JamPal

A huge rotating shower of hot shite being sprayed over the nation

224 posts in this topic

So sorry, thought it was blindingly obvious.

I didn't ask you how obvious you felt it was.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"works of art"? They are meant to be posters

Something to advertise an event. It's not meant to be a work of art.

Agree they are ment to be posters, but, there's no reson why they shouldn't be works of art.

Just have a look back at the poster shown by pure sound, they are IMO works of art if you like them or not.

A poster carries more power and feeling wen it has a strong artistic content that underpins the main message of a poster.

Unfortunatley few of the London Olimpic posters do either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Painting three has not come up for sale recently. It represents the work of one of the worlds great technicians in paint. Even at a glance, the emotion overwhelms you and the story portrayed is powerful, romantic and fascinating...it represents the true story of a shipwreck, the behaviour of the crew on the raft (and all the social implications of their various ranks). Further than this though, the Artist has deliberately painted this picture to tell HIS opinion of that event. He is telling the viewer in code, exactly which side of the political fence he stands and in doing so, is encouraging, urging that viewer to see the wrongs that exist in society and act to right them. Within the picture, it is generally agreed that there are four to six 'clues' which subtly suggest a political and moral stance. Here's one. At a glance, you might assume that the man with the handkerchief is waving to greet the ship (invisible in this tiny repro, sorry...it's top right on the horizon) that is apparently coming to the rescue of these dying men. In that case, this would be a glorious moment. A dramatic and splendid rescue from death. In fact, it is now thought that the tiny ship is deliberately painted to seem to be LEAVING the scene. The raft is being deliberately abandoned and the wave is not in hope, but in the desperate knowledge that they are now condemned to die. The departing ship represents authority...a naval vessel acting under orders from the government of the day. Now suddenly, this painting becomes a message (to anyone who wanted to look). Your politicians don't care for you! Self interest is their only aim. Now it supports and promotes revolution!

I have checked on my LP cover of Rum Sodomy and the Lash by The Pogues and there definitely is a ship on the horizon.

Rocky is RIGHT!

All those of you with downloads or CDs won't be able to see this, you have to have vinyl to truly get Art :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They expected art, but what they got was two fingers up from many of the artists IMO. The Berty Basset podium poster (as an example) is just some daubs, it's lazy, it has no "properties" other than lazyness about it and trying to say that it has value becuase it's "contemporary Art" merely makes people sneer at all modern art and it adds credibility to the "my 6 year old could do it" argument. Becuase my 6 year old could do it! As for Emin's scribble. Yeesh.

Sorry, but I think your last question does over intelectualise the debate. I don't think one can describe works of contemporary art as having properties, values or any kind of meaning without losing one's self up one's own fundament, unless the artist expresses publicly that the piece is making a point of course. As soon as you try to discuss a piece of modern art sauch as these pieces, you become a psued. Becuase they have no meaning other than "it's the 'lympix innit" - Tracey Emin there ;-).

I don't think they say anything about the UK contemporary art scene other than to devalue it. The grinch running in a vase is just that, a Grinch in a Vase. To try and discuss it is psuedo intellectualism at it's worst for me. It makes me cringe, sorry but it does.

It's "works" like these being feted that I think prevents many people form ever visiting places like Tait Modern and seeing works of art that are truly moving IMVHO. In the same way Foo mains cables devalue the work of a good amp designer, a lot of what we have here is art foo IMO.

(Must say, I like the Coffee Cup stains, that one is fun at least).

Ah- so there is one you like. I think that it's witty and slightly homely at the same time. It links the Olympics with celebration.

At the other end of the spectrum I personally dislike the Ofili, but then again I'm not a fan.

I entirely abhor foo, but the reason why foo is foo is precisely because there really does exist an objectively accessible measurable world by reference to which it does nothing. If you equate art- even art you abhor- with foo thejn you are making the same conflation of the evaluative/subjective and testable/ objective worlds which foo-peddlars make.

Anything can be discussed intelligently, if not on this forum, and in the case of art it can only really be assessed by intelligent discussion. For my own part I have found that in the case of contemporary art in particular the act of discussing it generally gets you to the point. I have on many occasions found myself expounding on what I think to be the problem with a particular piece or exhibition, only to find half way through that that was now what I liked about it. Cildo Meireles particularly comes to mind. I also find that listening to other people's views really helps, whether you end up agreeing with them or not. Equally I would say that it is probably easlier to evaluate responses to art than it is to identify what is valid art.

Would there would be any contemporary or even modern art if no one was allowed to discussed what some people thought was "obviously" not worth discussing.

I am left to wonder whether you think that these unidentified works that are truly moving in the Tate would be worthy of discussion- but even if you did identify them I presume that you would think that it was self evident not only that they were true works of art whereas those in this commission aren't, but why each work fell on one side of the line rather than the other. Perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten the trstees of the tate of your views so that they can clear away all the other stuff that only foolish old pseudo intellectuals would think worthy of consideration. I am intrigued though by where say Rothko's works would fall (presumably either all good or all bad?) I feel fairly confident that Duchamp's urinal would be thrown in the bin-or would it be redeemed by being funny?

