Maybe art but......

[XFool]

But then again, what do I know? I’m listening to Mrs Mills playing Bring Me Sunshine.

Perhaps you could market that?

[XFool]

Somewhere in the middle ground, though, there's the nagging question: Am I being conned by a cheap idea that short-cuts the need for actual craftsmanship? Will people laugh at me in ten years' time for buying it, and is the artist laughing at me right now?

Possibly arrange to display your newly acquired modern art piece plus yourself, looking worried on a sofa, in a museum?

Title? 'Contemporary Angst'

[simsqu]

Somewhere in the middle ground, though, there's the nagging question: Am I being conned by a cheap idea that short-cuts the need for actual craftsmanship? Will people laugh at me in ten years' time for buying it, and is the artist laughing at me right now?

That consideration will matter very little to some people, and quite a lot to others. Picasso could fashion a bicycle seat and a pair of handlebars into a bull's head, and it was excellent, and inspired. I've seen nothing of that quality in this conceptual banana, or in Tracey's soiled bedsheets. Have you?

BJ

I very much agree with a lot you say. For example, are we being conned by a banana duct taped to the wall? Well, in a way, of course we are, but it is not that simple (cries of "oh yes it is!"). The fact that we are discussing it, means there is so much more to it than a banana taped to a wall. It is a strange thing art. It is completely undefinable, and yet everyone tries to define it. Do I like the banana taped to a wall as a work of art? I think the discussion and history surrounding it is interesting. That's about as far as I would go.

FWIW I think Emin is annoying talentless and dull

[bungeejumper]

FWIW I think Emin is annoying talentless and dull

I remember the time she was on Have I Got News For You? She was completely out of her depth. Made a couple of feeble attempts at contributing something or other during the first few minutes, and then sat there with a sort of sour expression on her face for the whole remainder of the programme.

Of course, they edit out about three quarters of the studio set before broadcast, so it's possible that somebody (Hislop?) had crossed her at some early point and the editors had spared us the details. But she'd obviously not managed to get back into the game. Told me everything I needed to know, really.

I have a different sort of problem with Damien Hirst, supposedly the second biggest employer in Stroud, who rarely lands a paintbrush on many/most of his works, because he's always got a hundred or so people doing that in his factory studio. I've often admired the audacity of his sculptures, but it does detract somewhat from the experience. You might say that Warhol did the same, of course - but then, so for that matter did Leonardo da Vinci. I forgive the latter, and to a slightly lesser extent the former.

BJ

[Lootman]

I have a different sort of problem with Damien Hirst, supposedly the second biggest employer in Stroud, who rarely lands a paintbrush on many/most of his works, because he's always got a hundred or so people doing that in his factory studio.

I've spent a fair amount of time in Stroud without realising that.

I assume the largest employer there is the council?

[bungeejumper]

I have a different sort of problem with Damien Hirst, supposedly the second biggest employer in Stroud, who rarely lands a paintbrush on many/most of his works, because he's always got a hundred or so people doing that in his factory studio.

I've spent a fair amount of time in Stroud without realising that.

I assume the largest employer there is the council?

You're right, of course, my mistake. I should have said the second largest private employer. The Ecotricity bloke, Dale Vince, has more than Hirst. And a football club. Which will be a few more.

BJ

[CliffEdge]

Buying expensive so-called modern 'Art' is a way of avoiding (income) tax for super rich people. That's all it is.

There is plenty of good art being created every day of the week but you won't have heard of the artists doing it.

[UncleEbenezer]

There is plenty of good art being created every day of the week but you won't have heard of the artists doing it.

Two of them are my personal friends. Three if you include the lady who is a professional musician but occasionally paints some excellent stuff on the side.

[stewamax]

...It's also the Jackson Pollocks and the Rothkos. (Neither of whom I personally rate, TBH, but that's not quite the point - I certainly do regard them both as serious innovators.)

I would not have either in my house - I wouldn't even have one as a gift except to sell it - but some Pollocks at least have an interesting 'structure', supposedly fractal. But Rothkos are, to me, simple childish daubing.

A description* of a Brandeis University short course says: ‘Mark Rothko’s paintings are known to elicit a powerful emotional response unique to each viewer. Appropriately named the “Rothko Effect,” this phenomenon relies on the viewer’s commitment to an uninterrupted, uninhibited personal relationship with a Rothko painting. While the viewer embodies the flow of Rothko’s language of tragedy, ecstasy, and doom, their unconscious releases personal history into the mix. The resulting mashup takes the form of spirituality’. Powerful emotional response?? they do nothing whatever to me apart from bore me, but then I am an uncultured philistine.

My latest and belated find is pre-Raphaelite artist John Atkinson Grimshaw, whose depictions of evenings with moonlight, Autumnal dawn, and wet city and dockland streets in wintry late afternoons are stunning and very evocative.


