Full Version: Did anyone see Tracey Emin last night?
Tracey Emin was being interviewed by Piers whats-his-name on BBC last night and I'm sorry I couldn't stay up and see all of it but it was past my bedtime. Anyhow, I really struggle trying to understand the point she's making with her 'art' and wondered if I'm alone? On the other hand, she's probably a millionaire and I'm not so who's got it right here eh?
sorry i have never even heard of this person..here is a link for others who never heard of her either
tracey
tracey
QUOTE
sorry i have never even heard of this person
Lucky you, to have lasted out this long. Sorry you've now had to hear of her. In my opinion, she's an antiartist.
QUOTE (dcorc @ Sep 30 2008, 04:14 PM) 
Lucky you, to have lasted out this long. Sorry you've now had to hear of her. In my opinion, she's an antiartist.
Agree with you entirely. Tracey Emin is to art what the Sex Pistols were to music
i was just wondering..i was looking for some artwork by her and the most i could find was some pretty gross photos
where can i view her artwork?
where can i view her artwork?
QUOTE
where can i view her artwork?
Errrm. That IS her "artwork"
oh 
and ugh!! 
and is my face red 
and ugh!! and is my face red
Now you know how I feel - she's a "Royal Academician" http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,625,AR.html
who was given a room to hang for the RA summer exhibition:
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/ra-magazine...n,183,RAMA.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions...ngs,654,AR.html
I, meanwhile, had two paintings (yes, real paintings, oil on canvas - of stuff) I submitted, rejected.
What the RA needs is not an Emin, but an enema.
who was given a room to hang for the RA summer exhibition:
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/ra-magazine...n,183,RAMA.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions...ngs,654,AR.html
I, meanwhile, had two paintings (yes, real paintings, oil on canvas - of stuff) I submitted, rejected.
What the RA needs is not an Emin, but an enema.
QUOTE (dcorc @ Sep 30 2008, 12:19 PM)
Now you know how I feel - she's a "Royal Academician" http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,625,AR.html
who was given a room to hang for the RA summer exhibition:
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/ra-magazine...n,183,RAMA.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions...ngs,654,AR.html
I, meanwhile, had two paintings (yes, real paintings, oil on canvas - of stuff) I submitted, rejected.
who was given a room to hang for the RA summer exhibition:
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/ra-magazine...n,183,RAMA.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions...ngs,654,AR.html
I, meanwhile, had two paintings (yes, real paintings, oil on canvas - of stuff) I submitted, rejected.
QUOTE
What the RA needs is not an Emin, but an enema.
I couldn't agree with you more. I know all that blather about "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but I honestly think people like Emin and her ilk perpertrate a fraud on the art world when they push this stuff on us and call it art. It reminds me of when "Saint" (and I mean this sarcastically, in case you didn't know) Rudi Guilliani the former mayor of New York City became embroiled in the controversy about displaying a so called artwork, a depiction of a crucifix enclosed in urine, in a Brooklyn (city owned) art museum.
Perhaps Emin has acheived her goal of arousing emotions in us, for me, the only emotion it stirs in me is disgust. I am sure I would be considered ignorant or bourgeois, but in my world, that is not art.
Thanks for letting me put my two cents in.
Trish
ugh..i did not know ol rudy did that..how disgusting,
i was thinking dave after you told me that was her art (ugh) how very disgusting and what a shame that someone who really was an artist got swept under the rug to display this grossness and call it art..what a shame...
it is tacky, disgusting, in no way is it art and i am disgusted the art world (the hoity toitys) would allow this to be called art...very disgusting and i dont think freedom of expression meant this kind of thing..
i was thinking dave after you told me that was her art (ugh) how very disgusting and what a shame that someone who really was an artist got swept under the rug to display this grossness and call it art..what a shame...
it is tacky, disgusting, in no way is it art and i am disgusted the art world (the hoity toitys) would allow this to be called art...very disgusting and i dont think freedom of expression meant this kind of thing..
