Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
  • entries
    1,146
  • comments
    1,165
  • views
    264,860

The Point of Being Arty

caldrail

Entry posted by caldrail

479 views

 Share

What is art? that's a very philosophical question at first sight but a very important one if you intend earning your living from it. For most people, art is either pretty, pretty horrendous, or pretty well mystifying how someone got paid megabucks for a pile of oversized kiddies building blocks.

 

There have been some incredible attempts at labelling mundane objects as art. There was that display in the Tate Gallery of a cube of unmortared bricks that earned the creator two million pounds. Most builders only get court summons and angry house-buyers. The reason I mention this is because of a new display that hit the news last night.

 

Arnish Kapoor is one of those elite artists much in demand, and judging from his interview on tv, a consumate salesman. He likes the massive work, the shape, colour, and position (good grief, he's got me doing it now). His latest offering is an oval hole in a concrete floor with all the cutaway surfaces painted bright red. Yes... But what does it mean?

 

Mundane art is so understandable. A still-life might be static and ordinary, but the skill is in the impression of motion, of depth, of character. Landscapes and seascapes speak for themselves. Impressions of mother nature are off to a good start anyway. But how do relate the world, or any sense of relevance, to a variety of garish blocks? It's a bit like buying a Hummer 4x4 because the salesman told you it encapsulated the misery and danger of twenty-first century soldiers. What car salesmam ever sold a car like that? The truth is, the artistry of the car you cast an approving eye on is the one that has balance and character of its own. It is, in other words, a visible sales point in it's own right. It doesn't need selling on artistry if that is what it has.

 

So as far as I'm concerned, an artist that needs to explain a work has failed. Just admit it, Kapoor, you're in the wrong job. You were born to sell bright red cars.

 

Art of the Week

Here in Blighty we have a long running tv show that isn't exactly trendy. It's called Antiques Roadshow, a program in which locals bring out their dusty bric-a-brac for experts to appraise. Actually, whilst the program bores you to death with intricate details of the manufacture of victorian tableware and such, the faces of the owners when they discover the horrible old junk they wanted to throw away is actually worth hundreds of pounds is hilarious.

 

This afternoon, whilst waiting to pop up the hill for my job course, I watched Antiques Roadshow in a state of bored stupor. They showed this dull ordinary painting of a river scene. Mostly beige, poorly conceived, and of no great artistic merit as far as I could see. Not according to the expert. It's woth at least

 Share

8 Comments

Recommended Comments

Kosmo

My own, rather large experience, with modern artists is that are all frauds.

There is no idea behind the ugly things they made and if there is one that is childish and stupid. People buy modern visual art out of snobbery.

Link to comment
Formosus Viriustus
There is no idea behind the ugly things they made and if there is one that is childish and stupid. People buy modern visual art out of snobbery.

 

You're wrong about that. The idea is to be 'original', 'thought provoking', 'shocking'; to 'question social conventions' and 'challenge established ideas' . Not to mention 'spewing a lot of BS and making loads of money that way.'

If you think that art should be 'esthetically pleasing' (that is 'beautiful' for you, the uninformed) you are at least a hundred years behind the times and you should have your head examined.

Link to comment
caldrail

I wasn't expecting this to be so contentious ;)

 

Modern art is an attempt to remove the natural world from the composition. It's the same as taking melodies from music and arriving at Rap, which for some is interesting and for others nothing short of musical excrement.

 

Can modern art succeed? Actually, yes, it can. The trick is to be aesthetically pleasing but the problem there is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Also, since we are social animals, every so often an individual breaks ranks and creates a new tribe. This has happened in art with these modern styles. Also, since individuals like to jostle for status, the work they complete becomes symbolic of their own importance, thus we see gross works and some very inflated ideas of the significance of it.

 

Shock value also gets someone attention. If you want to grab an audience, make something that challenges current thinking. This happens in music too. In art, we see people going so far as putting real body parts in their compositions. Is that art, or just an excess of ego, or simply a crass attempt to get attention?

 

On the subject of art, people will fall into whichever camp they prefer. Do they want the naturalistic and traditional form, or the brash artificial style? You choose, but in no way does opinion over art reflect ignorance. Nor does it require psychiatric treatment ;)

Link to comment
Kosmo

There are 2 types of modern art.

The first it's the business of decorating homes and hotels with pleasing unoriginal paintings mass produced especially in China and India.

The other it's the production of crazy installations, that FV described so well above, in the hope of making some money and fame.

Worse then modern art it's university art education. It is ridiculous to imagine that someone will be a more original artist if he is taught about art and forced to conform by some short minded teachers.