* https://www.brandeis.edu/bolli/courses- ... 0the%20mix

[XFool]

...It's also the Jackson Pollocks and the Rothkos. (Neither of whom I personally rate, TBH, but that's not quite the point - I certainly do regard them both as serious innovators.)

I would not have either in my house - I wouldn't even have one as a gift except to sell it - but some Pollocks at least have an interesting 'structure', supposedly fractal. But Rothkos are, to me, simple childish daubing.

A description* of a Brandeis University short course says: ‘Mark Rothko’s paintings are known to elicit a powerful emotional response unique to each viewer. Appropriately named the “Rothko Effect,” this phenomenon relies on the viewer’s commitment to an uninterrupted, uninhibited personal relationship with a Rothko painting. While the viewer embodies the flow of Rothko’s language of tragedy, ecstasy, and doom, their unconscious releases personal history into the mix. The resulting mashup takes the form of spirituality’. Powerful emotional response?? they do nothing whatever to me apart from bore me, but then I am an uncultured philistine.

Well, there you are then! They even prompted you to make the above post.

[marronier]

Paying exorbitant fees for modern art would be a great way to cover up money laundering. I wonder if the criminal fraternity have ever thought of that?

[mc2fool]

I would not have either in my house - I wouldn't even have one as a gift except to sell it - but some Pollocks at least have an interesting 'structure', supposedly fractal. But Rothkos are, to me, simple childish daubing.

A description* of a Brandeis University short course says: ‘Mark Rothko’s paintings are known to elicit a powerful emotional response unique to each viewer. Appropriately named the “Rothko Effect,” this phenomenon relies on the viewer’s commitment to an uninterrupted, uninhibited personal relationship with a Rothko painting. While the viewer embodies the flow of Rothko’s language of tragedy, ecstasy, and doom, their unconscious releases personal history into the mix. The resulting mashup takes the form of spirituality’. Powerful emotional response?? they do nothing whatever to me apart from bore me, but then I am an uncultured philistine.

My latest and belated find is pre-Raphaelite artist John Atkinson Grimshaw, whose depictions of evenings with moonlight, Autumnal dawn, and wet city and dockland streets in wintry late afternoons are stunning and very evocative.

Rothko doesn't do a lot more me either but if you go sit in the room with his Seagram Murals in Tate Modern it's clear that it does have that effect on a lot of folks. The hushed tones of people there are kind of paradoxical really as the paintings were intended for the Four Seasons restaurant in the Seagram Building in New York, which I expect would have been a bustling chatty noisy venue. Maybe that's why he pulled out of the commission before they were ever displayed there....

Re John Atkinson Grimshaw, yes, worth discovering (IMHO). While clearly influenced by the pre-Raphaelites he's not considered a pre-Raphaelite himself and you won't find him in lists of pre-Raphaelite artists, as he wasn't associated with the movement (he came along after it). He did do some pre-Raphaelite subject paintings (medieval stories/classical/mythology/fairies) but, as you say, he's best known for his low light townscapes, for which he was fairly unique in the period.

I don't know if you're in or near London but his works fairly frequently come up in "Victorian" sales at the big auction houses, and you can drop in and see the lots in the few days before the auction. That's where I discovered him.

[stewamax]

Re John Atkinson Grimshaw, ... He did do some pre-Raphaelite subject paintings (medieval stories/classical/mythology/fairies) but, as you say, he's best known for his low light townscapes, for which he was fairly unique in the period.

His (fortunately few) medieval stories/classical/mythology/fairies paintings e.g. Spirit of the Night do little for me; it was almost as if he was trying to be a pre-Raphaelite. But better by far than anything by Emin or Rothko.

On the other hand, his moonlight and dawn landscapes, e.g. November Light Cheshire or November Moonlight and wintery town streets (especially those with well-lit shops) e.g. Liverpool Quay are unmatched and extraordinary, and evocative for me; perhaps they would leave the Emin, Pollock and Rothko aficionados cold and untouched.

I wish I had discovered him many years ago when I was poorer but his works were cheap. His best ones are now way above my price limit.

[mc2fool]

Re John Atkinson Grimshaw, ... He did do some pre-Raphaelite subject paintings (medieval stories/classical/mythology/fairies) but, as you say, he's best known for his low light townscapes, for which he was fairly unique in the period.

His (fortunately few) medieval stories/classical/mythology/fairies paintings e.g. Spirit of the Night do little for me; it was almost as if he was trying to be a pre-Raphaelite. But better by far than anything by Emin or Rothko.

On the other hand, his moonlight and dawn landscapes, e.g. November Light Cheshire or November Moonlight and wintery town streets (especially those with well-lit shops) e.g. Liverpool Quay are unmatched and extraordinary, and evocative for me; perhaps they would leave the Emin, Pollock and Rothko aficionados cold and untouched.

I wish I had discovered him many years ago when I was poorer but his works were cheap. His best ones are now way above my price limit.

I thoroughly agree (although his fairies do at least raise a smile for me.)