Emin's work does seem to make a statement - the statement is "I have no talent." Don't get me wrong, I'm a big proponent of free expression and exchange of ideas, but really I'm having trouble fathoming how this stuff is supposed to communicate anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again - those who lack the discipline, desire, and ability to create art will instead resort to the shock factor to attract attention to their work.
Personally, if I want to get shocked and disgusted, I can just turn on the evening news.
dcorc - it is unfortunate that your work was rejected. It's too bad that the judges also pander to the cheap and quick notoriety that this type of art brings. I surfed on over to your gallery, you are truly talented and inspired. If emin set the winning standard, your work was just simply too good for that venue.
Personally, if I want to get shocked and disgusted, I can just turn on the evening news.
dcorc - it is unfortunate that your work was rejected. It's too bad that the judges also pander to the cheap and quick notoriety that this type of art brings. I surfed on over to your gallery, you are truly talented and inspired. If emin set the winning standard, your work was just simply too good for that venue.
well said nc girl..that is so true..the shock value of it all ..i simply dont get it..perhaps it is my education...i have not enough to understand her..i try very hard to understand these things..but i agree..to me it is disgusting and a shock of no value at all..
You can show a turd on a plate, add some sort of deep meaning behind it and suddenly, it's a great piece of art and the "artist" is a genius selling their "art" for tens of thousands but in the end, it's still just a turd on a plate. Welcome to the modern art world.
Thanks for kind words, ncgirl - its certainly the case that if one draws/paints in a traditional way, then the odds are stacked very heavily against you getting into the RA summer show. I think its fair to say that the old place is not what it once was...
That's a big part of the "modern" "art" con - anyone who can recognise rubbish for what it is, is accused of "not getting it" - there's an implication that its somehow our fault. The truth is that there IS nothing to understand here - and, although Emin and Damian Hirst are the most notorious of the "Britart" bunch, the wider "modern art" nonsense has UK art in a stranglehold, and has had for decades - check out the work of the rest of the Royal Academicians. How many would you give wall-space to? I'm having difficulty getting the number up to half-a-dozen.
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academicians/
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...cted,34,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...ians,35,AR.html
Some of the more "entertaining"...
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,159,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,199,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,160,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,161,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,174,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,181,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,154,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,198,AR.html
..and if you check out the CVs on these people, you'll find they all look very impressive.
QUOTE (oliverandjazz @ Oct 1 2008, 01:24 AM)
.. ..i simply dont get it..perhaps it is my education...i have not enough to understand her..i try very hard to understand these things.....
That's a big part of the "modern" "art" con - anyone who can recognise rubbish for what it is, is accused of "not getting it" - there's an implication that its somehow our fault. The truth is that there IS nothing to understand here - and, although Emin and Damian Hirst are the most notorious of the "Britart" bunch, the wider "modern art" nonsense has UK art in a stranglehold, and has had for decades - check out the work of the rest of the Royal Academicians. How many would you give wall-space to? I'm having difficulty getting the number up to half-a-dozen.
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academicians/
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...cted,34,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...ians,35,AR.html
QUOTE
The Royal Academicians are among the greatest names in contemporary British art. They are the 'Members' or 'RAs' whose work you can view in this section of the site. The RAs govern the Academy and are responsible for its direction. At any one time there are no more than 80 Royal Academicians..Potential new Academicians are nominated by the existing Royal Academicians. Nominees must be artists under the age of 75 and professionally active in the United Kingdom. They have to fall into one of the Royal Academy’s categories of art (painting, printmaking, sculpture and architecture)....The RAs who sit on Council each year also form the committee who select and hang the work submitted for the annual Summer Exhibition..
Some of the more "entertaining"...
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,159,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,199,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,160,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,161,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,174,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,181,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,154,AR.html
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academician...-ra,198,AR.html
..and if you check out the CVs on these people, you'll find they all look very impressive.