I know one of this teachers and he made a good living by making flattering paintings of communist leaders and now in an effort to be original he paints only with black paint and makes collages with photos of nude women in provocative positions.

I think FV was ironic above.

Link to comment
Formosus Viriustus

Salvete !

 

Well, you started it, Caldrail. ;)

I should have put a few smillies in my last comment. I do agree with Kosmo, but there are some good artists around today as well. Many of those however can barely make a living with what they do. If there is one business where who you know is far more important than what you know or what you can, it is the art business.

 

Art doesn't neccessarily have to be original, convey or challenge ideas, although it often does. But calling something art just because 'nobody had thought of it before', because it 'challenges' or even better 'provokes' is absurd in my view. The Germans have an excellent word for that : 'Publikumsbeschimpfung' (insulting the public).

There is, very occasionally, some real art that is ahead of its time and therefore doesn't get the appreciation it deserves. (It took me quite a while for example to start appreciating Picasso's work for what it is.) But those are very rare.

 

But a crack in the floor, a hole in the ground, your unmade bed. Is that art ? Sure it is, why else is worth millions of pounds and eternal fame ? Does the Emperor wear clothes ? Sure he does.

How about covering the facade of a university building in slices of bacon and leaving it to rot for a couple of weeks, fouling the air and attracting vermin ? That's what Belgium's most celebrated modern artist did a couple of years ago (I won't give you his name, he doesn't deserve mentioning). Of course the gullible art lovers flocked from far and wide to admire this piece of work. Yes, very original indeed. I'm sure I would never be able to come up with a 'brilliant idea' like that. And thought provoking. My thoughts : 'Does that man really hasn't a grain of decency left that he is willing to make money that way ?' and 'Is there no limit to people's stupidity ?'

 

And let's not forget, if they make a lot of money, it is almost all from public funds. You and I are paying for it. The private art collectors only come in after the 'artist' has made a name for himself by 'selling' his work for megabucks to prestigious musea and galleries, that are of course almost all in on the scam. Without them it wouldn't work.

 

There is a big difference between some things being fun or worth doing just for the heck of it -

I'm all for that - and them being art or being worth any real money.

How about a 'shit-making installation' ? Yes, someone came up with that. I think that was a great idea, and lots of fun. But is it art ? And selling artificially produced shit for thousands of pounds (euros if you will) a portion ? If you spend your money on that kind of crap you have far too much of it in the first place and you really should have your head examined. Trouble is, your psychiatrist most probably has a heap of it sitting on the mantlepiece himself.

 

But let's put things also in perspective here : the art we are talking about is but a tiny fraction of all what we usually call art. And it is by it's nature elitist. Most art is literature, music, movies, architecture. That art is freely, or as good as, available to everybody and there you can seldom get away with that kind of nonsense.

 

Formosus

Link to comment
caldrail

Which all kind of misses the point. Art is elitist because a minority want to be seen as superior in status. Thats nothing to do with aesthetics at all, it's simply social behaviour and if I were honest, not really the best side of it, since these people show little respect for common opinion.

 

However, what drives the genre is money. Experts earn a living by describing and judging nuances, critics earn a living by praising or denouncing work, dealers earn a living by cashing in on reputations, artists earn a living by selling their creations.

 

We're surrounded by the natural world. The randomness and fractal properties of the small scale lead to interactions of form and colour that the artifical and contrived works of the limited imaginations of many modern artists simply don't match. Modern art is, quite frankly, bland and pretentious. That would be ok if the people in the genre didn't keep on claiming all this significance.

 

Art does not change the world. How could it? Art is only an expression of the artist and therefore very revealing of their own personalities. Since the artist isn't changing the world but simply making an artistic expression of it, then clearly art has no force for change.

 

What does change is fashion. One artist is popular for a while (or perhaps longer) then the emphasis moves on. Is my unmade bed art? No, it isn't. Not in any way whatsoever. It's simply moving a mundane object into pubklic scrutiny and the artistic skill and flair involved is essentially zero. Anyone trying something like that deserves to be tarred and feathered as a fraud.

 

Art is a creative genre. If there is no creative aspect, neither can we ascribe artisitc value to it. An unmade bed is simply a natural consequence of the interaction of physical objects and my nightly slumber. If I take a photograph, or paint a picture, or perhaps carve a sculpture to create an impression of that scene - that is art. Something creative has occured. If I simply roll my unmade bed into a public gallery, I've done nothing more than furniture removal.

 

As for cracks in the ground, the gas pipe fitters made much more interesting shapes outside my home than Kapoors oval, which was actuallly a rather dull and uninspired piece for he'll no doubt be feted and paid his own weight in gold for. But then.... He did persuade people that his work was worthy. Which makes him on par with a car salesman as I said originally.

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...