Incidentally I can't help wondering whether all those people who buy posters in the Tate shop realise that what they are buying isn't art because it's on a poster (QED). It was a bit careless of the Tate to forget that when they had the Rodchenko exhibition a couple of years back.

Anyway, since you appear to think that there is nothing which can be said on the subject of the works in the Olympic commission, it seems that there can be nothing further to discuss.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't ask you how obvious you felt it was.

Carry on like this and I'll Facebook your mum.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carry on like this and I'll Facebook your mum.

My mum has Alzheimer's and isn't on Facebook.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had another look at the Sarah Morris one and I like it even more, in fact I would like a poster of it. FWIW it makes no difference to me what it is supposed to be, the fact it's supposed to represent Big Ben in some way means nothing to me and has no influence over my enjoyment of it.

I just like it :^

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My mum has Alzheimer's and isn't on Facebook.

Are you really a Moderator with over 7000 posts. . . . interesting. And btw i- my Mum's dead and isn't on Facebook either. Have the last word on me - whatever.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adamdea, you miss my point entirely. My view is that by trying to discuss it, you cannot appreciate it or disregard it without intelectualising it. Trying to intelectualise that which we can know nothing about, is bollocks, it's Pseudo intelectual, and I can't be doing with it.

To me, when it comes to art you either like something or you don't. It's an emotional reaction that doesn't need or deserve discussion. I love Sashimi, many find it repulsive. There is nothing further to discuss in the matter without becoming ridiculous in the process. Art to me is the same. I may be wrong, but that is how I feel about art.

To get back on topic, as posters these works of art are shit - that's my view. But perhaps the point of these posters is not to advertise the olympics, perhaps the point of them is to be sold in the gift shops as momentos, so they should be judged as works of art after all. In which case I am wrong to dismiss them. For mew though. as works of art, I don't really like them much. Most of them I find childish and totally without any merit whatsoever and a couple are mildly amusing and nice to look at.

Your view on them is neither here nor there to me. But sneering at people for saying they don't like them doesn't further your argument any.

As for identifying works that I enjoyed in the Tait, I couldn't, not many. I rarely take notice of who it is by, I just look at it and either enjoy it or not. I am not going to buy it, I am certainly not going to try and discuss it with anyone. It's just me and it.

Favourite thing ever.. Anish Kapoor's Red Wax.. (not at the Tait, Natch). Doris Salcedo's crack (ohh matron) was marvelous. No idea why, but it was (to me at least, many thought it was just a crack and they are right too). I saw some video art at the Pompidou a few weeks ago that had me gripped for ages. I like a lot of art, but I don't feel the need to defend that which I find either cynical or simply ermm.. sorry but crap.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by browellm viewpost-right.png My mum has Alzheimer's and isn't on Facebook.

Are you really a Moderator with over 7000 posts. . . . interesting. And btw i- my Mum's dead and isn't on Facebook either. Have the last word on me - whatever.

Have a spat by all means, but that is a tad too much, even for me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adamdea, you miss my point entirely. My view is that by trying to discuss it, you cannot appreciate it or disregard it without intelectualising it. Trying to intelectualise that which we can know nothing about, is bollocks, it's Pseudo intelectual, and I can't be doing with it.

To me, when it comes to art you either like something or you don't. It's an emotion

al reaction that doesn't need or deserve discussion. I love Sashimi, many find it repulsive. There is nothing further to discuss in the matter without becoming ridiculous in the process. Art to me is the same. I may be wrong, but that is how I feel about art.

To get back on topic, as posters these works of art are shit - that's my view. As works of art, I don't really like them much. Most of them I find childish and totally without any merit whatsoever and a couple are mildly amusing and nice to look at.

Your view on them is neither here nor there to me. But sneering at people for saying they don't like them doesn't further your

I'm sorry but all you are doing is repeating what is effectively a purely subjectivist mantra which boils down to an assertion that no expression of taste can be analysed, backed up or justified: all tastes are like preferences for strawberry or chocolate ice cream. And yet you insist on banging on about your own entirely unjustifed and tiresome views as though they should be of any interest to anyone else.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Arts get the funding they deserve. If they are good, people will pay to enjoy them. If they are not, they won't.

I think the public funding of the "arts" is a fucking disgraceful waste of tax payer's money.

No the disgraceful waste of tax payers money is Covent Garden Opera House

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry James (:-)), I nearly fell off my chair laughing at this. I used to visit the Wam for help and info on Hi-Fi - I am returning visits for almost "brass Eye' style relief, the thread regarding Travellers recently was a gas! And thank God a Mod deleted a post in the Japanese Hi Fi show thread which I could not believe had been posted.

i speak as someone who grew up in a caravan and worked for the Arts Council for many years. The former due to poverty and the latter because of a love of supporting and developing innovative, imaginative art.

Get off your high horse

high-horse1.jpg?w=637&h=480

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.