Maybe we should contact the RA and tell them what we think of many of their so called great artistic geniuses.
I don't see the point. Anyway, what the RA say is true - they are "among the greatest names in contemporary British art", the "movers and shakers" in the field.
Tracey Emin said that those who thought art meant representational painting were "stuck, stuck, stuck" - and I'd have happily been a stuckist, http://www.stuckism.com/ until... http://www.stuckism.com/PaintingsList.html#Paintings
http://www.stuckism.com/Daubs.html
Note that the RA, by this definition, mainly falls into the
but, do you see drawing standards derive(d) from the High Renaissance there?
Welcome to the British art scene
Tracey Emin said that those who thought art meant representational painting were "stuck, stuck, stuck" - and I'd have happily been a stuckist, http://www.stuckism.com/ until... http://www.stuckism.com/PaintingsList.html#Paintings
http://www.stuckism.com/Daubs.html
QUOTE
David Lee and Sarah Kent are normally on opposite sides of the artistic debate. David Lee advocates 'traditional' values in art and can be seen on television outside the Turner Prize slating the exhibits, as well as anything else featuring pickled sea creatures and stained bed linen. Sarah Kent goes to Damien Hirst's private views and works for Charles Saatchi and the White Cube Gallery, editing catalogues and writing essays. She skilfully combines this with the strict impartiality of her other job as Art Editor for Time Out, promoting exhibitions by the White Cube Gallery, Charles Saatchi and Damien Hirst.
They personify the current state of art in this country. On one side are the 'modern traditionalists' whose drawing standards derive from the High Renaissance and whose painterly inclinations are Post Impressionist. They communicate, but with minimal content as the subject area is largely already mapped out by genres of still life, landscape and portraiture - but they 'can paint'. Unfortunately the frequently tired appearance of their output is what has given painting a bad name.
On the other side is anything which sabotages that ethos and which currently can be termed for convenience 'conceptual art'. The 'conceptualists' have lots of new ideas for art, particularly an obsession for using materials which have not previously been used for art and a willingness to address the previously unacceptable in art. This certainly makes an initial impact on the gallery visitor, but the initial impact is its main content, as it is mostly an incorporation or reflection of that which is already in common use outside the gallery. No one had ever seen a bed in the Tate before 1999, but there was hardly a shortage of them at large in the world. The conceptualists do try hard to come up with something new - you've got to give them that. But it is their over-zealousness in this respect (and consequent neglect of other important respects) that has given their art a bad name.
Stuckism is a synthesis of the best qualities of the two schools. It recognises the enduring capability of the painted image to communicate and evoke, but insists that content drives style and generates its own technical standards. It refuses to adopt a codified approach in this respect from 500 years ago: for the traditionalists it is (often) bad painting - daubs in fact.
They personify the current state of art in this country. On one side are the 'modern traditionalists' whose drawing standards derive from the High Renaissance and whose painterly inclinations are Post Impressionist. They communicate, but with minimal content as the subject area is largely already mapped out by genres of still life, landscape and portraiture - but they 'can paint'. Unfortunately the frequently tired appearance of their output is what has given painting a bad name.
On the other side is anything which sabotages that ethos and which currently can be termed for convenience 'conceptual art'. The 'conceptualists' have lots of new ideas for art, particularly an obsession for using materials which have not previously been used for art and a willingness to address the previously unacceptable in art. This certainly makes an initial impact on the gallery visitor, but the initial impact is its main content, as it is mostly an incorporation or reflection of that which is already in common use outside the gallery. No one had ever seen a bed in the Tate before 1999, but there was hardly a shortage of them at large in the world. The conceptualists do try hard to come up with something new - you've got to give them that. But it is their over-zealousness in this respect (and consequent neglect of other important respects) that has given their art a bad name.