But "when I was poorer but his works were cheap"? Everything's relative I guess but I don't think I've seen one going for less than £50K and most seem to go in the £150-350K range. How much was "cheap?"

[bungeejumper]

Well, the banana has gone the way of all things. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj051glrr9o

"Eating it at a press conference can also become a part of the artwork's history," Mr Sun said.

"It's much better than other bananas," he added.

Discuss!

BJ

[Clitheroekid]

I think one of the main difficulties with so much contemporary art is that it's designed to appeal on an intellectual level rather than an aesthetic one. In order to appreciate the artwork it's often necessary to understand what the artist was thinking when creating it. If one doesn’t have access to this information then the artwork fails because it doesn’t appeal to our aesthetic senses.

Having said that, my own view is that a great deal of such art is pretentious crap (PC) anyway. Whilst I do appreciate and enjoy a lot of modern art – including some of Rothko’s and Jackson Pollock’s work, once I've understood the thinking behind the paintings - there is also a very high element of `Emperor's new clothes', and in many case even after I've been provided with an explanation of the artist's thinking I'm still left with the conclusion that it’s PC!

This is compounded firstly by a terror amongst people in the art world of being thought too stupid to understand PC, so they pretend to like it, and secondly by the huge amounts of money available to buy art, so that dealers and critics will conspire to talk up some PC in order to sell rubbish for millions of dollars to people with vast amounts of cash but little or no artistic appreciation.

There was an interesting illustration (no pun intended) of this when I recently visited Katowice, in Poland. I had some time to kill, so visited the Museum of Silesia – https://muzeumslaskie.pl/plakat-powstan ... slaskiego/

As Katowice is a fairly mundane place in an industrial region I didn't have high expectations, and it therefore came as a pleasant surprise to discover that it was one of the best museums I’ve visited in years. It had a brilliant section in which one could literally walk through the history of both the town and the region.

But the attached art gallery had two sections, one for professional artists and the other for amateur artists. And although there was some excellent material in the professional section there were also many exhibits, particularly from the past couple of decades, which were crass and depressing examples of PC, and left me very unimpressed.

However, some of the exhibits in the amateur section were truly delightful, as the artists had no intellectual pretensions, and were simply painting what they knew. They would probably be classified as "naïve art" by professionals, but because the artist's message was on an aesthetic level rather than an intellectual level I found many of the exhibits extremely enjoyable. Here are a couple that caught my eye:







What I really enjoyed about these was how they reflected the everyday life of people in that area. I would imagine that their lives were, in many ways, very similar to that of the old coal mining communities in the UK, and I'm sure the paintings would have resonated with people from those communities who would have been left entirely cold by much of the professional art on display.

So it leaves an interesting question - should really great art capture us immediately on an aesthetic level, or is it reasonable that we should sometimes have to work to discover and understand the artist's thought processes before we can really appreciate it?

In general, I'm now quite firmly in the former camp - if an artist is incapable of communicating their thoughts to me simply through their art and without my needing a separate explanation then I'm afraid that they have failed at the court of CK!

[Lootman]

some of the exhibits in the amateur section were truly delightful, as the artists had no intellectual pretensions, and were simply painting what they knew. They would probably be classified as "naïve art" by professionals

That reminded me of one of the very few films that Tony Hancock made: The Rebel.

Hancock is a London office worker who has aspirations to be a great artist. One day he quits and moves to Paris to fulfil his ambition. Needless to say his art is complete rubbish, and he describes his style as the Puerile School of Art. But due to a mix-up he is lauded as a genius of modern art and becomes a celebrity, before things inevitably go wrong.

A nice parody of modern art, sycophantic art experts, and the "so bad it is good" theory of art. But I digress.

[scrumpyjack]

I think there is a strong argument that public money should not be spent on art. We would probably have a more vigorous, diverse and healthier art market if it was left to the public. There are plenty of wealthy people who would spend on the arts without the need for the public purse being used for it.

[MuddyBoots]

So it leaves an interesting question - should really great art capture us immediately on an aesthetic level, or is it reasonable that we should sometimes have to work to discover and understand the artist's thought processes before we can really appreciate it?

In general, I'm now quite firmly in the former camp - if an artist is incapable of communicating their thoughts to me simply through their art and without my needing a separate explanation then I'm afraid that they have failed at the court of CK!

For me it depends where the art is being exhibited. If it's going on my living room wall then I'm definitely in the former camp too, and probably also if it's on public display outside where I can't avoid seeing it. However if the artwork is displayed privately or in an art gallery, pictures in books and TV programmes etc, then I don't really care apart from public decency and protecting children from anything inappropriate. Because art can be educational without being aesthetic. I've seen some pretty avant-garde art myself such as the Body Worlds exhibition by Gunther von Hagens (I won't post a link!).

[stewamax]

I mentioned earlier my belated discovery of (and admiration for) John Atkinson Grimshaw.
Emin and Rothko may be 'art' to some people.
But these Grimshaws are my ideas of art: