it's classical art that draws me the most--sculpture especially (if you ever end up in San Fransisco, go to the Museum of Asian Art--that place is amazing!).

[Pachyderm]

Read a bit about the Erasure de Kooning.

That is exactly the sort of thing I have been talking about. Pointless, talentless shite given undue attention. Take someone else's work, and rub it out. Genius! Oh, the vision of the man....


If I was de Kooning, I'd have kicked him in the balls until his hair bled.

[Pachyderm]

http://www.myspace.com/jeff_koons


I actually like the balloon animals. Appeals to my inner child, I suppose...


I remember seeing the giant flowery puppy in Bilbao, but was far too concerned with the grotesque ugliness of the actual building for it to leave much of an impression.

[Aggie]

I must admit an indifference to modern art (distinct from "the arts" as a larger category).  I likes what I likes, but it's entirely subjective (what do I get out of it) and in most cases I could really care less what the artist is trying to convey.  Likewise, the "art world" its egos and its hype machine can go hang for all I care (On the surface, I find it to be a bit like the music world, and to be dealt with similarly - I might be bothered to look further into what is considered a classic piece of work in a decade or two, but it's all smoke and mirrors and marketing as it happens). I do take some interest in the techniques and media used to convey the message, from the perspective of a craftsperson, but not the message itself unless it is fairly transparent (political works, for example).  I have some appreciation for sculpture architecture, but then again craft trumps art in many cases.

I find much more pleasure and beauty in nature for the most part, as nearly any living organism is a work of art and wonder beyond anything human hands can create. Contrariwise, I am much more intrigued by picking apart the messages, motives and techniques in advertising than in art.


I think it's the quest for novelty, not as personal exploration, but as one-upmanship presented as personal exploration that gets to me, whether in art or other parralel pursuits.  Quest for novelty = good, but using it to feed your own fevered ego is quite missing the point.


Anyways, I'll go stick my head back in the sand now.

[Opsa]

I am totally with you about being more awed by nature, good Aggie, but I would not call nature "art". It is perhaps a creation (but isn't everything- depending on whether or not you believe in a Creatress/Creator?) but I think that art has to be created to communicate person-to-person.

Typing that, I had to wonder whether or not a painting by a chimpanzee would be something I would think of as "art". It would really depend upon knowing that the ape was trying to express something to an audience, and not just some poo to fling. Is flung poo or the act of flinging poo art?

Yah! Now I'm confused, again. But I'm liking this discussion

[Griffin NoName]

Opsa, elephants can do painting too and have been exhibited.... Pachy may klnow more

[Pachyderm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk


Yeah, he's good, but he sold out and went commercial. It's difficult to be avant garde when Saatchi buys everything you produce....

[Aggie]

To be clear Ops, I'm not claiming nature is art...  just that in my opinion it puts art to shame.

My post above was not exactly what I wanted to express, but I really can't find the proper words (and/or I'm not totally clear on the subject).  I do believe that there is value in art and I do believe that professional artists should be able to make a living just from art, but OTOH I am bewildered at the commercialization of art.  Still muddled.

[anthrobabe]

Very interesting this idea of what is and what is not art.
Quite often I look at something and go ?
however the study of art is facinating--art history and all.
I did get in a bit of trouble during an art class once when the professor (who was alread a bit of a booger due to her familial relationship with THE Robert Frost-being his 5th removed niece via Mars or whatever doesn't make you diddly biothch-sorry dears) decided to begin the lecture with a discussion on how we as undergrads were ignorant about art and could not really have informed opinions as of yet because we weren't trained artists and yadda, yadda about artist training .
I raised my hand and asked her; "So where did Michelangelo get his degree, what college I mean?"

In my opinion-liking-taste-- if something looks like it was painted by a 4 year old with the shakes then I don't care who they are or what they know--having a degree/years of training/etc does not make it something we should all make a piddle over. Can I and do I like things that are very abstract-- I certainly do-- it is the snobbery that I can not stand.

I agree with you Agujjim--nature isn't art-- it trumps it(hits a homer out of the park!)
Nature trumps all-- and I admit to seeing value and beauty in some (not all) of the display of human remains-- oh sure some is simply to shock and awe and get a buck however much of it is simply amazing-- having a deep love of forensic anthroplogy and human evolution the inner workings of our bodies never ceases to get me. And the gift given by my fellow man of their body is one I am truly grateful for.

The idea of non humans as artists is also something I find very important-- elephants do paint and they seem to receive something from it and put something into it besides simply mimicry or trick taught by human. I know apes paint from something inside-- oh sure they have to get the original idea from a human but they catch on quickly (unless it is a bad day or they aren't interested or simply don't want to do it) and then add to the mix a gorilla who knows some sign language naming her paintings (Koko isn't the only one who does so) and that opens the realm of art up to infinite possibility. One of the most precious  things in the world is a coloring book page which was colored in vibrant red/green/orange and blue by a chimpanzee named Kim and then 'presented' to me via being pushed up and out the 'drop box' by she herself at the zoo. I was coloring with her that day-I was not giving her food treats-just kisses through the bars-and she had her own box of crayons and this piece of cheap paper, wrinkled, stained and colored is in my humble opinion a rival to anything ever produced anywhere. (yep I am biased-I am also correct- I am a good kisser- but not that good 

[beagle]

For me, art has to do one of several things:

1  Capture beauty (e.g a Stubb's horse, a Van Gogh skyscape, or a Fantin-Latour bowl of roses, or music by any number of classical and many non-classical composers and musicians).

2  Capture a humanity or emotion (e.g. Durer's self portraits, or praying hands, or many works by Goya, da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Titian or Holbein). 
This definition also goes for music and literature, when the songwriter/author describes a feeling you previously thought only you had (Seen "The History Boys" yet Griffin? This definition, as regards literature, and an example, are in the film).

3 Provide a new way of looking at something.


Modern art seems to have been exclusively stuck on 3 and "The shock of the new for decades". Maybe DuChamps "fountain" was amusing and groundbreaking at the time, but the aftermath is ultimately as tedious as a small child repeatedly trying out the shock value of  newly learnt swear-words, and as far as profundity goes I  wouldn't have thought it would rate above a 5 (except possibly with urologists).



(This is one of a series. Next week Beagle will be demolishing most modern architecture. If he can borrow a big enough JCB).


P.S.  Love the chimp story Anthrobabe.  I gather Cheeta (from the Tarzan films) has written his memoirs (a ghost-writer might have helped a bit, these highly strung artistes aren't always brilliant with coherent sentences). It's supposed to be good.

[anthrobabe]

P.S.  Love the chimp story Anthrobabe.  I gather Cheeta (from the Tarzan films) has written his memoirs (a ghost-writer might have helped a bit, these highly strung artistes aren't always brilliant with coherent sentences). It's supposed to be good.

Ghost writer identified: 
"James Lever, the Oxford-educated son of a High Court judge. "
Someone in the past had taught and allowed Cheeta to smoke cigars and drink alcohol- thankfully that seems to have stopped.
High strung doesn't even cover it.

[beagle]

Think the link may have had a bit of an accident. Was it this one?