Stuckism is a synthesis of the best qualities of the two schools. It recognises the enduring capability of the painted image to communicate and evoke, but insists that content drives style and generates its own technical standards. It refuses to adopt a codified approach in this respect from 500 years ago: for the traditionalists it is (often) bad painting - daubs in fact.
Note that the RA, by this definition, mainly falls into the
QUOTE
'modern traditionalists' whose drawing standards derive from the High Renaissance and whose painterly inclinations are Post Impressionist.
but, do you see drawing standards derive(d) from the High Renaissance there?
Welcome to the British art scene
ugh..omg..i cant believe such works come from such a famous place and is considered to be pieces of artwork.
what are they thinking? that is just making a big joke out of their RA..to me anyway..i wouldnt take any of that work at all..it is just awful..
it would be interesting to see what say davinci, or one of the fathers of artwork would have to say wouldnt it?
what are they thinking? that is just making a big joke out of their RA..to me anyway..i wouldnt take any of that work at all..it is just awful..
it would be interesting to see what say davinci, or one of the fathers of artwork would have to say wouldnt it?
I find it interesting that artforums have flourished across the net (I could name you dozens), full of people who desperately want to draw and paint (and, mostly, art that passes the Homer Simpson test - "your art looks like the stuff it looks like" ), and are looking to share knowledge of how to do so, bypassing the "art establishment" completely.
I'd suggest THIS is the great new movement in art.
), and are looking to share knowledge of how to do so, bypassing the "art establishment" completely. I'd suggest THIS is the great new movement in art.
Sad to say that it's not only some of the 'modern' artists like Emin who are prententious in claiming it's 'Art' but so called experts and others are just as prententious in what they say about it. I may not have said that very clearly but here's an example of what I mean . . . people just trying to make out they like or understand it.
I was at the Tate Modern in London with a mate last year. A couple were looking oohing and aahing in quite good english about a pile of something that could have been assembled from the contents or my recycling bins were piled together in a heap with something draped over/around it. You can tell it made an impression on me can't you!!
Anyway, I squeezed my mates arm and glared at her not to say anything as I pointed at something (won't say what yet) and started giving it my own critique, the impression it projected, what the artist was trying to convey, the materials and colour, other 'pieces' of theirs I had seen. I could sense rather than see the other couple drawing nearer so I casually pulled my mate a short distance away. She quietly asked me what was all that rubbish I was drivelling on about? I gestured her to be quiet and listen and the couple were now talking about and pointing at . . . the FIRE EXIT and EMERGENCY PHONE we'd been standing in front of that I'd so poetically described. Were that couple prententious or what?
Does what I did make me a bad person ha ha?
I was at the Tate Modern in London with a mate last year. A couple were looking oohing and aahing in quite good english about a pile of something that could have been assembled from the contents or my recycling bins were piled together in a heap with something draped over/around it. You can tell it made an impression on me can't you!!
Anyway, I squeezed my mates arm and glared at her not to say anything as I pointed at something (won't say what yet) and started giving it my own critique, the impression it projected, what the artist was trying to convey, the materials and colour, other 'pieces' of theirs I had seen. I could sense rather than see the other couple drawing nearer so I casually pulled my mate a short distance away. She quietly asked me what was all that rubbish I was drivelling on about? I gestured her to be quiet and listen and the couple were now talking about and pointing at . . . the FIRE EXIT and EMERGENCY PHONE we'd been standing in front of that I'd so poetically described. Were that couple prententious or what?
Does what I did make me a bad person ha ha?
that is soo funny 
QUOTE (Flooz @ Oct 1 2008, 04:28 PM)
Sad to say that it's not only some of the 'modern' artists like Emin who are prententious in claiming it's 'Art' but so called experts and others are just as prententious in what they say about it. I may not have said that very clearly but here's an example of what I mean . . . people just trying to make out they like or understand it.
I was at the Tate Modern in London with a mate last year. A couple were looking oohing and aahing in quite good english about a pile of something that could have been assembled from the contents or my recycling bins were piled together in a heap with something draped over/around it. You can tell it made an impression on me can't you!!
Anyway, I squeezed my mates arm and glared at her not to say anything as I pointed at something (won't say what yet) and started giving it my own critique, the impression it projected, what the artist was trying to convey, the materials and colour, other 'pieces' of theirs I had seen. I could sense rather than see the other couple drawing nearer so I casually pulled my mate a short distance away. She quietly asked me what was all that rubbish I was drivelling on about? I gestured her to be quiet and listen and the couple were now talking about and pointing at . . . the FIRE EXIT and EMERGENCY PHONE we'd been standing in front of that I'd so poetically described. Were that couple prententious or what?
Does what I did make me a bad person ha ha?
I was at the Tate Modern in London with a mate last year. A couple were looking oohing and aahing in quite good english about a pile of something that could have been assembled from the contents or my recycling bins were piled together in a heap with something draped over/around it. You can tell it made an impression on me can't you!!
Anyway, I squeezed my mates arm and glared at her not to say anything as I pointed at something (won't say what yet) and started giving it my own critique, the impression it projected, what the artist was trying to convey, the materials and colour, other 'pieces' of theirs I had seen. I could sense rather than see the other couple drawing nearer so I casually pulled my mate a short distance away. She quietly asked me what was all that rubbish I was drivelling on about? I gestured her to be quiet and listen and the couple were now talking about and pointing at . . . the FIRE EXIT and EMERGENCY PHONE we'd been standing in front of that I'd so poetically described. Were that couple prententious or what?
Does what I did make me a bad person ha ha?
I think they were DUM Some people don't understand anything about art (I'm not saying I do.... but I think its a matter of commen sence)Its just that it is very modern to like art... it gives people a hight status if they know artists or go to galleries etc..., so these people will say everything or anything they see in a gallery is beautiful or wonderful ...bla bla bla....just to be a part of the called modern and hight society...and then they get themselfs into these ridiculous situations like you have described
I think i would have done something similar 
You couldn't make this stuff up - a highlight from the RAs 2006 summer exhibition:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/souther...ies/5081744.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/souther...ies/5081744.stm
OMG! i can just see the artist standing there mouth agape..What the #@$#@$% happened to the rest of it..where is the art ...lol...
i feel badly for the artist but i laugh at the so called art museum who made this ridiculous decision..how utterly stupid
i feel badly for the artist but i laugh at the so called art museum who made this ridiculous decision..how utterly stupid
that is too much for any artist!!!!!!!!Click to view attachment
QUOTE (Kaly @ Oct 1 2008, 11:53 AM)
that is too much for any artist!!!!!!!!Click to view attachment
I've heard of artists being told "Ooooh, I like the frame!" Similar, I guess.
You think that's bad, just google the name Natascha Stellmach.
QUOTE (rsine @ Oct 13 2008, 04:17 AM)
You think that's bad, just google the name Natascha Stellmach.
yes I had heard about her, completely nuts!!
I was in a book store a few days ago, browsing the art section, and spotted a book titled simply "Frida". It intrigued me. I slipped the protective covering off it, flipped it open, and caught the nastiest vision of a blood-soaked room and someone's abdomen being sliced open, before returning it to the shelf as my face turned blush. Not that I can't handle such imagery in movies and such, it just surprised me at the time. After googling the name Frida I realize there was also a movie made recently about her, about how she was an artist who channeled the pain of her illness into her paintings. Does any one think these paintings of hers were good, or just sick?
I don't want to say something to this topic, because I don't want to judge. Melinda - Please, watch the film first.
Agree with Goldlaus on this one. Take the time to view the film - it was not wasted time for me.
Thanks Goldlaus & Tam, I'll do that.
There's a lot of fine art which shows distasteful/disturbing imagery. Personally, I don't have a problem with that (I can think of a lot of very fine paintings which I admire greatly, but wouldn't want on my wall for this reason). I think there's a difference between art which expresses something of the darker side of existance, and the sort of "conceptual art" which displays various sorts of tat with only the intention to shock (and no serious involvement by the "artist" in physically making the work, or involvement of any skill).
Two tests which might be applied are whether (i) the "artwork" shows any skill on the part of the artist; and (ii) whether all "artworks" from said artist are only designed to shock (I'd suggest that instead of being a true artist, we might coin a new definition for these - art-troll - by analogy with internet trolls.)
Dave
Two tests which might be applied are whether (i) the "artwork" shows any skill on the part of the artist; and (ii) whether all "artworks" from said artist are only designed to shock (I'd suggest that instead of being a true artist, we might coin a new definition for these - art-troll - by analogy with internet trolls.)
Dave
The universe works in funny ways...I was just posting a rant on my blog about Damien Hirst being listed as number one on ArtReview's list of the 100 most powerful artists. And for the life of me couldn't remember the artist who did the whole 'messy bedroom as art' installation. Tracey Emin...I won't forget her name now!
My point was that modern art has gotten to such a place of free interpretation as to have lost a lot of meaning. Everything is *so* open-ended that it becomes intimidating for the regular joes and janes. I mean how many people are asking for a print of a picture of Damien Hirst's shark in a tank? Now however, someone like Thomas Kinkade...while he does have a schmaltzy view of painting (and I'm not a fan)....Kinkade is certainly far more approachable in his art for most people than Emin or Hirst.
I'm totally on the same page as dcorc....a ton of art institutions need an enema...
My point was that modern art has gotten to such a place of free interpretation as to have lost a lot of meaning. Everything is *so* open-ended that it becomes intimidating for the regular joes and janes. I mean how many people are asking for a print of a picture of Damien Hirst's shark in a tank? Now however, someone like Thomas Kinkade...while he does have a schmaltzy view of painting (and I'm not a fan)....Kinkade is certainly far more approachable in his art for most people than Emin or Hirst.
I'm totally on the same page as dcorc....a ton of art institutions need an enema...
OK, the crap artists have had enough publicity, I think its about time we started to name some of the good ones:
Graydon Parrish
http://www.hirschlandadler.com/view_3.html...amp;search=true
David Kassan
http://www.galleryhenoch.com/index3.html?a....html~mainFrame
Jacob Collins
http://www.jacobcollinspaintings.com/
Richard Schmid
http://www.richardschmid.com/available_work_page.htm
Scott Bartner
http://www.bartner.nl/index2.html
William Whitaker
http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_file...es/default.html
Garth Herrick
http://www.garthherrick.com/Portraiture/Portraits.html
Dave
Graydon Parrish
http://www.hirschlandadler.com/view_3.html...amp;search=true
David Kassan
http://www.galleryhenoch.com/index3.html?a....html~mainFrame
Jacob Collins
http://www.jacobcollinspaintings.com/
Richard Schmid
http://www.richardschmid.com/available_work_page.htm
Scott Bartner
http://www.bartner.nl/index2.html
William Whitaker
http://www.williamwhitaker.com/B_HTML_file...es/default.html
Garth Herrick
http://www.garthherrick.com/Portraiture/Portraits.html
Dave
Wow, Bartner's realism in oils is astounding! Thanks for the links, Dave.
Thanks Melinda
These (my post above) are all artists working right now, in 2008 - it annoys me that junk art gets all the publicity, when really fine artists like these are around.
Dave
These (my post above) are all artists working right now, in 2008 - it annoys me that junk art gets all the publicity, when really fine artists like these are around.
Dave
thanks for those links dave..
very beautiful work. i love the william whitaker one the best i believe..they are all so beautiful though
very beautiful work. i love the william whitaker one the best i believe..they are all so beautiful though
Dave, thank you for these links, they are ALL amazing artists, and I agree with you, these should be getting more publicity and credit!
Dave
I only had time to visit a couple of artists
and they are stunning. As you say the cr*p artists get all the publicity and it's wrong, wrong, wrong 
. . . these are so amazing and lifelike that I'm looking to see if the wrists have a pulse!
I only had time to visit a couple of artists
and they are stunning. As you say the cr*p artists get all the publicity and it's wrong, wrong, wrong . . . these are so amazing and lifelike that I'm looking to see if the wrists have a pulse!
Personally I find art and art discussion to be confusing, and I think thats rightly so. All I can do is offer my view.
I believe that art or at least good art, raises as many questions as it answers, if not more. Its the answers that I tentatively reach for as I view a work, that make me break the boundaries that confine me, and I grow somehow.
I often laugh when I suddenly understand a piece of sculpture, or I am moved to tears at the suffering represented in a painting.
I am not going to suggest that all modern art works have merit, or that earlier schools or styles somehow are less worthy, but simply that shocking art can be valid, and by its uncompromising stance, it demands to be reacted to by the viewer, by me. I find this refreshing as long as I can take the hit.
I find a sawn sheep or cow to be engrossing, compelling and in a bloodthirsty way somehow satisfying. The intricasies of the forms designed by God to support life, has a stark beauty that a sculpture of aphrodite no matter how well executed seems to lack.
And so where does beauty and photorealism sit in relation to this sometimes vulgar modern art?
For me a photorealisic work is not in and of itself a work of art simply because its well executed, a photocopy or a camera can beat the pencil every time.
I do believe however that an artist can use the medium of the pencil and photo realism to produce outstanding artworks that rank alongside the best that can be achieved in any medium and school or style. So how do we know whats good and whats just technique?
For myself, an artwork, to be classed as true art in whatever its form, must answer some questions and pose others, must make the viewer see reality in a new way, and yes sometimes shock.
I even take pleasure in seeing the fabric of the gallery in a new way, I like to think that its a personal reaction to having my eyes opened by the exhibits.
Or maybe I am just a fool after all.
Brian
I believe that art or at least good art, raises as many questions as it answers, if not more. Its the answers that I tentatively reach for as I view a work, that make me break the boundaries that confine me, and I grow somehow.
I often laugh when I suddenly understand a piece of sculpture, or I am moved to tears at the suffering represented in a painting.
I am not going to suggest that all modern art works have merit, or that earlier schools or styles somehow are less worthy, but simply that shocking art can be valid, and by its uncompromising stance, it demands to be reacted to by the viewer, by me. I find this refreshing as long as I can take the hit.
I find a sawn sheep or cow to be engrossing, compelling and in a bloodthirsty way somehow satisfying. The intricasies of the forms designed by God to support life, has a stark beauty that a sculpture of aphrodite no matter how well executed seems to lack.
And so where does beauty and photorealism sit in relation to this sometimes vulgar modern art?
For me a photorealisic work is not in and of itself a work of art simply because its well executed, a photocopy or a camera can beat the pencil every time.
I do believe however that an artist can use the medium of the pencil and photo realism to produce outstanding artworks that rank alongside the best that can be achieved in any medium and school or style. So how do we know whats good and whats just technique?
For myself, an artwork, to be classed as true art in whatever its form, must answer some questions and pose others, must make the viewer see reality in a new way, and yes sometimes shock.
I even take pleasure in seeing the fabric of the gallery in a new way, I like to think that its a personal reaction to having my eyes opened by the exhibits.
Or maybe I am just a fool after all.
Brian
Did she make the whole bed or just embroder the guys she slept with on the material because If she did make the bed I do belive she deserves some type of credit (now every one on drawspace is gonna hate me )But I don't think it should be called modern art or expressive art, she is just trying to cause attention to herself and make people talk. True artist don't make pieces of art just to get people talking they do it for the love of it.
)But I don't think it should be called modern art or expressive art, she is just trying to cause attention to herself and make people talk. True artist don't make pieces of art just to get people talking they do it for the love of it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.